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 →
THE NEW MODERATE 
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/
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:
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.
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.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/windbag
You keep changing your wording – and the context.
It has never been a secret that Trump has in the past had things to do with Russia.
So if you are trying to call something a “lie”, you need context and precision.
Otherwise Trump “lied” because Miss Universe was in Russia.
Trump has used various language at various times.
I think it is only fair to “parse” whatever Trump says about russia in this context, to the campaign and after.
He has said specifically he has no loans, and no investments.
This was neither. Though it would have been both had it proceeded.
Business involvement, Business dealing and Business relationships – and possibly other phrasings are all different.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that discussions about a potential project do not make the phrasings I have heard a lie.
It is like the ludicrous claims that Sessions lied.
“It has never been a secret that Trump has in the past had things to do with Russia.”
It WASNT IN THE PAST.
It was DURING the campaign.
You’re hopeless, hapless, brainless..
If the adhominems fit, wear them.
It was between the time he made his escalator announcement, and when the campaigning for the first primary started.
It may have been technically during the campaign.
But it was not during the time period when there was an actual active campaign or consequence.
Regardless, you are still pushing on a string. You are selling something that only true beleivers are going to care about.
Ad Hominem remains an invalid form of argument that diminishes the person using it.
It is essentially the same failure that lost you the campaign.
If you scream racist loud and long enough – eventually it has no meaning, and you just look stupid and shrill.
Here’s my hero, action and less talk: https://www.revealnews.org/blog/reveal-host-al-letson-shields-man-from-beating-at-anti-hate-rally/
I do not care what your politics are – if you chase people at a peaceful protest, knock them down and start beating and kicking them – you are evil.
If you jump in to protect those being beaten – you are one of the good guys.
We agree.
So according to NBER Jim Crow laws arose because private citizens refused to discriminate against Blacks.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w23691
USA Today suggesting Trump is winning this.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/25/trump-winning-statue-war-ames-robbins-column/595178001/
Why you beleive government works – when it does not.
the actual economy of the 50’s – as opposed to the fictional one
Presumably all of us recall the Bundy conflicts from several years ago.
These resulted in a plethora of criminal prosecutions.
And despite the fact that federal prosecutors have an overall 90% conviction rate (that sounds low to me), they are losing all of the “bundy” cases at trial.
Eitehr the defendents are getting aquitted, or there are hung juries – that is jurries voting 11-1 or 10-2 FOR ACQUITAL. And this is after the government has retried these cases several times.
So I would suggest that those of you who think that there was just a bunch of quazi religious fruitcakes manufacturing rights out in the west, might want to consider that the juries trying these cases are not seeing it that way.
http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/29/when-government-cant-take-not-guilty-for/
Antifa gangs shouted “No Trump, No Wall, No USA at all!” in Berkeley this weekend.
Just like the brave soldiers of WWII who fought the Nazis, right, Jay? ~ “No USA at all”…
This is the problem with moderates who have become so obsessed with Trump that they will defend a violent group of radical scum ~ and you have acknowledged that a small portion of them are scum ~ simply because these “moderates” hold out hope that gangs of masked, black-clad scum, beating up people who are exercising constitutional freedoms might somehow advance their “moderate” goal of forcing out a president whom they hate .
News flash for you ~ people who wear masks, and come armed with weapons and shields, are not “mostly non-violent counter protesters.” People who chant anarchist jingles and burn American flags are not patriots ~ they are dangerous losers. They are not fighting Nazis (there were no Nazi’s in Berkeley this weekend) they are trying to bring down the government.
And, I get that you may be fine with bringing down Trump, but he IS the duly elected president, and there will come a time when his term is up and people like you can go to the polls and elect someone else. That’s the way Americans “bring down” a duly elected president. All of the “deplorables” who suffered through the Obama administration, lost their jobs, lost their healthcare, got called racists for questioning immigration policy? Millions of them came out in 2016 and elected Trump.
History teaches us that aligning with violent revolutionaries and Grand Inquisitors generally does not end well. When the sh*t hits the fan, everything gets messy.
I hate the anarchist scum. Anyone who opposes Trump with violence is trash to be scorned and disowned.
I am not trying to make excuses, but I think that many people have a very imprecise idea of what antifas means and who is in it. A recent poll I saw found that 5% of respondents sympathized with antifas. I have no idea of how many of them literally mean that they sympathize with the black masked anarchists and how many believe that antifas is the resistance to Trump in any form. The same poll found that 4% sympathized with the KKK. Explicitly. No doubts about the meaning of that response. 20% thought the unite the right protesters had a strong point, 40% had some sympathy. I wish I could relocate that poll.
I despise the violent, mostly anarchist left, I want them arrested, broken up, scattered, removed. I think that nearly every American of any political view feels the same. But, they will never achieve the legacy of death and terror that the Klan and Nazis have achieved and therefore the meaning that those racist groups have and the feelings they inspire especially among their historical victims. The continuing existence of those groups and their sick ideas marching in America has an impact on Blacks and Jewish people that I do not believe many who are not from that background will ever understand. So, it becomes this sort of dry academic issue for many.
The attempt to link the violent protesters to the left in a general way is an obvious smear, it disgusts me. Its political theater of a purely propaganda nature, and then some people start to really believe it. Establishment Republican politicians have covered themselves in honor responding to Charlottesville. That part of the party is still decent and will win in the end I believe. The same goes for the Democrats and violent protests. even Academia has gotten it mostly right, because they are mostly decent. This constant drum of distortion being used as an ideological weapon every daily or national event is making Americans ill.
I don’t believe that Trump is a racist. That would take more conviction than the man has about anything, and too much time away from what is really important to him. The failure of his response to Charlottesville is that he is an incompetent, unfit, out of his depth man who cannot communicate coherently. If he had communicated the best American ideals clearly, as nearly all other Republican politicians did effortlessly, the people who worship him would have been let down. So, he fudged it. The statement that there were good people on both sides in Charlottesville is not the statement of a hater, it’s the statement of an unbelievably clumsy man who is just not able to say the right thing. I don’t believe Trump supports real racists. Trump has no cause, no ideals, no convictions, not racism not opposition to it. He just wants to be the center of attention, he has a disease, narcissism, that determines his every thought.
Some things should NOT be political, the response to a natural disaster for example. Some elements of the media have disgusted me by making Trumps response to the hurricane itself just one more daily outrage to sell soap with in the end. No! That disgusts me too, purely political propaganda. As well, our response to NK should not be partisan the media should beware of soiling themselves selling their advertising for another dollar where a truly dangerous situation is the subject. We are two steps away from a military engagement with NK that likely could not be contained and could lead to a true dystopian nightmare. That is not fodder for same old politics, its too serious.
Roby, a rose by any other name, etc….
Roby, a rose by any other name, etc….
Oh Dear, I thought it would be Priscilla who outed me. And I capitalized trump all those times to no avail.
I am Angry, God am I Furious, with blind stupid destructive fools of every kind. I still have hope that somehow in the end the middle, the decent mostly competent middle will win and western civilization will still stand.
I freely admit it, I have a political anger sickness. I need to take a one month hike on the Appalachian trail with no access to news or media.
There is an enormous amount of anger out there – and it is building.
What you still do not seem to get is that the left caused it.
This election was political backlash for the left’s failures and identity politics.
Yet rather than actually try to figure out what you did wrong, the left has doubled down.
If this keeps up, this is going to end badly.
A huge part of the problem is that I strongly suspect that you think that if violence would get rid of Trump – that would be acceptable.
Even if you could get rid of Trump through lawless means, and even if there was no backlash – that would be WRONG.
The ENDS does NOT Justify the MEANS!!!!!!!
But it is unlikely that if you do get rid of trump that will be the end.
The failure of government – particularly left govenrment leads to totalitarianism.
Obama’s failure lead to Trump – who is a sort of minarchist authoritarian.
We should be thankfull he is not advocating for bigger govenrment.
Take out Trump and either immediately or shortly after you are likely to get a real authoritarian.
You need to accept the fact that the american people have elected Trump.
You need to accept that they do NOT want to continue down the left’s path.
We have all had to live through government that we seriously opposed.
The nation as survived 44 presidents. It will survive the 45th.
There are legitimate means to change government, and illegitimate means.
Like it or not, those of the republicans todate have been legitimate.
SOME of those of the left are increasingly illegitimate.
There is no justification for violence so long as political action remains inside the sphere of legitimacy.
You say you are angry – we all are for different reasons.
What you need to start asking yourself is what responses to your anger are justified, and which are not. Because the left is increasingly going down the unjustified path, and the results are not going to be good – whatever they are.
A MINORITY of the American people voted for tRump.
The Electorial College ‘elected’ him.
The MAJORITY rejected him.
That majority is growing.
Make America Great.
Dump tRump.
We are not a democracy – which is possibly the worst from of government there is.
Trump was elected in accordance with exactly the same rules that 44 other presidents were elected by.
If you do not like the rules amend the constitution.
He received 63m votes. That is an enormous portion of the population that is clearly opposed to the left.
Clinton’s popular vote is meaningless – both candidates where campaigning to win the electoral college – not the popular vote. Both candidates campaigned in the states they thought they would need – not the places they thought they could pick up the most votes.
Trump could easily have picked up many more votes by going to states he was going to loose. or buy campaigning harder in states he was going to win anyway.
Ultimately you do not get the most fundimental moral principle.
Rights are things we are guaranteed even when the majority disagrees.
You can not abridge a right – because a plurality of people want that.
The progressive ideology increases govenrment at the expense of individual rights.
You may not do that without justification.
Justification requires much more than a plurality of support.
Trump as an example has absolutely no mandate to do anything.
But he has an overwhelming mandate to UNDO.
You do not need the support of the majority to increase the liberty of individuals and respect their rights.
Purported trends are determined by elections.
You may be right – but the trends since 2008 strongly suggest you are not.
Frankly, I think that democrats have screwed themselves post 2016.
They have doubled down on a heavy left shift. They have reduced their base, not expanded it.
Both parties depend heavily on votes outside their party.
Obama won because he was able to get those votes.
Clinton lost because she could not.
Moving further left is not going to improve things.
Worse the democrats moving left both marginalises democrats and further polarizes the country.
If you actually want to hold that majority that you think you have – then democrats need to move heavily towards the center.
Which they have failed to do.
Further you continue to double down on the identity politics that lost you the election.
The Government – particularly federal governments useful role in response to a natural disaster is nearly non-existant.
Of course we should not politicize that.
but most certainly we will.
NK is a very serious matter, that every president atleast since Clinton has botched.
Worse still – no one really knows – or likely will ever know the right response.
Regardless, whether you agree or disagree with Trump on NK – and there is plenty fo room for legitimate debate, there is still no obvious right answer nor an obvious wrong one.
Nor do we get to try several to see which is best before deciding.
Trump could make a choices that gets thousands killed – and be excoriated for that.
Or he could not make that choice – and hundreds of thousands die later.
I do not have a problem with political debate about NK.
I do have a problem with anyone certain that Trump or anyone else is obviously wrong.
I probably will not agree with what Trump does.
That does not make him incompetent.
The only “ism” that there is clear evidence regarding Trump is that he is a bit mysoginyst.
With respect to other prejudices he is just an ordinary american.
He has no overt prejudices, but like all of us is atleast slightly tribal, prefers his own tribe, is more likely to overemphasize the good of his tribe, and over emphasize the bad of others.
That makes him like nearly all of us.
And that is why the attacks on Trump as a racist etc. backfired.
Because attacking Trump on those issues was/is attacking all of us.
The fitness and competence of the president are decided by voters on election day.
Sorry but that debate is over.
You can fell differently – you get to express that again in 2020.
Trump has a different communication style than prior presidents – in fact most of our presidents have had their own style.
None of them appeal to everyone. Trump’s style is nearly the opposite of Obama’s.
Regardless, he is communicating effectively to those he intends to.
Must of the people accusing him of communication failure – would have problems with what he said, no matter how he said it.
With respect to Charlottesville Trumps original statement was near perfect, and he should have left it at that.
No other Republicans did not get it perfect.
They actually got it wrong.
They were more concerned about being called a racist by the press, than about Truth.
The statements most republicans made – are not that far from those of the left. They are a tacit endorsement of AntiFa.
In this country we allow Nazi’s to march, and to speak.
We protest their marches, and speeches.
We do not break through police barriers to get into a brawl with them.
Until very near the end when the event ended, The unite the right groups stayed in their assigned area.
It is not necescary to parse who hit who first, which is near impossible to tell with these videos. But it is possible to tell that all the conflict took place on the marchers side of the police barricades.
You much either blame AntiFa, or you most blame the purportedly peaceful counter protestors.
Coming to a march well armed – particularly with defensive weapons such as shields and armor, should not be necescary, but it is not wrong.
Coming to a march hoping and expecting the other side will become violent is disturbing, but it is not wrong.
Coming to a march intent on supressing the speach of those you do not like by any means necescary is WRONG.
Trump got it right the first time. The press and other republicans got it wrong.
To the extent there is a serious problem it is that there was no denunciation of AntiFa by the press or the left.
I do not think that anyone is claiming that all (or most) of the counter protestors at Charlottesville were a problem.
The violence was between two approximately equal sized groups.
Antifa was less than 1/5 of the counter protestors.
The attack on the left are not specifically at counter protestors.
They are leveled at the left as a whole.
Because they are more tolerant of the actual violence of Antifa, than the words of nazis.
Because some on the left expressed actual admiration for Antfa.
Because Antifa really is just the logical extreme of the left.
Nazi’s are not the logical extreme of the right – they actually share as much common ground with the extreme left as the extreme right.
Most on the left beleive in the supression of unacceptable speach.
Most on the right do NOT beleive in white supremecy.
Sorry, but the legacy of the left DWARFS that of the nazi’s and the KKK.
That is ignoring the fact that Nazi’s and Fascists are socialists and actually on the political LEFT.
And that the KKK is an early PROGRESSIVE aka LEFT organization.
Regardless, accross the world hundreds of millions have died at the hands of the left.
Hitler as Heinous as he was, is a pale immitation of Stalin or Mao.
The Nazi’s terrify us more – because they came from Germany – a western enlightened country much like our own. We can discount stalin and Mao as Barbarians from peasant countries. Hitler came from a nation of clerks. People too much like us.
Take your head out of your Trump.
I never defended the Antifa.
I’m a critic of the AltLeft on College and University campuses.
I was a critic of BLM in Furgerson and elsewhere.
I was a critic of protestors interrupting conservative lecturers.
I am as disgusted by feminist PC excesses as I am by Religious Right excesses.
But be real- the excesses of the violent Left do not compare in intensity or frequency to the excesses of the violent Right. The violent Left is relatively recent compared to the decades long history of the violent Right. Violence breeds violence. And your right wing compadres elevated the tone for the violent reaction during the Obama administration. I could easily add 100 links to verify that. The nitpicking at tRump that bothers you so much was initiated by antiObama and antiLiberal tirades on talk radio and babbling web blogs, with the aid of insidious disparagement from right wing media, from outright hateful to rediculously spiteful.
What goes around comes around. You and yours elected a fool who adds divisive salt to those unhealed wounds. Now we’re all paying the piper for it.
Pricilla, here’s an example of your picayune compatriots picking on Obama, just because they could!
You make my point.
Almost all of this was humerous.
It sounded more like a slow news day.
No one was talking seriously about impeaching.
It was no different than the stories about what Melania is wearing.
Yes, the attacks on Obama were disgusting, endless, personal, disrespectful and at times overtly racist, totally over the top, as anyone who is not willfully blind understood, and they followed equally acidic attacks on W that hurt not only W but our fabric. W’s Iraq war is a far more costly blunder than anything Obama ever did, but Obama’s naivete and “go it alone if necessary” presidency were destructive to the fabric of the country, not to mention using truly the wrong moment to address healthcare. That set the stage for trump and an entirely new level of resistance to a candidate and POTUS of the lowest and most disgusting moral character and lacking intellect who’s every action was meant to provoke that resistance.
Impeaching trump would be a disaster, I am not for it, at least not unless it becomes a hearty two party effort due to external events. I believe he will resign following an ultimatum to avoid being fired via the 25th amendment. I’m counting on the people who know him best to do the right thing in the end to avert an even worse upheaval. It may be very wishful thinking but its what I believe is most likely. This presidency is not sustainable. The historians curse is upon us. History is about to move at a furious pace. If the NK does not send us into a bloody catastrophe then our homegrown revolutionaries will. God help us all.
I agree in essence with all you said ( again, I was frequently an Obama critic).
Let’s hope the Generals keep a strangle hold on tRump’s inclinations on NK – their missile provocation is serious scary shit. A cavalcade of dire dominos may be about to fall on us…. it’s frightening that we have a man as president with the character and temperament of a carnival side show barker.
I am not looking to argue with you on NK.
Because frankly NO ONE knows how to handle NK.
Nor do I think the decision belongs with “the Generals”.
They’re job in this is to accurately inform Trump of what his military options are.
Not to push Trump towards or away from that,
but to as best as humanly possible tell Trump what our military can and can not do, and what the outcome of those choices is likely to be.
I am very very surprised we have not shot down one of NK’s missle tests.
My guess is that we have not done so because the risk of failure is too high.
Regardless, there are myriads of choices – none good.
Wanting “the generals” to keep Trump in check – presumes that there is a known good answer and the generals have it. I do not think they do. I do not think anyone does.
Doing anything could result in 100’s of thousands of deaths in short order.
Not doing something could result in even more american deaths several years down the line.
Do you know the right answer to that ?
Further I think the advice of “the generals” on Afghanistan was CRAP!!.
It is my understanding Trump told them exactly that repeatedly and loudly, and then eventually did what they recomended anyway.
When the 3rd generation of US soldiers lands in Kabul I do not think “the generals” advice is going to look that good.
Regardless, Trump own’s afghanistan now.
“Yes, the attacks on Obama were disgusting, endless, personal, disrespectful and at times overtly racist, totally over the top, as anyone who is not willfully blind understood, ”
We hear this rot all the time.
Absolutely lots of people – myself included attacked Obama over matters of policy.
That is NOT personal, that is NOT disgusting, that is NOT disrespectful, and it is NOT racist. And if you beleive otherwise YOU are the problem
Further you actually lost this election BECAUSE you beleive this nonsense.
It is YOU that is calling everyone who disagrees with Obama disgusting, disrespectful and racist. Those people looked at themselves and said “that is not true”, and that means the problem is with the finger pointers.
The big issue is that the left beleives it is entitled to get its way no matter what.
Obama was a poor president. That failure is owned by the left.
He was fortunately obstructed significantly in policy matters by the right.
That reduced the extent of the failure.
You are not only calling those who opposed Obama disgusting disrespectful racists,
But you are blaming them for his failure when they correctly beleive they are the only reason it was not worse.
in 330M people there are a few actually disgusting disrepectful racists.
But they are incredibly few.
But there is about 25% of this country on the left that beleives they are entitled to impose their will on others by force and are throwing a giant hissy fit because they were stopped.
Please find some people of the stature of Madonna, Colbert, Rachel Maddow, or most in the media that made a sexual insult to Obama, that speculated about his assassination, or impeachment.
The entire Trump/Russia thing is LESS significant than Fast & Furrious, IRS Gate, BenGhazi, Spying on politicians, …. what serious right wing personalities or politicians were expounding on impeachment ?
Who was asking to invoke the 25th ammendment ?
There are real crimes that occured in the Obama administration – no special prosecutors.
WE now have a special prosecutor but no crime.
Get a clue – you have fallen down the rabbit hole. You are trying to drag the country with you. Whatever the outcome it will be bad, and it will be your fault.
Please go and actually read the 25th amendment.
The cabinet can only TEMPORARILY remove the president if it finds him unfit.
The President can challenge that, and if he does congress decides, and it requires a 2/3 majority of each house to remove him.
It is little different from impeachment except that in theory it can happen faster.
Regardless, it is not going to happen.
I could be wrong, but I think you are dreaming if you think Trump is resigning.
He has fought an uphill fight all the way to the presidency.
I thought he would have quit several times along the way.
He is not resigning. Get over it.
You are better off praying for a stroke.
Next, you are on the WRONG side of “do the right thing”.
Whether you like it or not the “right thing” is for the person the voters elected to be the president absent some CHANGE significant enough.
Last polls I looked at have 81% of democrats beleiving that Trump should be impeached right not – but NOT a majority of people.
That means this issue skews very heavily partisan. Given that democrats do not have independents on board – the problem is with democrats.
And you just do not get that.
All the chaos since his election – is the responsibility of the left.
Trump has not changed.
I have not personally gotten the president I wanted for a long long time.
I am free to disagree with the one we elect.
I am free to throw sand in the gears.
I am free to vigorously voice my objections
I am not free to demand a do over, or to interfere violently
I am not free to go outside the law or the constitution.
I am not free to try to create some extra constitutional means to get what I want.
I lost what I want on election day. Subsequently I am only entitled to expect that the president remain inside the bounds of the constitution. That is all.
Given that the left has already vastly extended our understanding of executive power, the “living constitution” the left has saddled us with is little restraint at all.
At the barest minimum Trump can undo unilaterally anything Obama did unilaterally.
I would separately note that the people are in a “law and order” mood like they have never been before – not during the rioting in the 60’s. Not the fear of crime that brought nixon to the white house, Not that of the 80’s.
I thought there was a brief period during Obama’s term when a few things were going to get resolved for the better.
the possibility of bipartisan coalitions to reform drug laws, to reform federal crime laws, to work towards demilitarizing the police, even to tackle immigration existed.
But both parties are split on those issues, so it would have taken leadership from the whitehouse and votes from both parties.
That did not happen and even though Trump ran on a platform of defederalizing policing, he has put a drug warrior in as AG, and has flipped on law and order.
I am upset that Trump just rescinded Obama’s 1033 restrictions – why do police need, APC’s grenade launchers and bayonet’s ?
I said ?I was reading Balko’s book on police militarization.
Since Daryl Gates formed the first SWAT in the 60’s there has been ONE single use of a SWAT team that was for what SWAT teams were intended for and effective.
That was Sandy Hook. The SWAT team showed up, Lanza knew it and killed himself.
95% of the use of SWAT teams is to serve no know warrants on alleged drug dealers who might be armed and dangerous. Guns are only found in something like 5% of SWAT raids.
Drugs are not find in a surprisingly large portion of SWAT raids.
One the rare instances that SWAT teams end up in a “fire fight” it is always with completely innocent people who think they are being robbed.
At Columbine – 5 SWAT teams showed up. None went it.
There is ample evidence that no knock raids with SWAT teams actually make everything MORE dangerous and may contribute to crime.
They definitely reinforce the us vs them problem btween police and the communities they purportedly serve.
Regardless, the police – not the assorted mayor’s and governor’s and …
Are very anti-antifa, and pro-trump, nearly universally accross the country.
The 1033 change and the Arpaio pardon are going to endear Trump even further with most law enforcement.
While I do not think this is a good thing. It is still something those of you on the left should think about. Trump is perceived as the “law and order president”.
You do not have to agree or like that – I do not. But it is how things are.
And that has a great deal of importance.
It is also going to be good for republicans in upcoming elections if the violence continues.
Or even if people just remain afraid of violence.
I actually find it odd – because reading Balko – some of the most egregious laws moving us further towards a police state have been offered and passed by democrats.
Regardless, perceptually in this country democrats are soft on crime as far as voters are concerned.
“But be real- the excesses of the violent Left do not compare in intensity or frequency to the excesses of the violent Right.”
Bzzt, wrong – though the bizarre means by which violence is attributed left/right skews things falsely and heaving right – antigovernment is always counted as right wing violence – so the black BLM marine that killed several police officers is counted as “right wing violence” But even using that eroneous means of counting, if you eliminate McVeigh the numbers since McVeigh are about equal left/right – and that is AFTER all antigovernment violence is attributed to the right.
Frankly since McVeigh if we eliminate schizophrenics I can not think of an incident of actual right wing violence.
We can argue whether Hodgkins was mentally ill – I think he likely was.
But are you claiming that Antifa is mentally ill ?
There were 13 killings in 2016 attributed to left wing violence, and 5 to the right
There have been several hundred arrests of Antifa for assaulting the police in the past year.
There were far more arrests of the left than Nazi’s at Charlettesville.
I beleive there were 22 in June when 50 actual KKK members came.
When the police do their job ALL – 100% of all violence is from the left.
Even Nazi’s and the KKK do not start fights, do not jump police lines,
Do not lob urine and feces, do not toss tear gas,
This is not even close to balanced – and the very fact that you think it is challenges your objectivity.
“The violent Left is relatively recent compared to the decades long history of the violent Right.”
Oh ? Red brigades, SLA, SDS, Weather underground Black panthers.
And I would note that the KKK was a product of the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC SOUTH.
“And your right wing compadres elevated the tone for the violent reaction during the Obama administration.”
Bzzt, wrong. You once again revert to this pretence that words are actions, and that acts you do not like are violence.
I heard very little actually violent rhetoric towards Obama.
Anti-Obama is not the same as violent language.
We went through this nonsense that disagreeing with Obama was the same as violent racism for 8 years – it is DONE!!!. It is a lie. And it is a LEFT wing nut problem, not one of the right.
Obama was a nice guy. Overall he was not treated much different by the right than Bush was by the left.
Like Bush he was a poor president.
Criticism of him as a president, criticism of his policies, is not violence or racism.
Again you are mangling language.
But some on the left are advocating actual violence against Trump.
advocating violence is not as bad as acting violently.
But there was little if any advocating of violence against Obama.
I have expressed over and over – that I have zero problems with democrats opposing Trump in the same ways republicans opposed Obama.
Oppose his policies.
Use the minority powers of the house and senate to obstruct.
Throw sand in the gears.
But when you deviate from legitimate means of impeding and manufacture new ones.
When you seek a coup you are being lawless and you become the problem.
I do not care that you are hostile to Trump.
We can debate the good and bad of Trump forever.
I care that you want him removed by any means necescary.
That you are cheering on a special counsel that is operating outside the law,
That you are cheering when fake stories are planted in the news,
That you are trying to manufacture crimes where none exist.
There were republican attacks of the Obama administration.
Those were rooted in real crimes.
The BAFT did engage in illegally selling weapons to drug dealers.
The IRS did engage in viewpoint discrimination.
The administration did lie – including under oath about benghazi.
The Secretary of state did take personal ownership of govenrment records
did hide them from FOIA requests, did send classified material over unsecure systems.
These and many many more are inarguably crimes.
The lies of the Obama administration are not minor discrepancies of immaterial information, nor are they about private actions,
You want to elevate a 140 character tweet that private citizen donald Trump did not have a relationship with the russians, with a complete 180 degree falsehood about an major matter of public policy.
You want to equate your perceptions of inaccuracy about an act that is not a crime, with actually lying about a crime.
Sorry, the problems are yours, and the lefts.
You are correct – what goes arround comes arround.
Since Nixon the left has been escalating with each new administration.
I can not think of any tactic that the right pioneered.
I can not think of anything the left did not do first.
As things are now, you can expect that there is going to be blow back from the right.
To be clear – these are not things I am advocating, but things that are increasingly likely to happen.
Antifa is going to grow more violent until it is stopped.
They are many ways that can happen – none of them are good. All are going to be violent.
Either the police will do it, or the next time you have a charelstown with armed members of the right being pummeled by the left – they are going to use their guns.
The left is going to keep this up until either voters abandon them nearly completely, or until Trump is impeached.
If that occurs and even the extremists on the right are not conveniced that Trump did something very wrong and deserved to be impeached – then there will be violence.
The less people are convinced – the more broad the support on the right for violence.
That is what the response to lawlessness is – violence.
At the very least you are likely to have serious blowback int eh elections.
Regardless, the next democrat elected president is going to be faced with the same scrutiny as Trump. And your delusional if you think that is not an order of magnitude greater than Obama.
Regardless, you are playing with fire.
The election of Trump was a warning. You would be wise to heed it.
Again I am not talking about what I am going to do.
I am looking through the crystal ball to see what I think the results of th stupid actions of the left will be.
There are several fundimental problems related to antifa.
They are actually WORSE than the neoNazi’s Various so called white supremecists groups most of whom appear to be more “white identitarian” rather than white superiority.
In other words they are no different from BLM. And that is a the most apt comparison.
Most of the Unite the Right groups (not the free speach groups as Boston and Berkeley), are the rough equivalent of BLM – they are wrong, but mostly they engage in protest not violence. Antifa is not about protest, They are about violence. Antifa explicitly espouses that speech they do not like is violence and that they may respond to such speach with violence. This is the natural outcome of the left’s destruction of the meaning of words.
Just because I do not like something – does not make it violence. Just because something is wrong does not make it violence. Jut because something causes me fear, does not make it violence. Antifa is about violence. There is no equivalent group in the US today.
The second big issue with antifa is that they are not distinct from the left. They are just the far edge, and they are accepted by the left as a whole, if not endorsed.
White Supremecists are not accepted by the right – despite the left’s efforts to paint things otherwise. They are not accepted for many reasons. But one of those reasons is that most of these groups are some form of socialist. The left can not seem to grasp that racism and socialism can coexist – despite the fact that they do in Antifa.
Regardless no one has secret pride in the KKK or the NeoNazi’s.
Much of the left either secretly or all too often openly admires Antifa.
The Black Block should give everyone a clue. Even the “nazis” at Charlottesville were identifiable, and we are seeing a few get charged and arrested based on identifying them from youtube videos. Most of the members of Antifa deliberately hide their identity.
They openly admit they are intent on committing criminal acts and they do not wish to be caught or punished.
Wise people understand that masked men (or women) are probably the bad guys.
Antifa’s purpose is to silence.
Even the white supremecists march to call attention to their issues.
Antifa is not their to advocate for something they are there to silence others.
The key phrase today is “buy any means necescary”.
That is part of Antifa’s creed.
But equally important it is where much of the left is today.
The objective is not to legitimately impede Trump or Republicans.
I have zero problems with democrats using the same tactics as Republicans did.
What is unusual is that the left is not confining themselves to legitimate tactics.
The reason that AntiFa is not seen as more illegitimate than the NeoNazi’s – which they obviously are, is that the left is already heavily engaged in illegitimate tactics, and much of the left though not yet ready to resort to violence does not foreclose the possibility.
dhlii said: 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.
Wow. dhlii You ARE Tim McVeigh, you are just leaving the actual violence to one of your friends. You’ll be his lawyer after he acts. You are one sick little man, full of hatred of government and therefore anyone who has any belief in it at all, which you ignorantly call the left. Long ago, you probably defended Nazis and white supremacists on Constitutional grounds. Now you do it because the far right hates the idea of government as much as you do, the enemy of your enemy is your friend, as you believe.
The black masked nihilist soccer hooligans that plague the west are a moral disaster. You have worked yourself into a hysterical lather making them out to be the left, period. That is idiotic. Your head is literally full of shit. I wait daily for the anarchists and any other violent demonstrators for any cause all to be in prison. Those creeps represent mentally ill clockwork orange nihilism. There ought to be consequences, damned right! Why hasn’t Trump and Sessions dealt with them? All of America would thank them for once. But then where would the dhliis of the world be? The Trump administration is too busy evicting dreamers to go after anarchist idiots.
Terrible, repulsive, and antidemocratic as they are the black masked anarchist goons will be gone from history long before they have done anything approaching the damage of your playmates in the Klan and Nazis, your fellow travelers in govnment hating. Don’t You tell ME about the things I don’t see! The words peaceful and Nazi and Klan, do not go together any more than the word peaceful describes anything at all about Isis or Al Qaeda. These are all death and terror movements, not peace movements, as anyone who is not a total fool or a member realizes. They have been disgraced to the maximum level of the word in the eyes of history. Any normal person has the desire to punch any of these representatives of death and terror. Doesn’t mean we should actually do it, but the urge is only human. The out of control black masked anarchist scum only give right-wing nut jobs like yourself a platform to distort events and describe a so-called moral argument for right wing destruction, as you just clearly and unambiguously did. All the same you will never actually meet one of those violent anarchists unless you go out of your way to do it. Whereas Dylann Roof can show up anywhere at any time, in church anywhere, and all our black citizens feel that. That is what you are unleashing on black Americans with your idiot fancy lawyering for the white supremacy movement. Your hatred of government is more important to you, so you defend the violent right, the enemy of your enemy.
You were lecturing us about EVIL somewhere below. You are immersed in it. Your so-called morality is filthy.
Why would I or any normal sane person care about the sick opinions of an anti government right wing fanatic like you straight out of the manifesto of Tim McVeigh? You are as much of a curse as the anarchists. Your above described moral justification for the coming right wing violence will kill people, perhaps many people.
All true, but he’ll parse it and rationalize it, and nitwit nitpick rationalizations.
Nope, mostly false.
Shred with logic and facts, is not “rationalize”.
Nor is the distinction between actual violence and offensive rhetoric nitpicking.
No, I am not McVeigh.
But McVeigh should be a message to those on the left.
Actually read the declaration of independence – or just think, or look at what happened in east germany.
When government fails – when it does not secure our rights, when it degenerates to lawlessness, the social contract is gone.
In anarchy we are no longer barred from violence.
This is not a right left proposition.
The only question is individual – for YOU when has the failure of government reached the point where you take matters into your own hands and become violent.
ALL of us do eventually.
The core of AntiFa’s argument – is that we have already reached a point where their violence is justified.
I think 99.99% of us beleive they are wrong. But the argument that there is a point where government failure returns to us the right to individually initiate violence is absolutely true.
What I am trying to get through to you is that the more lawless the left becomes the more justified the right will be in countering violent lawlessness with violence to restore order.
McVeigh was wrong – because he killed innocents.
Had McVeigh specifically targeted the ATF and FBI agents and managers responsible for Ruby Ridge and Wacco he might have been arguably justified.
Though we still would likely have executed him.
You should not forget this country was born in violent revolution.
The construct that violence in response to govenrment oppression and lawlessness is legitimate is part of our national DNA. Our right to exist as a nation is premised on it.
I have and will defend the right of Nazi’s the KKK, white supremists, communists, ……
To speak, to publicly express their values.
I do not endorse their values, nor their acts.
You keep this stupid nonsense that I am an anarchist – look at Antifa – many of them are anarchists, THAT is what anarchism looks like.
I am a libertarian. I am a minarchist.
I beleive in Hammers. I do not beleive in using hammers to drill holes or pound in screws.
Government is a hammer. It is FORCE. It is necescary for very specific tasks.
It is a mistake for others.
I do not “hate” government – that is a stupid premise. I do not “hate” hammers, just because I use them to drive nails and not saw wood.
I do have serious problems with those who think that a hammer is the only tool and is good for everything.
While I do not hate government – as I do not hate hammers.
You do actually love government.
You do stupidly think it is the tool for nearly every job.
You also have a very bizzare political cosmology.
Nazi’s are not far right. They are generally NOT conservative, they tend towards socialism
That is why it is the Nazi Socialist party. Clearly they LOVE government – the stronger the better. A view they share with you not me. Nazi’s are highly authoritarian.
That is pretty much the opposite of libertarian. Regardless, it is a different axis from right left.
Regardless you seem to classify Nazi’s as on the left because they are racist, and possibly militant.
The KKK was extremely PROGRESSIVE – they are also Racist.
Woodrow Wilson was a leading democratic progressive and racist.
He was certainly not hard right.
AntiFa is strongly anti-semetic. Does that put them on the right ?
Libertarians are primarily ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN – in every other way they are smeared across the political spectrum from left to right.
Antifa is a national phenomena – not merely a western one.
They are particularly strong and violent in berkeley
but they are found in nearly every college town.
No I do not assume that antifa is the left.
They are just the extreme.
There are two things that distinguish Antifa from the NeoNazi’s that make them a greater danger.
Antifa actually is the extreme left.
NeoNazi’s are not the extreme right.
NeoNazi’s do not share much with the rest of the right
They are not just a more virulent form of other right groups.
AntiFa actually is just a more virulent form of the rest of the left.
The NeoNazi’s are not actually accepted by the right.
At best some on the right defend their right to assemble and speak.
AntiFa is more accepted by the left.
There is no consequential effort to significantly shift the nation towards Nazism.
There is a very strong movement to shift the nation left.
Nothing would change if Nazi’s were allowed to march unscathed – wherever they march.
AntiFa and the left are after significantly more than marching and expressing their views.
They are seeking to change the country – BY FORCE.
The left is far more dangerous.
But this is nothing new. The left has always been more dangerous.
Do you want to have an intelligent conversation about immigration ?
I will be happy to join you in opposing Trump’s efforts regarding immigration.
I support actual open boarders. I have yet to figure out what it is the left supports on immigration – aside from “Trump is wrong”
Regardless, choices on immigration have consequences elesewhere.
If you are going to allow broad immigration how are you going to deal with the stresses that the rest of your entitlements will experience ?
If you decide healthcare is a right – are you providing it for free to immigrants ?
If so how are you going to prevent anyone in the world who is sick from coming here and overwhelming our system ?
How do you plan on dealing with the minimum wage ?
Many of these immigrants do not have the skills for a $15/hr job.
Are you just going to leave them jobless ?
Or are you going to allow them to work below minimum ?
Trump is wrong about immigration. But he is less wrong than most of the left.
He is working towards something that atleast is sustainable – if still wrong.
I will be happy to join you and oppose Trump on immigration, when you can offer an immigration plan that is both more respective of actual rights than Trumps and does not fail.
In the meantime I am not getting worked to a lather about dreamers and immigrants from the mideast.
This BTW is a common problem libertarains have with the left.
Where we can come close to sharing some common ground – the left does nto understand that the ends do not justify the means, and that choices on one thing have dramatic consequences elsewhere.
Democracy is not of particular importance to me.
It is a means to an end – not an end in and of itself.
If it is the best means, that is purely because it most efficiently delivers that end.
The end is securing our individual rights.
Take the constitution – strip out all the stuff about elections and the specific structure, and keep only the limited powers of government. And find a different form that is thus empowered that delivers the ends of securing our rights, and who cares what the form and structure is.
To a large extent the form and structe was their to keep government from becoming too powerful and tyranical. That has failed. Our government – no different from monarchies and possibly worse, has found the way to grow well beyond its confines.
This also relates to our other discussions on government.
The roles I have given to government – do not require constant tinkering.
Laws would rarely change.
The democratic form becomes too much about constantly figuring out how to give new things to people. That is not and never was the role of government.
Government should be highly static, not dynamic.
Murder is murder and has been illegal for atleast 4000 years.
The basics of good government are not dynamic and changing.
We deal with the dynamic world – outside of government.
Antifa – or atleast parts of it are anarchist. I am not.
The next smallest form of government is anarcho capitalism.
That is essentially the way that nations relate to each other.,
Economist Bryan Caplan provides an excellent explanation of anarcho-capitalism
And further notes that a surprising large amount of our current country is actually functioning anarcho capitalism.
To be clear – I am not an anarcho capitalist.
I do not beleive in private prisons, courts, law enforcement and military.
But I am not so stupid as to beleive that is not possible.
I am a libertarian. That means I beleive that our individual right to initiate force is transfered to government as part of the social contract.
That no private entity can initiate force. Only government can.
I beleive – as the declaration of independence states – that the purpose of government is to secure our natural rights. Not whatever we want.
I beleive that the inital use of force must be justifed, and that it rarely is.
Government may use force – only when force can be justified.
Where force is not necescary the problem does nto belong to government.
That is a form of minarchy.
What I do not beleive is that “government is what we do together” That is rot.
Our churches, civic groups, businesses, all forms of voluntary free association – that is what we do together.
I do not beleive government is us.
I do not beleive government is there to do whatever we want it to.
I do not beleive that the wishes of the majority are sufficient to justify the use of force.
That does not mean I hate government.
It does mean I hate BAD government.
It does mean I hate the use of the hammer of government as a screw driver as you constantly seek.
You are right – peaceful and Nazi and KKK do not go together.
Nor does peaceful and any form of progressivism, communism or socialism.
ISIS literally is a government – its form is islamic caliphate under sharia law.
I do not think that has an “ism” name.
But regardless of all of that – you can advocate for communism, socialism, progressivism, the KKK or Naziism – so long as you advocate peacefully.
You can advocate violence, and hatred as absolutely all of the above do, and I can condemn you for doing so. But I can not infringe on your right to express yourself.
I can however prohibit you from ACTING violently – regardless of what you advocate.
You constantly mangle the meaning of words – and it leads to mangled thought.
Words are not force, they are not violence, they are not coercion, they are not power, they do not overcome your free will, they persuade and you choose freely or they do not.
Republicans, Nazi’s Progressives, antifa, can advocate for whatever “destruction” they wish. So long as they don not act with actual violence.
All the frothing your wish will not turn words into acts.
More delusional misuse of language.
I am pretty clear in most of what I say. The severity of your misunderstanding of it is inexcusable. It is either stupidity or malfeasance.
If I tell you to be careful because play with fire and you can get burnt – that is not advocating arson.
If the left continues to act lawlessly – everyone else will accept that the rule of law has failed and fell free to initiate force.
That is a warning not advocacy.
I do not beleive that Wacco and Ruby Ridge justified OKC.
That does nto mean that Wacco and Ruby Ridge were not very serious breakdowns of the rule of law. They were actually worse than what the left is doing at the moment – but smaller. They are worse because government was ACTING lawless.
The left is merely advocating for lawlessness.
The problem arrises when that advocacy turns to action.
McVeigh might have been justified in a much narrower response.
Regardless, when government becomes lawless – government ceases to be legitimate.
But opposition to lawless government must be to government.
McVeigh acted as a terrorist.
Dylan Roof was mentally disturb – like a long list of others.
It is repugnant to conflate mental illness with ideology.
Yes, black people may fear that some mentally ill person could meet violence on their church at anytime. Just as kindergardeners could fear that a mentally ill person might attack them at anytime.
I will be happy to have a discussion about mental health separate from that of ideology.
Or should we blame the left for Joseph Stack, Ted Kazyinsky, Jeremy Christian, …. ?
I am not “lawyering for white supremecists”
The response to evil words – is words.
The response to evil acts is force.
If you respond to evil words with force – you are worse than those speaking evil.
Punching a Nazi is more evil than Nazi speach.
As a separate issue – aside from a recent spike in black on black violence in major cities,
all violence is on the decline. All of us black or white have less to fear from the violence of others than ever before. Our delining rates of violence are not the same as the elimination of violence, We will never live in a completely non-violent society. We will never live without racism.
But if you are inflaming the fears or blacks, or whites regarding problems that are declining they you are doing evil, not good.
We can work to improve our society without lying and pretending that things are getting worse when they are actually improving.
I have responded to a number of your specific misrepresentations of my clearly expressed views.
I challenge you to demonstrate how my actual ideology as I have expressed it is evi – as opposed to your false representation.
If you do not grasp those things I have asserted – I beleive clearly, then you can ask for an explanation, or keep silent. But if you choose to attack and misrepresent – then the moral error is yours.
I will be happy to pit my morality against yours measured against any broadly accepted moral philosophy of the past couple thousand years.
Again, if you step onto a moral soapbox – particularly to attack someone else, you cede any right to complain when your own morality is challenged.
You have repeatedly complained in the past about the virulence of conflict in some posts here. When you challenge the morality of others – you should expect them to respond with anger. When I challenge your morality – I expect you will get angry. I hope that you will think about it.
Is it possible for you to not conflate everything to the right of stalin with nazism or anarchism ?
Nah, it is so easy. Nazis as “comparisons” are so convenient for otherwise reasonable, but lazy, debaters to pull verbal salt out of their wrestling tights like they are in the old WWF..
Is your objective to score points ?
To inflame others ?
Or to discern the truth ?
Ok, the level of fact-free emotion here is starting to overwhelm any rational discussion of race or ideology…. or reality.
The reality is that racism, in the form of institutionalized discrimination of all kinds, is, for all intents and purposes, completely gone in this country. There is no political or social support for the KKK, which has all but disappeared, or for neo-Nazis who are extremely small n number and universally vilified. Not too many Black Panthers either, as long as we’re talking about violent racist groups.
There are people who, after being attacked by a dog, fear dogs and believe that all dogs are vicious. If someone you knew were to assert that belief, you would likely argue strenuously against such an obvious fallacy. Yet, apparently, many folks who would defend dogs from this kind of narrative, are more than willing to believe the identical fallacy about anyone on the right, especially if that person is a Trump voter. One disturbed racist murders innocent black churchgoers, and he becomes proof that white America is racist.
Reality: Millions and millions of Americans, probably 99% of Americans, of all races, peacefully coexist every single day, helping each other, doing business with each other, being each others’ doctors and lawyers and teachers and neighbors. And husbands and wives and children, for that matter.
But reality doesn’t drive ratings, nor does generate the fear and loathing that identity politics needs to divide people into enemy camps.
The dog analogy is excellent along with the observation that 99% of Americans are getting along peacefully. Unfortunately you yourself have had many posts demonizing the violent left and claiming that the left in general is characterized by that.
You and Dave feel very bitter about the treatment of the right and go overboard with your fears of the violent left. Its a one sided complaint. There is no more general support on the left for the violent anarchists (contrary to the claims you and Dave make), than there is for the KKK and Nazis on the right. In truth, unfortunately there are millions of people on the right and left who have taken their politics to an emotional extreme of fear and loathing of the other side. I’d say its roughly equal.
When you agree to that, then we may have something to talk about. If you are simply bitter about the treatment of your own side and continue to believe all the over the top things you and Dave post about the left, then as reasonable as the first part of your post sounded, you are part of the problem. You have beaten the idea that opposition to trump from the dem side is thuggery and an attempt to overthrow the election to death from day one of the trump administration.
demonizing the violent left
Clumsy wording. By which I meant demonizing the entire Dem/liberal/left part of the opposition to trump as being violent because of the worst examples, who are mostly anarchists.
The actual violent left cannot be demonized because they are just as bad as anyone says.
I have covered this already.
I am encouraged because this week some lights on the left have realized antifa is a big problem.
But my question would be where were you when Trump decried BOTH sides.
Nazi’s marching to preserve a symbol of racism and slavery and those using violence to supress the speach of those nazi’s are not morally equivalent.
Those seeking to violently suppress ANYONE’s speach are worse.
No matter how repugnant Nazi’s might be, Acts trump words.
It is increasingly clear from other antifa actions arround the country before and since that Nazi’s or anyone else that Antifa does not like is going to face violence if they speak.
You and the press got Charlottesville upside down. Trump was right.
And yes, I will demonize the left for demonizing others falsely.
You are now trying to distance yourself from antifa much as everyone demanded that republicans distance themselves from Nazi’s.
Trump distanced himself from BOTH, you did not. By demanding that Nazi’s be put onto a separate plane, you supported antifa – and anarchism and communism – atleast implicitly.
I have told you this before – claim onto a moral soap box, and you had damn well be sure that you are absolutely right, When you focus moral outrage on another, if you are wrong, the moral failure is yours.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that the left is all anarchist, or communist, or violent.
I am saying you wrongly denounced someone else’s morality.
You ended up on the wrong side of a moral inequality.
99% of american’s are peaceful. But they are not getting along.
That conflict is growing and becoming ever more polarized.
And it is the over reach, intolerance and hate spewing of the left that is growing that conflict.
First you project thoughts into my head – now you are certain you know my feelings.
Certainly there are people who are bitter – both right and left.
I am not one of those.
There might even be some justifiably bitter.
But that is not what this is about.
I am seeking to correct misperceptions – because they distort our thinking. That is almost literally what misperception means.
It was not clear what the makeup of the groups in Charlottesville were.
The more I learn the more I find there were real Nazi’s and KKK there, but that views spread from that point to some who were little more than poorly educated young adult males pissed that they have little future – because they are white.
Maybe those on the left can conclude there is some karmic social justice in that.
But justice is not social, and it is a recipe for violence.
Ultimately Charlottesville was misperceived – because Nazi’s flags are a symbol that many of us can not get past, can not be objective arround, and color everything arround them.
Fields murder of Heyer, further colors the entire picture.
The result – most of us can not see the goof from the bad, or even the merely bad fromt he thoroughly evil.
But events since Charlottesville have been slowly opening eyes.
Boston was not about Nazi’s.
Berkeley was not about Nazi’s.
The only people violent in Boston and Berkeley were on the left.
I am honestly surprised – because I saw enough video of Berkeley and Boston and listened to enough rhetoric that I thought the left would somehow be able to spin those too.
But somehow in ways I do not understand – probably because my perception is not informed by my emotions, Boston and even more so the recent events in Berkeley have shifted things. Even the mainstream media is starting to condemn antifa.
Further many on the left have come out aggressively with this assertion that speach they do not like can be supressed – violently. This argument is being made boldly and openly.
And it is generating some pushback – even from the left media.
I am suspicious that it is exposing a generational rift in the left.
College students and accademics have no problem with limiting free speach.
But the older generations on the left are not there.
Journalists are not there either.
So since this weekend atleast the press has been negative on antifa.
I would note that is a big loss for the left.
The entire Trump will not denouce racists meme collapses once Antifa is barely distinguishable from the KKK.
Trump either becomes right, or he becomes prescient.
Either tanks the meme.
Regardless, I would appraciate it if you could refrain from telling me how I think and feel.
I have been surprised that in the past week the left as stepped back from Antifa.
At the same time you are clearly wrong regarding the “moral equivalence”.
Trump was excoriated because his first statement condemned both sides.
But yes, a week or so later, after several free speach protests have been canceled and those esposing Free Speech have been pummeled, the left seems to grasp that Antifa is no better than the KKK.
With respect to the “emotions” of the left and right. There is building emotions on both sides.
But there is no “moral equivalence”.
The right is angry because government is crushing them. Because their voice is not being heard, because taking control of the house should have been all that was necescary to end this progressive nonsense and atleast restore the bad status quo rather than the post PPACA disaster.
Regardless legitimate anger on the right, gave the GOP the house, and then the Senate and then the presidency, and it gave the GOP total control of more than half the states, while Democrats control only 6 states.
Basically the right has had almost a decade of political success.
And it wants “the swamp drained”, it wants washington deconstructed.
The right feels like it has played by the rules even rules that are wrong and unfair, and it is now entitled to see its wished implimented.
And at the very peak of accomplishment the left has stepped in with this Trump is illegitimate nonsense.
Yes, the right is angry – extremely self righteously angry – and that is possibly the most dangerous form of anger.
But to this point the right has continued to direct that anger towards the process, and the rule of law.
The right has spent the past decade building the political power necescary to deconstruct offensive aspects of government.
Trump or no, that must happen now or the risk of the anger on the right turning lawless is large.
The lefts anger may be real, but it is not legitimate.
There is no hecklers veto over free speech.
The left is free to do exactly as the right did and direct their anger towards changing the countries representatives in order to accomplish their political objectives.
They are not free to shortcut the process.
They are not free to just cut the head off the executive as the means of stopping what the right has spent a decade building.
The left is also closer to violence than the right – and antifa is a symptom of that.
The left is not interested in building the political will needed to accomplish its goals.
Among other reasons because it can not.
PPACA was a national watershed.
We fight over its popularity – but it is not its popularity that matters, It is its unpopularity.
And more specifically it is that PPACA added just enough new people to the government social programs are a failure camp to tip the overall balance.
As I noted before If the left implements 10 programs – each of which as 60/30/10 support – 60% in favor, 30% mildly opposed, adn 10% vigorously opposed.
If there is less than 50% overlapp among those opposed, the result will be a majority of people who are vigorously opposed to government.
The bigger government gets the more fragile it becomes.
I do not think the left knows that cognatively.
But I think it grasps it intuitively.
Neither the scale of people on either side, nor how they feel is significant.
Those on the left have angered those on the right by painting the entirety of the right – and even some of the left as hateful hating haters.
Those on the left are intent on continuing to slowly socialize the US government by force if necessary.
Those on the left are seeking to reverse the outcome of the last election.
Regardless of how the left “feels”:
The identity politics of the left is the root cause of greater polarization.
The last election was a tipping point and that is a major factor in the outcome.
But even had the outcome been otherwise, spewing hate at approximately half of the country will inevitably result in a tipping point. 2016 or some time later, it really does not matter.
We can debate the merits of socialism – not that I see any, but if you can not persuade people, you can not impose your wishes by force. ObamaCare was a major tipping point.
It does not actually matter whether it has the support of a minority, a plurality, or a supermajority. It added sufficient numbers to those opposed to the movement towards socialism to swing the politics of the nation.
Even where I disagree with you politically – I fully support your right to obstruct the government, republicans and Trump by whatever legitimate means possible.
But what has occured post the 2016 election is not legitimate obstruction,
We need to agree on very little.
Conforming to the rule of law, is an absolute requirement.
The alternative is lawlessness, when you abandon the rule of law – then the actions of antifa – as well as McVeigh are legitimate.
You seem to confuse my noting that with advocating for it.
That is not at all what I want.
The will of the majority is not sufficient to permit abridging the rights of the minority.
But the left is now seeking to impose their will even without a majority.
That is lawless, it has already lead to violence. Antifa is the logical outcome of the actions of the left. It is irrelevant whether they are opposing Nazi speach, that of Trump voters, or even the ACLU’s advertising. When you seek to abridge rights – either through the force of govenrment, or through the direct violence of antifa – then you are lawless.
You do not get to assert that the rules only apply to others – but that is where you are.
The entire left is not espousing direct violence.
In the past week atleast some on the left have looked into the mirror and understood that you can not abridge the free speach rights of others – not even Nazi’s.
Calling those outside the left hateful hating haters – is free speach. It is lawful. No one is compelling you to stop. It is also highly polarizing, and it leads to the mistaken efforts to abridge the rights of those you hate. It would be both immoral and a bad idea – even if it did not cost the left elections.
Regardless, no one has the right to make you stop. Hopefully those on the left have the wisdom to do so.
I am not claiming those not on the left – because this is about more than right-left are perfect or blameless. But we are on “the road to serfdom” because of the left.
I would further note, I am not pushing rainbow farts. I do not want or expect government to be without conflict. I do expect it to be without further abridgement or rights. I do expect it to be lawful. I do expect it to be without violence.
I do not have a problem with much of the obstruction Republicans engaged in during Obama’s tenure – I do not have a problem with it, even when I wish Obama had prevailed.
Our government was not designed to be happy consensus. One of the problems I have with the purported moderates here, is this belief that all problems can be resolved – and through compromise in government. When we can not agree – then we may not use force and government may not act. That does not prevent you from doing as you please in your own life. But you can not by force make others live as you wish.
Not as democrats, not as republicans.
I would like to have seen ObamaCare repealed. I beleive that the repeal of anything is inside the legitimate power of even a minority.
But I do not have a problem with the obstruction of democrats.
I have no problems with how they voted on Gorsuch or on Cabinet appointments – even where I think they were wrong. I do not have a problem with the house and senate investigations of the Election. I do not have a problem with the prattling nonsense of various democrats trying to make nothing on Russia into something.
I have huge problems with a special counsel who is investigating a non-crime.
I have huge problems with the left’s efforts to encourage a coup in the whitehouse.
I have a huge problem with those who are leaking classified documents – that is criminal.
Political leaking is different.
I have problems with holdovers int he administration who beleive their role is to “resist”.
That is the role of the public and the congress. If you are part of the executive branch your job is to comply with the directions of the president. If you can not do so – resign.
It is the role of the congress and judiciary to reign in the president, not federal employees.
I have alot of problems with the conduct of the press – but I fully support a free press – even a highly biased one. At the same time I have no problems with Trump or anyone else “punching back twice as hard” at the the press. The response to speach is speach.
We get to weight the credibility of the speakers.
But once again – you are arguing for rainbow farts, and I am arguing that it is not necescary for us to agree on everything – or even compromise.
If you can not get sufficient agreement then you may not use force.
The default answer to the expansion of government is not to compromise.
It is NO!!! and sometimes HELL NO!!!.
One of our big problems is you do not accept that.
Much of the hysteria of the moment is because the minority on the left, do not accept that they have lost the power to impose their will on the rest of us by force.
That should be a no brainer.
You do not automatically have the right to impose your will on others by force even when you are the majority.
I am not interested in an agreement over equivalences in hurt feelings.
I will offer you several easy agreement.
So long as we have a legitimate government and the rule of law, no one may initiate violence against others.
No minority may infringe on the rights of others by force.
No majority may infringe on the rights of a minority by force – without justification.
Justification, requires a super majority, an outcome that on net increases the security of our rights. a proveable outcome that is net positive.
LOGORRHEA (excessive and often incoherent talkativeness or wordiness) – related to diarrhea — an inability to stop something from flowing from an orifice.
Ad hominem – the delusion that insult is argument.
You continue to try to seek some false moral equivalence.
You say I have posted “over the top” things about the left.
It that things that are false ?
Or is that things that hurt your feelings ?
You are always welcome to correct any errors I make of reasoning, logic, or fact.
Demonstrate an error in any of these and I can absolutely assure you I will retract whatever I have said and correct it.
If however I have said things that are true that hurt your feelings.
I appologize – I do not wish to hurt your feelings.
But I am not going to stop arguing truth because it hurts your feelings.
Your feelings and mine are our own personal problems.
You have a right not to be subject to actual violence,
You do not have a right to silence ideas you do not like.
Regardless, the problem is not our respective hurt feelings.
It is not that we are in conflict.
I owe you physical safety. I owe you protection of your rights and property.
I do not owe you a conflict free life. I do not owe you silencing ideas you do not like.
Again can we cease the misrepresentation.
First, I have opposed Trump personally on several issues.
Most recently I am offended by the Arapio pardon. It is constitutional. It is also WRONG.
And I have spoken out against it.
I am opposed to Trump’s reversal on Obama’s 1033 restrictions.
The police do not need grenade launchers, bayonets and APC’s
I would have gone farther than Obama and scrapped the entire 1033 program – as well as several other programs militarizing policing.
BTW one politicians name comes up an order of magnitude more than others in advancing the militarization of police in Radley Balko’s book – Joe Biden. He has been behind police militarization since the early 80’s.
Regardless – oppose the polices of republicans, or Trump. Throw sand in the gears,
You are free to do so whether I agree or not.
Even spewing hatred – I think it is political suicide and morally bankrupt, but go ahead.
But you may not infringe on the rights of others by force.
Further you are seeking to overturn the results of a legitimate election.
That is unbelievably dangers.
If you should succeed – that would be lawlessness and it would justify violence.
You keep flogging this Trump/Russia meme as if it is going to get you somewhere.
Forget all the things we may or may not have evidence of.
What hypothetical evidence could possibly exist that would make Trump’s removal legitimate ? I am asking for specifics. I am not after vague allegations of “collusion”.
If you can not come up with acts that would justify removal that are plausible then you are on a snipe hunt – you are chasing something that can not be found because it can not exist.
If Trump met with Putin and plotted hacking voting machines – that would be sufficient.
If Trump personally received OPO research from Putin himself – that would not.
If you actually managed to put Putin and Trump together and demonstrate they struck a deal – that is not sufficient. Trump voters would have to be convinced that but for whatever Trump and Putin agreed to, they would have voted for Clinton.
You can not get where you want on vague assertions of influence.
You have to have real voters who voted for Trump who would have voted for Hillary.
And even that is not enough. If you actually proved Putin hacked the DNC at Trump’s behest – that does not get you there.
While it changed votes. It did so by revealing Truth about Clinton and the DNC.
You can not get Trump for proving Clinton’s shit actually stinks.
Now if you can not hypothetically get what you need – then you are never going to get it in the real world. Therefore efforts to do so are illegitimate.
You are seeking what you know or should know does not exist.
The discussion is do warped today on race that if a black man is killed after being arrested by a black officier, in a primarily black city, with an overwhelmingly black police force, and a black mayor and city council – somehow this is an example of racism.
We have plenty of incidents were I would be happy to agree that the polce failed and should be accountable, that are not racism.
We also need to grasp a few things.
IT is impossible to eliminate discrimination – discrimination is just another word for choice, that usually has negative connotations.
If I have 100 applicants for 1 job – I am going to discriminate – I am going to say no 99 times. I am near certain to say no to the person who may have proven to be the best person for the job. We tend to confuse the fact that from the EMPLOYERS perspective they are usually seeking the best person for the job. But from all other perspectives this is just a position to be filled. The same societal interest is accomplished no matter who gets the job. There is not a right for the best person to get the job. There is not a right for anyone to get the job. The incentive to get the best person is not a legal or social norm. It is the interest of the employer.
This same problem pertains to all transactions.
Maybe it would be nice if we could be sure that race was never a factor in choices – but we can not. Just as we would prefer if people did not hire their family or friends, or people from the same church or who graduated from the same school or …..
But ultimately we are going to make choices and the reasons for those choice are never going to be precisely knowable.
We have rooted out institutional racism.
We will never be free of discrimination so long as we have choices.
@dhlii 4:02. It’s to confuse you, you idiot.
I have a better idea. Lets make our police like the Bobbies in England.
Wonderful idea!
But to do that, Americans will have to turn in 80% of their guns.
One of my favorite cable shows to watch is Midsomer Murders, a British Cop/Detective drama (multiple seasons available on Netflix). The cops RARELY are armed; neither are the criminals they confront. And though they average three killings per episode, many gruesome in Elizabethan fashion (sword & lance puncturing, mace pounding, occasional beheadings – lots of knightly antique weapons in Midsomer Manors 😏) the murderers when captured/cornered seldom violently resist.
Yes I know, it’s a romanticized version of reality, but one based on much more civilized views about limiting the availability of guns to every Tom, Dick, or Henrietta. And a series much more soothing to watch than the Marvel Super Destructive Hero shows that dominate so much air time.
https://www.google.com/search?q=midsomer+murders&safe=off&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS692US692&hl=en-US&prmd=nvi&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE1ZXzzf_VAhUF7GMKHdgZAQMQ_AUIEygD&biw=1024&bih=748#imgrc=6dcCJVmq2RBqSM:
Jay, “But to do that, Americans will have to turn in 80% of their guns”
No, You have this all wrong. Nothing changes except the cops don’t have guns. Then people can not complain when the cops don’t do anything or they over react because they have too many weapons now.
I think we just need to let the radical right and radical left kill each other off and then we won’t have to put up with either factions crap.
Nope.
I’m guessing at least 95% of violent crime has no political component.
Armed Crooks & Cartel killers & Gangeters & Armed Robbers are responsible for most of the violence.
If Cops were unarmed, those numbers would SKYROCKET.
Most crime is not violent. Most of it is not armed.
Alot of the violence is drug related and would disappear if you decriminalized drugs.
Further the police virtually never intervene to stop a violent crime.
Rapists, murderers, most violent thugs are NOT caught in the act.
Our current drive by policing is not a deterent to crime.
Crime rates have dropped radically since the 70’s.
The most liberal estimate I have heard is that SWAT is responsible for about 2.5% of the decrease. Conservative estimates suggest militerized policing has increased violent crime.
Cities that have tried real community policing – see a 50% drop in crime.
But we have to be carefull because the feds subsidize community policing – a Clinton era program. Running about $2B/year.
Except that “community policing” dollars are awarded based on the volume of drug arrests,
The result is they do the opposite of community policing and drive further militarization.
“According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.[2]Mar 27, 2017”
“The gun homicide rate in England and Whales is about one for every 1 million people, according to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, a multinational organization based in Switzerland.
In a population of 56 million, that adds up to about 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population.”
Yes, absolutely – if you take away peoples guns, they do not kill each other with guns.
Duh!. However they still kill each other.
Australian has some of the strictest gun control laws as a consequence of a mass shooting several decades ago.
Gun deaths dropped as a result. Mass shootings ceased.
The rate of violent death was unchanged. The rate of mass killings was unchanged, the rate of arsons increased significantly.
There was a small decline int he rate of suicide. That is the only statistically significant beneficial effect.
The rate of Gun deaths in the UK is incredibly low.
The rate of violent deaths among whites is higher than the US – particularly in Scottland.
The overall rate of violent death by ethnic group in the US is the same as that of the EU.
The fundimental difference between the US and the EU is that we have much more minorities who have far higher rates of violence.
The US is about 17% black, and yet more than 50% of all homocides are black on black.
Alternatively if you exclude California, New York, New Jersey, Washington DC, and Illinois – which have the toughest gun regulations in the country and and large urban areas with massive drug violence,
The homocide rate for the rest of the US is the same as that of the EU.
According to FSU criminologist Gary Fleck guns are used successfully in self defense in the US 2.5M times per year.
States with open carry laws have significantly lower violent crime rates than other states – between 23 and 36% lower.
Violent crime in the 10 largest US cities is ten times higher than the rest of the country.
Every one of those cities is controlled entirely by democrats. Almost all have the strictest gun control laws in the US.
From the CDC June 2013 study
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
Why would americans need to turn in their guns ?
In 2015 nationwide 40 police officers were killed in the course of crime.
In SWAT raids in the US guns are recovered about 5% of the time.
And most of those are legal.
It is unbeleivably rare that an officer is shot serving a warrant.
When that occurs it is nearly always because they raided an innocent person in the middle of the night and a terrified person thinking they were being violently attacked shoots a police officer who failed to identify themselves.
And in nearly all those cases – the shooter is going to die or go to jail.
Since Daryl Gates invented SWAT in the 60’s there has been one instance in which a SWAT team was deployed effectively for any the purposes that SWAT was actually intended. That was SandyHook. When the SWAT team arrived at SanfyHooK Lanza shot himself. The SWAT team did nothing.
There were 5 SWAT teams at columbine. They did not go in. Many were killed while the SWAT teams sat outside trying to decide what to do for about an hour.
SWAT teams today serve no know warrants for purportedly violent drug dealers.
They rarely catch dealers, and they almost never encounter violence besides their own.
They do not even find drugs all that often.
We need to end the war on drugs. Prohibition did not work either.
We need to get rid of nearly all the SWAT teams, APC’s….
We need to put police back on the beat – preferably without guns.
If that sounds like Bobbies that is fine with me.
Less guns in circulation would mean LESS DEATHS YEARLY:
“21,175 suicides, 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with “undetermined intent”
And no nonsense about people would still commit suicide by other than firearms – the mortality rate for attempted suicide by other means is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS by those other means.
And less guns in circulation would mean LESS GUNS stolen from gun owners yearly:
“Overall, about 1.4 million guns, or an annual average of 232,400, were stolen during burglaries and other property crimes in the six-year period from 2005 through 2010. Of these stolen rearms, at least 80% (186,800) had not been recovered at the time of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) interview.”
Jay;
“Less guns in circulation would mean LESS DEATHS YEARLY”
You have evidence of that ? The left has been looking for evidence of that for decades.
Do we have to keep going over long resolved issues.
What you “feel” would happen as a consequence of some regulation, does not make that outcome reality. It rarely even makes sense.
This is boring. The debate on this is antique – and you long ago lost it. Obama had the CDC look for evidence of that and the CDC actually found the opposite, that in those parts of the country with limited gun restrictions not only were there less gun deaths – but there was less violent crime – particularly home invasions.
Myriads of other people both left and right have studied this trying to prove anything.
The best data we have is that there is a weak correlation between more guns and less crime.
With respect to your “data” – suicides are suicides.
If someone wishes to kill themselves, they are going to.
Men tend to use guns to kill themselves, women tend to use drugs, the numbers are about equal. There is no reason to beleive the absence of guns would reduce suicides. The US suicide rate is something like 62nd in the world – below Japan, and all of the nordic countries that have strict gun control laws. Accidents happen – there are far more accidental poisonings of toddlers per month than your figures on gun deaths per year.
There are more drownings than accidental gun deaths – should we ban pools ?
Gun theft is a big problem in states that register gun owners. Theives get addresses from the databases.
The UK has a near ban on guns – yet its violent crime rates by demographic group are higher than that of the US. In the UK particularly scottland there are a large number of stabbings. In the US fully half of all gun deaths are black on black violence, usually related to drugs. End the drug war and your problem with guns will go away.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics your 1.4M figure is for a 7 year period. The actual number is about 200K/year.
If 20% of stolen guns are recovered – that is far better than for most burglaries.
“I have a better idea. Lets make our police like the Bobbies in England.”
What do you have in mind ?
https://www.cato.org/blog/militarization-makes-police-more-violent?utm_content=bufferfe0ab&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Sanity in an unusual place.
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/82917/
Of course our government bureaucrats know what they are doing and do not impliment nationwide school lunch programs based on junk science.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/29/junk-science-behind-smarter-lunchrooms
Government would not obstruct a study that they started to determine if Marijuana was effective against PTSD.
As an aside – MDMA aka ecstasy is likely to be available by prescription shortly.
Because it is proving to be incredible effective against PTSD
https://reason.com/blog/2017/08/29/va-obstruction-jeopardizes-study-of-mari
When you decide you can ban some speach – it does nto always turn out to be the speach you thought you wanted banned.
Natural Disasters do not stimuluate the economy.
This is also know as the broken window fallacy.
And the same thing applies to ALL demand side stimulus.
It just does not work.
https://cherokeegothic.com/2017/08/29/natural-disasters-are-not-a-boon-to-economic-growth/
More on the bad idea of price controls in a natural disaster.
Prices are information. It is high prices that drive the market to deliver more of the goods needed and that lowers the prices again.
Regardless the alternatives actually fail. If you do not allow prices to rise – the first buyers in a disaster buy everything, and no one else gets it.
Prices help us take only what we really need.
http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/30/prices-should-rise-during-crises-like-hu
More on the economics of disasters.
This is useful – because disasters are just the tails of the normal behavior of the markets.
If price controls are bad during extreme conditions – they are ALWAYS bad.
https://www.cato.org/blog/bad-economics-hurricane-harvey
Is it possible post Berkeley for those on the left to admit that Trump got it right the first time ?
Both sides were to blame!.
Yes, Neo-Nazi’s and antifa are morally equivalent – or to the extent they are not Antifa is worse.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450906/antifa-berkeley-protest-turns-violent-again
How did recovery work in Katrina
More government failure AND more lessons on why.
You can read other smart people telling you the same things I tell or (or James Madison does).
Government is people – if you do not think that they can manage their own affairs,
They will not be able to govern either.
https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/why-a-canadian-city-tore-down-the-staircase-its-residents-had-always-wanted-to-build/
And AGAIN
Health insurance does NOT effect outcomes – but it does effect the consumption of health care services.
“A new study by Bernard Black and colleagues finds that the uninsured “consume fewer healthcare services, but their health (while alive) does not deteriorate relative to the insured, and, in our central estimates, they do not die significantly faster than the insured.”
https://www.cato.org/events/long-term-effect-health-insurance-near-elderly-health-mortality
Dave, you proved my point. On the subject of left and right your mind is a distorted funhouse mirror.
You can blame the KKK and Nazis on the left if you want, not that its a good argument, but its an argument that has some tiny grain of truth in it, so that will do for your propaganda purposes. You can believe that that The Left is monolithic and violent and lump Chairman Mao in with my family, the state of Vermont, overzealous use of handicapped spaces, etc. You can believe that the left supports the violent anarchist movement and that is who we are and what we want. Its your choice and you have made it to believe those things.
As well, you can believe that the racist right is tiny, harmless, and gets a bad rap. You can argue that you saw no Nazis is Charlottesville, that James Alex Fields was merely scared, that there is no evidence that he intended to hurt anyone.
You can say its “repugnant” for me to mention that Dylann Roof is a white supremacist, that Fields worshipped Hitler, that Tim McVeigh was an anti government fanatic and attach any meaning to those facts because those people were not balanced.
You can take that fabric you have created of the evil violent left and the mostly harmless right and use it to build your little Tim McVeigh like manifesto to justify future violence from the right because “the left is destroying America”.
Well, you have your lucid moments here and there, but in general, you are a nut. You are, I am sure, mostly harmless in person, but your ideas are not. I am just going to have to accept that there are plenty of cranks in the world, that the internet concentrates them and works them into a lather, and that you have the boundless energy to fill TNM with your propaganda day and night.
Time for me to have breakfast and then go mow my lawn and leave you to your hysterical nutty view of the politics and dangers of the right and left.
Hieronymus, first of all, please go back to Roby! Hieronymus is so god-awful long and hard to spell.
I will repeat, as I have for years, the idea that there is nothing wrong wrong with being a partisan, as long as one is willing to be open about his/her position, and mindful of what one does not know.
“Unfortunately you yourself have had many posts demonizing the violent left and claiming that the left in general is characterized by that.” I don’t believe that I have claimed that the left “in general” is characterized by that, although I have harshly criticized the left, and the Democratic Party, in particular, for not denouncing, in strong and clear terms, the violence that has been committed against freedom of speech and assembly, by non-violent people and groups. And I have certainly accused the left-wing media of misrepresenting the facts in an attempt to promote a narrative. Is that the left “in general?”
Ironically, your condition for discussing this with me, that is, to grant that I am wrong and you and Jay are right, is not exactly a condition that will lead us to any real debate now, will it?
If you and Jay want to insist that the right condones and encourages racism, then provide evidence of that, above and beyond a single murderer who committed his crimes in the name of racism, and who will rot in jail on death row, if he is not executed, or a bunch of sorry losers who marched around with tiki torches in Charlottesville, before a riot occurred. Name me one single person on the mainstream right who condones white supremacy or who supports racist policies. Don’t go around finding stray dogs who attack people, and then say that my pet dog is vicious.
It’s not reasonable or realistic to expect anyone here to agree to a condition in which another’s position here is ex-ante immoral and wrong, whether it is Dave’s or yours. You are both smart and passionate people who argue in good faith, as I attempt to do. There are times when we “lose it,” but, for the most part, this blog has been an absolute island of sanity in an emotional, fact-free world of fake news, clickbait and trolling, for many years…
This is an excellent opinion piece, that I think crystallizes my own thinking on this, albeit in much simpler and more cogent language. It addresses the right-wingers-are-racist-idiots argument and finds it lacking in evidence:
“Democracies that work make space for disagreement. You can disagree with somebody in the strongest terms, believing your opponents to be profoundly or even dangerously mistaken. But that doesn’t oblige you to ignore them, scorn them, or pity them. Deeming somebody’s opinions illegitimate should be a last resort, not a first resort.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-28/why-people-still-support-trump
Excellent peice – hopefully Roby and Jay will read it.
I have tried to make some of the same arguments. by Clive made them more clearly.
The base democratic position – and that of Jay and Roby is that first proposition.
As Clive notes – if that is the case then democracy fails.
If near 50% of the country is vile racists, either the left must abandon democracy, or it must accept that progressivism is dead.
I think that this cognitive dissonance is part of the hysteria of the left today.
If you really believe that 50% of the country is too stupid and or too racist to vote, then “by any means necessary” becomes plausible.
One quibble.
These “red states are dependent” arguments are bad statistics.
Most are based on the fact that federal money to red states is a larger portion of the budget of red states.
Essentially any state that does nto tax the crap out of its residents and spend like a drunken sailor is a federal dependent.
When we look at percapita federal spending – DC dwarfs everyone,
The states on the whole do not have that great a divergence.
But when we exclude Social Security and medicare – which are supposed to be “earned benefits” California and New York alone receive more federal money than all other states combined. (actually that is true even if we include ss and medicare)
What I have done for years and years here Priscilla is come much further to having respect for some elements of conservatives and their ideas than you have towards showing any respect or understanding towards the left side.
My argument is simple, you don’t like your side being demonized and don’t like generalizations that the right is hateful, then don’t demonize the left in the same way. You feel that it is wrong to demonize the right but correct to demonize the left. And now I mean right and left broadly, right of center, left of center, the largest left and right.
Did I say that the right, as in all of it, or most of it, condones racism? I wrote somewhere above yesterday that “Establishment Republican politicians have covered themselves in honor responding to Charlottesville. That part of the party is still decent and will win in the end I believe.” I also wrote that “If he had communicated the best American ideals clearly, as nearly all other Republican politicians did effortlessly…” In other words I give credit to the existence of an honest decent respectable tendency of the GOP and conservatives. I do not believe that there is no good in the GOP, no good ideas, no good people. I have said so many times, perhaps that is why you still seem to have a good opinion of me in spite of my outbursts of anger and temper. I have said that trump choose a well qualified decent Supreme court pick and a good defense secretary. I said yesterday that I don’t believe that trump is a racist, he is just clumsy and I said it first on the day that Charlottesville happened. Perhaps you missed what I wrote yesterday because it was so buried under Dave’s dump.
Can I find any on the right who encourage racism? Sure, Coulter and Breitbart make a quick start to that list. And the racists respond by loving them for it. Now maybe Bannon and Coulter are not actually racists, just clever and unprincipled business people who will say whatever if it sells to the vulgar element, who knows. Loyal republicans have the tendency to see racism Nowhere, its just gone, or so they think. Polls show that minorities have not noticed that racism disappeared. Two different universes with two different windows on reality.
I want a country in which the reasonable bearers of the liberal and conservative traditions share power. I have written that half of each party is not crazy and can get together and govern. Your response was sarcasm about the existence of Democrats who are not crazy. So, you are never, never, never going to join me in that kind of desire to share power. You want a world in which right defeats left because left has nothing good to offer. You are nearly as extreme as Dave is, if not so crazy sounding. You never have and you never will meaningfully and with passion criticize conservatives or Republicans on anything but minor style points. While you want a world in which people stop thinking badly of you because you are conservative, all the same you wish to be free to think nothing but dark, negative, insulting things about liberal politicians, ideas, and in general liberals themselves. You have this quality of being very gracious to particular people, say your liberal friends, as well as me, but not at all generous to the classes of people, e.g. liberals, that they represent in more abstract form. There is not the slightest give in you about party loyalty, Republicans good, correct, true, Democrats terrible, foolish dishonest.
Why do you expect me to like that? You are nice enough to me, considering that I am one of the heathen, but you have no respect at all for my ideological group, never have since we have been here. You have Dave’s opinion of the left without being so loud about it.
So there we are. When you want to let go of your Dave-like hysteria about the left, then talk to me about how trump voters should be treated and I may have more sympathy.
Your ideas deserve respect based on their merit.
There is no some rule that requires that all ideas be given equal respect.
You keep making this about emotion.
There is only one emotional argument of merit being made:
The left continues to label 50% of the country racist white supremacists.
If that is true – the left is F’d.
If it is false the left is immoral.
I prefer to beleive the later, and the former is just stupid.
You are free to call anyone you wish a hateful hating hater.
But doing so is the road to political ruin, and you do not seem to grasp that.
You can demonize whoever you please. but doing so on the scale the left is currently doing is unbelievably dangerous.
When you call half the nation racists and white supremecists,
They are going to hate you, and they are not going to give a damn about you – and you clearly hate them and do not give a damn about them.
The next step is to depersonalize them so you that you no longer have to respect their rights. That BTW was the approach the actual Nazi’s used – and it is the tactic the left is using right now.
It is easier to be violent to subhumans.
We all watched Charlottesville and it was hard to feel sympathy for the “nazi’s”.
But then we saw the same things in Berkeley and Boston – and again they were being called Nazi’s – only now they were clearly not.
Regardless, you keep trying to make this about how I “feel”.
To the extent that feelings are an issue at all it is YOUR feelings that are the problem.
You are making decisions based on emotions.
And you are quite open about it.
That is never going to lead to good outcomes.
We are not using right and left the same way.
And post this election that is actually quite important.
Though there are a number of ways to divide the pie – by ideology, by party, …
Regardless, Both parties make up about 50% of the country.
Most of us do not fall into either the left or right.
There are some complexities – because by party democrats are more numerous than republicans, By ideology conservatives are more numerous than progressives.
But either way both only make up about 50% of the pie.
Though democrats outnumber republicans – republican voters often outnumber democrats – because the “middle” leans right.
That 50% in the middle is not even close to homogenous.
Regardless, when I am talking left and right I am NOT talking about that 50% in the middle, many of whom vote republican or democrat.
When I speak of the left, I am talking about progressives.
That is at most about 29% of the country and more like 25%.
But they are the CORE of the democratic party.
And they are why post election the party is moving hard left.
And if they do that democrats are in serious trouble.
These are the people that are making up the viewers of MSNBC, CNN, ….
Just as my “right” are the viewers of Fox.
I do not ever watch either, though I sometimes watch youtube clips from all of them.
With respect to you and Jay – based on posts here – you are in that left group, not the middle. Rick is in the middle. Most of the time I would say he is in the left of the middle, but his Charlottesville post surprised me.
And one of the problems the left has and one of the reasons they lost the last election, is you can maybe get away with calling the actual right – approx. 35% on the right, “racists” ….
But increasingly the indentity politics of the left has an increasing portion of those in the middle going “Me ?”
Trump won big in blue collar white democrats in the rust belt
Democrats are going to have a very hard time getting these voters back.
Because they have spent the past 2 years calling them hateful, hating haters.
You can get away with calling social conservatives that – even though mostly it is not true.
But the net got cast far far too wide and you have screwed yourselves.
Worse still the tirade after the election is solidifying those voters against democrats.
It is getting harder and harder to get them back.
I am just peering into the crystal ball.
But what I am saying is consistent with the polling I am seeing.
The left has very successfully driven Trump’s negatives down.
At the expense of driving everyone else’s down even more.
Democrats are less popular than Trump, Republicans less, government less, The press less. …
One thing that you should think of is that when polling goes that far negative.
lots of our traditional metrics for predicting elections do not work.
Trump never should have been able to get elected with his negatives.
But he was.
I do not BTW think the majority of Trump voters like Trump alot.
I think the Clive Crook article is only partly true.
There are some voters that really truly like Trump.
But there are alot of voters that just disliked Clinton more.
Absent the identity politics Democrats could have gotten those voters back int he future.
But it is not easy to get somebody back once you have called them a racist.
So to further clarify – this is not about the right 50% and the left 50%.
And your problem is you have demonized people who are not republicans.
Or they weren’t/.
No I do not want republicans and democrats to “share power”,
I want a less powerful govenrment. The last think I want is those in the GOP and democrats to get together and empower government even further.
This “crazy Dave” rot is no different from the half the country is racist, nonsense.
I have asked you repeatedly to make arguments – reason. logic, facts.
You respond with emotion and ad hominem.
I am not the crazy one.
I get that you do not like my arguments.
But I do not care how you FEEL about them.
An argument has merit based on reason, logic, facts – reality.
Not emotion.
Invalid arguments are not that difficult to refute.
Crazy is just insulting them away.
I can not specifically recall instances in which Priscilla has criticized republicans.
But I do not have an impression of her as hyper partisan.
I have criticized Trump and republicans several times today.
Regardless, you seem again to be seeking some kind of equivalence.
You seem to presume that we do not need to look at the actual ideas and policies, that we should just be able to presume at any time that there is about the same amount of merit or demerit from each party or each side.
Bzzt, wrong. Each idea gets evaluated on its own merits. There is no law that says 50% of democratic ideas must be good and 50% of republican ideas must be good.
Each idea stands on its own regardless of party.
Separately the GOP over the past 2 decades has been shifting away from social conservatives – that is a good thing.
More recently they have been shifting away from neocons and establishment republicans, Also both good shifts. Unfortunately Trump channeled the pat buchannon wing of the party – not good.
Since Bill Clinton the democrats have been drifting ever further left.
that is a bad thing.
Why is priscilla or anyone else obligated to respect a vile ideology ?
I do not use liberals. The only actual liberals today are libertarians.
The more accurate term for the left today is progressive.
I have lots of “progressive” friends. I treat them with respect.
I would not discuss most of the topics we discuss here with them.
We would come to blows.
I am capable of appreciating that they are good people who beleive bad things.
I respect them because outside of politics – they actually do good things.
When I am forced into a political discussion with them, I try hard to shift conversation to a topic where there is some common ground – like police militarization or the war on drugs.
If I am forced into a discussion of a subject like the social safetynet.
I am either going to pull my punches, lie or remain silent.
Because as evidenced here – those on the left are not capable of rational discussion over topics they are emotionally bound too.
I am not going to lose friends over these issues.
But I would note – I am the one who must censor myself – not them.
I have litterally bit my tongue for more than an hour listening to a good friend who is an actual communist – he is politically an idiot. He is still a friend. But if I were to criticise him we would not remain friends. He could not cope with the fact that we disagree.
I also have conservative friends.
Conservatives are quite different. They are used to disagreement.
I can tell a conservative that something they believe is completely stupid, and remain friends. Conservatives tolerate different viewpoints. Amoung other reasons because conservatives are far less monolithic than progressives.
If Roby or Jay ventured into a world of real conservatives and made friends – they can be assured of being called idiots repeatedly, but if they are decent people few conservatives are going to end relationships over politics.
Progressives do all the time.
I have “hysteria” over one thing.
The left is driving things such that one way or another there is going to be violence.
That is about all I am “hysterical” about.
Further I am not the one who seems to know no other means to past than ad hominem and appeals to emotion.
I can not force you but can you atleast stick to your own feelings.
Please quit telling me what I feel and think.
You are absolutely abysmal at intuiting my thoughts and feelings.
I mean come on “bitter” ? How exactly does that fit ?
Am I bitter because trump won ? That does not make sense.
What is it that I am bitter over ?
Are you freaking kidding me??!!
” You never have and you never will meaningfully and with passion criticize conservatives or Republicans on anything but minor style points. ”
I have criticized Republicans repeatedly, and I think that mainstream Republicans in Washington, although not as extreme as mainstream Democrats these days, have squandered most of their political capital by telling voters one thing and doing another. Or, if you prefer more direct language, the party as a whole has become nothing but a bunch of dishonest elites.
My point always, in regard to explaining Trump, is to look at the failures of the two major parties, and you will have all of the explanation you need for why Trump won. Not because of Nazis, or Ann Coulter or Steve Bannon….because of the entitled corrupt political class in Washington DC. Or “the swamp” as Trumpists are fond of calling it.
Now, where you are correct about my view is that I dislike the Democrats more than I dislke the Republicans. But that would NOT be true, if the Democrats were a fiscally responsible, i.e. less socialist dominated, party, or a party that could somehow come up with a candidate that had more to offer than his/her race or gender. Leftist ideology and identity politics have ruined the Democratic Party just the same as stagnant conservatism and populism are tearing apart the Republican Party.
A pox on both their houses. I just happen to think that the Republicans are the lesser of the evils right now. But they’re catching up.
But keep going after my poor little poodle as if he were a rabid pit bull 😉
Oh, and while I’m at it, let me say that the Democrats, although they have purged just about every moderate out of their party, are better than Republicans at doing what they are supposed to do, which is to legislate. Not much better, mind you, but whole advantage of having a political party in control of the Congress is for that party to pass laws that benefit the public that elected them.
The Democrats don’t quite do that ~ it’s more like they pass laws that benefit the lobbyists that help them get elected ~ but at least, when they did control the Congress, they moved heaven and earth to pass a giant stimulus bill and a national health insurance bill. Of course, both of those bills were so bad, that they lost control of Congress.
On the other hand, after campaigning for 7 years to get control of both legislative houses, the GOP can’t pass much of anything, despite having a president who would sign pretty much anything that they passed. They are pathetic. They’re giving moderates a bad name.
Priscil!a, hold on a second. ” They are pathetic. They’re giving moderates a bad name. ”
The GOP is not controlled by moderates. They are controlled by those like the Freedom Caucus and whatever the Tea Party wing is now (ie Cruz). Had it not been for the far right controlling the agenda, maybe we would have gotten 75% of Obamacare repealed. Now we are stuck with Obamacare. Dave will say it is better to not get 75% repealed, but I am not as conservative as him and believe like Reagan believed in moderation to get some of what you want.
Now they will fight over tax reform and get nothing passed. And then infrastructure and most likely will not agree.
Priscil!a, you might want hold on a second. ” They are pathetic. They’re giving moderates a bad name. ”
The GOP is not controlled by moderates. They are controlled by those like the Freedom Caucus and whatever the Tea Party wing is now (ie Cruz). Had it not been for the far right controlling the agenda, maybe we would have gotten 75% of Obamacare repealed. Now we are stuck with Obamacare. Dave will say it is better to not get 75% repealed, but I am not as conservative as him and believe like Reagan believed in moderation to get some of what you want.
Now they will fight over tax reform and get nothing passed. And then infrastructure and most likely will not agree.
Here I must disagree.
Our founders did not immagine a congress permanently in sessions.
Our legislators, were farmers and businessmen, who came to washington rarely.
Legislation was not the constant product of the legislature.
I think we should go back to that.
Lets get rid of pay for legislators.
eliminate their staff,
and keep them in session 3 months a year.
Add to this revoking the delegation of legislative power to the executive, and now we might have a reasonable government.
I expressed myself unclearly. I should have said you never criticize your team from the perspective of a moderate along the lines of “this thing they just did was too extreme for me.”
Yes, you criticize them, for not scoring point as if it were a football game and you think the quarterback sucks. I call those style points, they are not criticism of substance, ideology from the standpoint of a moderate. When you have criticized particular republicans its been the moderates you went after, McCain is one of the biggest hypocrites in Washington, etc. You want goals scored, party unity behind the president’s agenda.
You have said you are not religious and that you are more liberal on abortion than the GOP platform, if I remember correctly. So, when they went after planned parenthood I might have thought there was some daylight between the GOP and you. But no, you were there with them. Sherriff Arpeio, likewise, room there for moderate criticism, and many in the party did, but not you. Greg Gianforte assaulting a reporter? You are aghast at political violence. So, there was a golden chance to be against a case on your side. Ah, he might need anger management was your punishing statement. Are they ever ever too extreme for you? If not, are you a moderate? Because I think the moderates of the parties are the ones who can say that the left and right have gone too far. You seem opposed to those people on the GOP side. I don’t see any signs that the conservatives could go too far for you, you think they don’t go far enough as far as I can tell. Correct me if I have it wrong. That is what I was trying to say.
Plus, you just see democrats as socialists. Standard rhetoric of the right for the last forever. Whatever Dems do, its socialist. Yeah, dems spend money on social programs it is a defining point. Keeping it reasonable but not cutting it to the bone, that is the middle point that reasonable conservatives and liberals could negotiate.
You have a desparate need to control.
You not only require parity in our criticism of the right and left – but we must criticise the specific groups you wish in the way you wish – otherwise we are “partisan”.
I have a great deal of respect for John McCain the polite.
Not alot for John McCain the senator.
You seem to think that merely by placing a pin in the right place on the spectrum that determines merit. McCain must be a good guy because his pin is near the center.
Government should not be funding Planned parenthood.
Nor should it be funding ExIm, or myriads of other things.
Cutting PP’s funding does not make me part of the religious right.
I have contributed to PP. That does not mean I think government should.
You are incapable of seeing issues through any lens but that of hard right/left.
Arpaio should have been jailed long ago.
Trumps pardon was bad.
But not as Bad as that of Mark Rich or the FALN terrorist, or Manning.
Gianaforte was appropriately punished for a relatively minor incident.
One that bordered on being justified.
If you tresspass and shove somebody, they might shove back harder.
Regardless the Montana courts handled it.
And Montana voters made their choice – I did not.
I do not get to vote in montana.
Gianaforte was not “political violence”.
He lost his temper with a very beligerant reporter.
It was not antifa vs. nazi’s.
He might need anger management.
Do you think the Montana courts got it wrong ?
I do nto think shoving a beligerant reporter is a capital offense.
Nor did montana voters.
Do I need to give you a list of republicans who went to jail for misdeeds ?
Hassert, Cunningham ?
If the shoe fits.
“Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.”
While the definition above fits democrats today quite well.
It does not address so called “social programs”
These too are a form of socialism.
They are destructive, do not work, harm those they are purported to help,
and far too many republicans support them.
We are unfortunately stuck with most of them.
One of the failures of the democrats in the last decade is the failure to grasp that as a nation while we still want “free things”. We actually know they are a bad idea, and we do nto want anymore programs to bankrupt the country.
What I would like to know is how Democrats manage to live with themselves.
Obamacare is a failing disaster.
The direct cost to govenrment has been 1.6T/decade. To consumers another 1.3T/decade, and the economic harm – probably another 5T.
This is your idea of success ?
In return a bunch of people got health insurance – at gun point.
I have added another recent study to the list of
“health insurance does nto change health outcomes”,
We have seen no change in mortality trends.
So PPACA has accomplished nothing but waste alot of money and let some people feel more financially secure.
I believe that politicians, including John McCain (whom I voted for, btw), including Donald Trump, including that guy from Montana (who clearly DOES have anger management issues!), including Nancy Pelosi, including all of them, should be praised when they do something good and condemned when they do something bad. I don’t give a rip about how well they can pretend to care about us, or how mellifluous their speaking voice is, how well-dressed they are, or whether they are black or white. It’s actions that I care about.
As it happens, I was coming back here tonight to say that I commend Nancy Pelosi for her a strong statement that she issued today, condemning Antifa for its violence against free speech in Berkeley. It was an unequivocal statement, which called for violent protestors to be arrested ~ something that hasn’t been happening much, largely due to the ill-considered stand down orders given to the Berkeley police.
Pelosi deserves praise for this. Does that mean that I will never again criticize her? Don’t count on it.
I am always very interested in what you have to say. You often make me think twice, maybe three times, about things. But we often land on different sides of the debate anyway. That’s ok with me.
Roby’s position goes beyond your criticism.
He is actually arguing for a moral equivalence of hurt feelings.
We do not justify the use of force based on hurt feelings.
That is pretty litterally what AntiFa is doing.
While they are engaged in direct violence,
it is not moral even when you attempt to do so indirectly – through government.
The entire left is not guilty of advocating for direct violence – though it took FAR to long for them to recognize it an explicitly reject it.
But far too large a portion of the left finds government suppression of hurtful speach legitimate.
Actually you prove my point.
I am not trying to argue that the KKK is communist.
All I that I need to establish is that they are not the logical extreme of the right.
Antifa is the logical extreme of the left.
The KKK has its own ideology that once coincided strongly with that of progressives.
Today on SOME issues progressives have diverged.
Both the KKK and NeoNazi’s are proponents of STRONG government.
Both are proponents of government imposing its will by force on people in far broader areas than most of us are comfortable with.
The difference between the KKK and modern progressivism is that modern progressives have taken a different position on the issue of race.
But the fact that the KKK is racist, and modern progressive are less so,
does not make the KKK suddenly the logical extreme of the right rather than the left.
I would further note that the KKK is actually more progressive than modern progressives.
The KKK’s position is no different from the core of progressivism – that the elites know best.
What separates the KKK from the modern left is not ideology.
It is just the choice of who the “elites” are.
I am not likely to persuade you that the KKK is really a leftist organization.
But they are clearly not on the right either,
More importantly they are a mirror for progressive, not conservatives.
Maybe a distorted mirror, but still a mirror.
Through to 2010 the KKK was represented in the US senate by a southern progressive democrat.
What is repugnant is for you to conflate the warped rantings of schitzophrenics or other deleriously mentally disturbed people with bits and peices of the ideology they absorbed.
Roof, Fields, Chrisian, Probably Hodgkins, Kazinsky, Lanza, Holms Loughner, Stack.
are all deeply disturbed people.
All of them have mangled rants – that can not really be attributed to any ideology.
I can take nearly all an easily argue they were on the left rather than the right.
But in reality they were just delusional.
What you are calling my McVeigh like manefesto is little more than paraphrasing the declaration of independence.
Regardless, I am not personally going there, but you seem to be blind to the fact that the more violent the left becomes the more people on the right are going to go there.
People challenged the USSR in Hungary, and later in Prague. Eventually they succeeded in east Germany – are you saying those people were vile ?
It is not opposition to government that is inherently evil, it is where that opposition is taking you. Antifa seeks radical socialism, communism or anarchism, and it is willing to violently oppose any – government or otherwise that get in its way.
McVeigh is evil – not because he responded violently to lawless govenrment – but because his violence was not targeted at the actually lawless.
My ideas are little different from those that created this country.
My ideas are those of some of the most brilliant and respected thinkers of the past 250 years.
My ideas conform to natural law, human nature and reality. Yours do not.
My ideas do not require me to be in a constant state of cognative dissonance with the real world.
Regardlessm if those ideas were so at odds with facts and logic you would have little difficulty disposing them.
You would not need to respond with appeals to emotion, or constant logical fallacies.
What is, is – regardless of whether we like it or not. Regardless of whether we call it crazy or extreme or try to find other baseless derogatory labels.
We’re all south of the 60 year mark, I assume.
Here’s what many of the younger gen think of tRump’s veracity.
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/348514-trevor-noah-on-trumps-russia-comments-how-can-someone-lie-so-big?amp
If the link doesn’t work:
Pelosi Statement Condemning Antifa Violence in Berkeley
San Francisco — Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement denouncing the violent protests carried out this weekend in Berkeley, California:
“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts. The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.
“In California, as across all of our great nation, we have deep reverence for the Constitutional right to peaceful dissent and free speech. Non-violence is fundamental to that right. Let us use this sad event to reaffirm that we must never fight hate with hate, and to remember the values of peace, openness and justice that represent the best of America.”
You know, I am going to tell you now, that no words anyone says and no events that will have any impact on their opinions. They are married to the idea of the violent homogenous left destroying their country. The idea of the violent left is something that they need to make their world balance.
Are you saying that the left has not spent the past decade (or more) calling those who disagree with it hateful hating haters ?
Are you saying that a significant portion of the left would not criminalize “hate speech” – and in some instances has already done so ?
Are you saying that the left is not constantly conflating their own emotional response with actual violence ?
Are you saying that the left is not broadly willing to infringe on the rights of others using emotional justifications ?
Are you saying that we have not run out of “other peoples money” and are now stealing 20T of our childrens wealth to continue our unsustainable spending ?
Are you saying that the assorted social safetynet programs of the left have actually worked ?
I can go on an on.
Absolutely – those on the right have some culpability in some of the above, as well as grevious errors of their own.
I am not interested in an argument that democrats can do stupid and unsustainable things because republicans have also done stupid and unsustainable things.
If it is stupid and unsustainable – it needs to stop, regardless of the party.
For the past decade the stupid and unsustainable things of the left are the bigger and more pressing problem.
But I am prepared to terminate stupid and unsustainable government – regardless of whose ox is gored.
Are you ?
I have no evidence that you can.
You continue to make decisions based on feelings not facts,
Good intentions trump reason, logic and predictable failure.
Further you keep pretending this is somehow partisan.
Not only didn’t I vote for Trump in 2016, But from president to dog catcher – I voted for 1 republican, and 1 democrat, and all the rest libertarians.
The republican and democrat were each for offices where there either was no libertarian or the “libertarian” was a real dingbat.
As I have said before – Obama is a good person. He was a bad president.
Trump is not a good person. Thus far he has been a better president.
I am measuring them by their actions not their words.
Worse – even on the issues where there is some possibility we could have common ground – you do not have a rational or sustainable solution.
I want open borders. I am with Emma Lazurus. But if we are opening the door to the world, we must not sink the ship. This is the land of opportunity – not the land of the handout. I do not like Trump’s immigration policies. But they are more sustainable than those of the left. You want open borders – tell me how you are going to make that work.
I want actual free trade. But even the trump haters here want the same managed trade trump claims to be after.
I want to end the war on drugs, and the militarization of the police.
I have been shocked to find how incredibly complicit the left is in that.
Some things are quite warped. Democrats have fallen all over themselves to out do republicans on law and order issues. So much of the bad drug war legislation is from democrats I am shocked. Yet the public is absolutely convinced that Democrats are “soft on Crime”
Conversely Nixon was one of the most progressive presidents we have had.
He proposed universal healthcare, he created OSHA, the EPA, Department of Education,
Bush II did NCLB, Sarbox, and Medicare D,
And yet everyone beleives that only democrats are progressive.
I think that Pelosi’s statement was great, and I commend her for making it. I hope that it’s the start of the Democratic Party leadership ‘s disavowal of Antifa. Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren have called out these thugs in the past, as well.
Maybe they will speak out against Antifa when the blackshirts show up at Berkeley in a couple of weeks to shut down Ben Shapiro. Or a week later, when they plan to riot speeches by, Milo, Coulter and Bannon.
It’s important that both parties make clear that violence on either the right or the left is unacceptable and criminal, especially if it is in the name of shutting down speech that they find offensive or repugnant.
If that means I’m “married” to the idea that the violent left is dangerous to our democracy, then, yeah, I’m goin’ to the chapel.
And where were statements like this two weeks ago ?
Are you now prepared to accept:
There was violence on both sides ?
There is not even moral equivalnce between supressing the speach of others and speaking bad things – supression is always the greater evil.
Its a good step Priscilla. One consequence of distinguishing the various left actors, groups, and shades and putting them in perspective, is that you will feel better. It can’t be pleasant thinking that the left is one big unified violent mob. Really, we aren’t. We are just ordinary people with a liberal viewpoint, as you were once.
The are reasons that there is more of certain types of violence on the left and that left and right violence tend to have different character.
The left is more collectively focused – therefore violence tends to be group violence.
Antifa today, SDS, SLA, Weather underground red brigades in the past.
Further violence is literaly dogma in marxist-lenonism.
A violent uprising of the proliteriate against the borgousie is communist doctrine.
Separately the left and YOU constantly equate your own emotional responses with being the victim of actual violence.
When you legitimze the collective use of force against speach that you find hurtful, it is a small step to justifying collective violence for whatever reasons.
Lone actors like Hodgkins on the left are rare – and I would suspect Hodgkins is more likely a mental health issue than an ideological violence issue. ‘
Most lone acts of “political” violence are the result of mental health issues.
Even McVeigh is of questionaable mental health.
That said violence on the right is far more likely to be individual.
Collective violence ont he right is nearly always defensive.
The Unite the right groups came to Charlottesville itching for a fight. and well prepared,
but that preparation was entirely defensive – riot gear, The left came offensively – concealing their identity, and with baseball bats, tear gas, urine filled bottles.
The Bundy’s in Utah were defensively postured,
The incidents at Ruby Ridge and Wacco were defensive.
The assorted right militias are all out in the woods waiting for the government to come and get them.
Roby, I do not see the left as a monolith. I’ve said (quite a few times, lately, I think) that I use “the left” as a general term for those who are left of center, and maybe I shouldn’t. Lord knows, most of my closest friends and many of my relatives are left of center, so it’s not as if I see them as sans-culottes or brownshirts. So, point taken.
Some ways farther up this thread, I attempted to make the point that it is wrongheaded and unfair to smear the entire right as Nazis and racists, and unfair to call Trump a Nazi and a racist, simply because he chose to lay blame for the Charlottesville violence on both sides. I was shocked, honestly, when many politicians on both the left and the right, as well as partisans like Jay, rushed to defend Antifa, and compared them to US soldiers in WWII, who fought Hitler’s armies. I’m not easily shocked, but I found that comparison disgusting and disrespectful.. And, lest you think I’m picking on Jay, I was pretty damn shocked to hear moderates like Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio also put out statements implying that violence was ok, as long as it was against the alt-right. I thought better of them, but it reminded me why it’s always foolish to trust politicians.
Anyway, now that Pelosi has done the right thing, everyone who kowtowed to media pressure to insist that racism should be punished with violence, is scrambling to say what Trump said right from the start ~ that there is hatred and bigotry on both sides.
I’ve gotta say, I didn’t expect this from Pelosi. The whole situation is kind of ironically funny. Maybe Nancy and The Donald will get together and form a third party 😉
I agree.
I try to avoid using unfair – as it is a term with uncertain meaning.
I would have said wrong.
The left seems to think everything is the job of the government – that converts everything into a national debate.
Beyond courts requiring government to protect the first amendment rights of protestors, nothing that has happened at charlottesville or Boston, or Berkeley or … is the business of the federal government.
Trump’s first statement now appears to nearly all to have been correct, and that means the media and left games following it were stupid, and wrong.
What happens to these statues is up to the communities they are in. While we can protest for their preservation or removal as we please. Unless you live in those communities you have no vote.
But the debate is over our history as well as our monuments. The left is seeking to do more than erase monuments, it is seeking to erase history. That I object to.
We need to remember – both the great things these people accomplished and the evil that they did.
We need to remember because the good they accomplished changed the world.
We need to remember because even great people do bad things. Just as they were not immune to doing evil – neither are we. Genocide and slavery are not the actions of heathens from another world. But of civilized people no different from ourselves.
One of the reasons that the Nazi’s are more archetypally evil than the USSR and the PRC, is because Germany is the craddle of western civilization. The people of Beethoven, and Bach and Mozart and Geothe, and Durer, Brecht, Schiller, Hesse, Gauss, Kepler, Kant.
These people not so different from us murdered millions of others.
The bloodshed of Stalin and Mao dwarfs that of Hitler – but Stalin and Mao were not the leaders of enlightened and civilized western countries.
We need to remember the good and the bad of Germany and of our forefathers, so that we understand that same good and evil is in us.
The entire whitewashing of Antifa was very disturbing to me.
Antifa is by far the more important current.
The fight over statues is inconsequential.
Periodic marches of Nazi’s and the KKK do not reflect some change in our national character.
Every so often there will be a dylan Roof or a Jeremey Christians or Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Stack, …..
None of these are symptoms of ideological shifts right or left.
Heather Heyer’s murder is unfortunate and should be punished.
It is not symbolic, nor does it portend anything.
Both the recent substantial growth of AntiFa, and the breadth and depth of support on the left – even just the lack or delayed condemnation, is significant, and does reflect shifts in this county.
The left is actively debating whether some speach is actual violence, whether some speach can be banned, whether some violent acts are justified by current political circumstances.
The entire left is not falling on the side of anarchy and violence.
The debate itself is a legitimate example of free expression.
But the fact that the left is actually having these discussions is very disturbing, and dangerous
One of the reasons we do not ban speach is because bad speach is a signal, and the message from the left is deeply concerning.
I did not expect those remarks from Pelosi either.
She has earned alot of respect from me for that.
More of this leftist nonsense confusing facts with feelings and beleifs.
We have been over this multiple times.
If you are desparate to over parse Trump’s remarks.
You still get at best inconsequential incongruence.
To use the analogy in your article.
If you asked Trump if he ever bought a Mumford album during the campaign and he said no, and you found security camera footage of him looking at a Mumford CD in a music store – that still would not be a lie.
That is what you have.
Arguably if the matter was very serious and Trump had thoroughly reviewed his records – as you are required to do before giving testimony under oath – atleast with regard to questions that you know you will be asked, then you have an instance of not telling the whole truth. But even if this entire mess had been conducted under oath – you still would not have perjury.
But the next problem you have is this is not a serious matter.
Whether Trump had business dealings with Russians is not actually the issue.
It is only relevant IF it leads to conspiracy with russia to alter the outcome of the election.
Talks with Russians about a future Trump tower that fizzle are evidence that there was NOT such a conspiracy.
You are putting much more weight on this than it will bear.
BTW is does not matter how many young people think something is a lie.
People beleive lots of things that are not true.
https://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/82917/
I already posted that link, and commended Pelosi for doing the right thing for once.
Fox News Poll
“Voter satisfaction with the direction of the nation is down by double digits, as a majority says President Donald Trump is tearing the country apart.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/30/fox-news-poll-voters-mood-sours-56-percent-say-trump-tearing-country-apart.amp.html
When you beleive that government is the answer to everything – then you must also beleive that when you do not have the outcome you want – that is govenrment too.
Trump is not “tearing the country apart” – the left is.
The poll notes it was before Harvey, that also means it was before berkeley
As the pelosi statement we both linked to notes – attitudes on that are changing.
I do not think that Harvey is really a federal matter, It is political theater. Trump is doing better at it than Bush. But reall recovery has little to do with FEMA.
Texas will likely recover better and faster – because it has a more robust economy and a better attitude. Aparently Harvey is hitting LA, that could be bad.
“While the findings are sharply divided along partisan lines — with 15 percent of Republicans describing Trump as “tearing the country apart” but a whopping 93 percent of Democrats saying he is ”
So what we have here is that democrats remain totally batshit crazy whigged out and radically skew polls.
My bet is that you could get 56% of the country do poll that Trump is a blood sucking vampire – when you start with 93% of democrats getting to 50% is not hard.
All you are proving is that the left has whigged out.
There has been discussions on this site concerning jobs and pay. Mookie, wherever she may have gone, was persistent in her comments. This evening there was a story on the local news that Greensboro N.C. is short about 20 911 dispatchers and emergency 911 operators. These jobs require a person to be 18 years old, be a high school graduate or have a GED and a few more qualifications, like not being a convicted felon because it is working for the local government or being a citizen, no illegal aliens. These jobs have a starting pay of around $13,00 per hour for someone without any work history and can pay up to an average starting pay of $16.00 depending on work history. The top pay is around $50K.
We hear all the time that people want a minimum wage of $12-$15 an hour, but what good will that do when jobs paying in that range can not attract enough applications to keep the positions filled. This may not be a great salary, but for a HS graduate just out of school, when you add in all the government benefits, it sure beats McDonalds. And after a few years, the average pay is not all that bad for a low cost of living area for a high school graduate.
And the liberals wonder why the conservatives can not get as outraged as they are when hourly wages are discussed. This is an excellent example of people just wanting to bitch about something and not really wanting to do a job that might require some work.
Ron, your comment made me think of how many ways our employment marketplace has rewarded the “bitchers and whiners”.
Many large corporations (J&J, where I worked was like this) will not allow managers and supervisors to give recommendations ~ good or bad~ for former employees, for fear that one of them will sue the company and say that a poor reference kept them from getting a better job (kind of the point, no?). The law says that only an inaccurate recommendation would be subject to this kind of legal action, but corporate legal doesn’t want to take the chance. As a result, a lazy employee who did a crappy job at J&J can use that experience to get a better job somewhere else.
Many states now prohibit employers from asking about arrests and criminal convictions on job applications. I know, in NJ, an employer can only ask for that information after a job offer has been made, not during the “weeding out” process.
It’s become increasingly hard, in corporate America, to fire someone for being lazy or for poor performance. In the case of federal and state employees, next to impossible. Between employment law and public employee unions, even employees who get caught watching porn on their work computers, smoking marijuana on the job, or having excessive absenteeism, can get away with just a suspension (often with pay).
I’m aware that most all of these laws/regulations/policies started out as protections for employees against bad bosses. But, in many ways, the balance has shifted, and employment decisions have been taken out of the hands of employers.
Those who don’t fight evil fight statues.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/29/those_who_dont_fight_evil_fight_statues_134864.html
So punch a reporter who is trying to give you an opportunity to speak – in front of a cop, and then argue it is “self defence” ?
Your govenrment $ at work.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/21/exclusive-2-million-government-program-gets-17-people-jobs/
Dave, You are at the center of your own universe. In mine you are just a hyperactive kook who stays up all night pounding on his keyboard. How Can I Make this Clear? I don’t care what you think, it has no persuasive power for me, your mind is s funhouse mirror of distortions, Why don’t you take a little break before you melt? I hope you can find some kind of peace, you are in a lather to put it mildly.
Roby
Obviously you care – you respond.
I understand I am not persuading you – you have made it clear that you do not care about reason, logic, facts, reality.
Nor are you persuading me – I do not care about fallacy, ad hominem, appeals to authority, appeals to emotion.
I can be sympathetic to your feelings, but they have no persuasive power.
In the same spirit as your post – that of directed other how to run their own lives.
Take a breath, quit trying to decide what others, think or feel.
No, I am not in a lather. I am not melting.
I can not speak to your ability to see inside the hearts and minds of others, but you have no ability to see inside of mine.
So I would recommend that you address (or not) my words – facts, logic and reason, rather than your misperception of my thoughts and emotions before you melt or work yourself into a lather.
Regardless, what is it about you left wing nuts that leads you to beleive that you have insight into the intentions, motives, thoughts and emotions or others.
Get a clue – you don’t. Pretending to just makes you look stupid.
I am trying to tone down the invective. But I do not know a more accurate statement describing trying to peer into the head and heart of someone you have never met, beyond stupid.
Though as you appear to see the world entirely through the lens of emotion, and your arguments are just appeals to emotion, I guess that should not surprise me.
If you want actual meaningful communication about the issues being addressed here,
Try using words according to their natural meaning, and stripping the hyperbolee, insult and emotion from your missives.
You might find that absent the tools that warp your expression we agree far more.
Empirical evidence of an environmental Kuznets curve.
Basically economic jargon for what I have been saying about environmental regulation.
That as a society develops first environmental quality will decline as standard of living increases as people produce more environmental destruction, but at some point increasing standard of living tips the scale and the value of environment increases and increasing standard of living will result in the improvement of the environment.
Even more simply – you do not need environmental regulation. what people value will improve when people are affluent enough for that value to be high enough to do so.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17574.full
All regulation of hiring and firing practices is stupid and horribly inefficient.
It is in the employer’s interests to hire the best people, and to fire the worst.
Who is hired and fired is NOT an issue of public interest.
If J&J has 50 jobs – it should not matter to government whether those jobs go to blacks. or criminals, or women or gays.
To the extent there is a public interest at all it would be to create more jobs, not participate in the process of deciding who gets jobs.
When there are 100 applicants for one job – there are 99 losers.
If does not matter alot who of the 100 applicants is the winner to anyone except the winner, the losers and J&J.
Why are we protecting employees from bad bosses ?
If a bad boss fires a good employee – they harm themselves.
Regardless, if one employee is fired another is hired – from the perspective of govenrment it does not matter hat particular citizen is employed.
Where there is an actual contract or agreement in place there is a government and public interest in enforcing that agreement.
But there is no government interest in deciding which marbles go into which holes.
When government favors one person – they harm another.
What happened in Berkeley
http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-beating-in-berkeley/article/2009498
New Poll Aug 27th- 29th
When a President turns out to be a ‘bum’ we should be able to throw the bum out.
There is. You can vote him out in 2020, or you can impeach him.
If you want another way – amend the constitution.
But remember – whatever methods you use will be used against you.
I can list far more misconduct on the part of Obama, than I can no the part of Trump.
If this Trump/Russia nonsense is impeachable – then why not lying about Benghazi ? That certainly influenced an election ?
We eliminate discretion – the rule of law, and hold everyone to the same standards, because we do not want our politics to be determined by emotion. And we certainly do not want our rights decided by the majority.
Actually the numbers are not “devastating”.
These are from the same poll posted elsewhere. here.
What is noteable in that poll is that antipathy is incredibly polarized,
Negative Traites that get 80% of democrats in favor of, only get 15% of republicans.
What is increasingly clear is that the left has gone off its meds.
That and possibly that republican support for Trump is higher than expected.
Pelosi has backpedalled from here statement.
Which I guess should not surprise me.
I have read alot about the Berkeley protests – and NO ONE was shouting “heil hitler”.
Joey Gibsion – the organizer for patriot prayer has disassociated his events from Trump.
While Trump supporters are welcome, he has made clear that his events are free speach events, and he is actively courting and receiving some support from the left – which is why He dropped Trump, he is trying to make his events about free speach not politics.
He is also personally commited to non-violence. Though he is a former football player in good physcial shape – and travels with a 300+lb Samoan he does not even defend himself. He will only engage in self protection.
I would further note as we are trying to pretend there is some moral equivalence,
and that the left aa a whole is no worse than the right as a whole.
I am away fo no college professors supporting white supremecists,
The entire right is falling over themselves to denounce Nazi’s and the KKK.
While there are a significant number of apologists and even advocates for AntiFa amoung college professors.
Everyone on the left is not a violent communist or anarchist.
But too many on the left are too comfortable with AnitFa.
Further a large portion of the left is comfortable with AntiFa’s goals – the supression of dissent, if not with their means.
If you do not think that the left is defending Antifa here is the DailyKOS doing exactly that.
This peice is the moral equivalent of National Review defending the KKK.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/30/1687619/-How-liberal-attacks-on-Antifa-uphold-white-supremacy
I was ready to agree with you based on the title. Then I followed the link. So, Dave, you are being dishonest. Its rather a painfully stupid piece of writing, but the author clearly has a very wide definition of antifas. Somewhere in one of your post you yourself indicated that antifas includes all kinds of people and not just violent anarchists.
So you yourself know better and are using words inaccurately and playing on peoples confusion to score a cheap propaganda point. Fail
If you wish to be so stupid that you believe that “the left” (no qualifiers, just the left period,) supports the violent anarchists go right ahead. Your monolithic left hatred just proves you are a nutjob. Perhaps you fear that my aged liberal mother is going to show up at your home and communize your apartment business. You can’t seem to distinguish Mao from my mother, which is a sure sign of ideologically induced idiocy.
99.99% of the “left” is not in the anarchist camp. Anarchists hate the democrats anyhow.
And, before you start to whine about me calling you a nutjob, give it up. You use ad hominem plenty yourself, so your complaints about that are hypocritical. Plus, you actually Are a nutjob so I am just stating an objective fact. To clarify further, you are a rightwing nutjob. Before you start to protest, I have to mention that if you can claim that the KKK are progressive then I am fully within my liberty to classify you as right wing, as you have many right wing characteristics, not the least of which is your fanatical hatred of anything that you can find some weaselly way to call left. Your bringing Stalin and Mao into the conversation of the relative evils of the violent American left and the violent American right recently is another clue that you are a right winger.
So, OK, I responded. I Care what you think. I care what you think because you are a stellar case of a right-wing crank with a nuclear powered typing habit, a propaganda writing purveyor of 1/32 truths, an ignoramus with a double overhead cam. If you were an honest thinker then you would not perpetually meet all the angry people you do in these conversations.
I strive not to use ad hominem.
There is a difference between calling an idea stupid and a person stupid.
I admit to occasionally resorting to the latter,
Calling an idea stupid is just hyperbole – the stupidity of the ide usually speaks for itself.
As you are identifying me as a nutjob – how about a definition of nutjob, as well as evidence supporting that conclusion.
I disagree with you vigorously on numerous issues.
I have provided reasoned, logical and empiracle evidence supporting my differences.
It would actually be credible for me to call you a nutjob.
You beleive things that are demonstrably false – many things.
Your attacks on me devolve to:
I am right
You disagree with me
therefore you are wrong
therefore you are a nutjob.
Your error is with your first premise.
The KKK and southern democrats were progressive, that is just a historical fact.
Just as that Nazi’s were socialists.
You can classify me however you wish.
That does nto make you right.
I get very tired of these lunatic everything is relative, and all viewpoints are equal arguments.
They are particularly disturbing as you do not beleive them. But you make them anyway.
Do I get to decide what I “hate” for myself – or are you the arbiter of everyone else’s thoughts and emotions ?
Get a clue, this projection of thoughts and emotions onto others is what lost you the last election and has alienated half the country from you.
You apparently are completely clueless regarding logical techniques
If you can not distinguish your position from an extremist position except by degree then the argument against the extreme position works against yous.
That is a matter of logic – reductio ad absurdem.
Further Mao and Stalin keep coming up because Hitler does.
There are only few distinctions between them – despite the fact that many tend to label Hitler right. Further of the three Hilter is the most benign, but the most reviled, because it is easier for us to pretend that Mao and Stalin are the product of uncivilized cultures.
Hitler and the Nazi’s are from our culture, therefore they must be uniquely repugnant so that we can explain to ourselves why we are not nazi’s.
“So, OK, I responded. I Care what you think. I care what you think because you are a stellar case of a right-wing crank with a nuclear powered typing habit, a propaganda writing purveyor of 1/32 truths, an ignoramus with a double overhead cam. If you were an honest thinker then you would not perpetually meet all the angry people you do in these conversations.”
So your argument is I am nuts, because my arguments make you angry ?
I can make no sense of your claim of misrepresentation.
Did you actually read the article ? DailyKOS cites Bray as an expert and specifically adopts his justification of violence.
Bray both here and elsewhere has repeatedly uses a self defence justification – fine I will buy that, EXCEPT that Bray considers speach that offends him as violence.
It is therefore in Bray’s world justifiable to punch someone you disagree with.
And DailyKOS adopt’s Bray.
DailyKOS may not reflect they entire left.
But they are as representative of the left as National Review is of the right.
I am not after “propoganda points”
Y’all seem to think that because I often defend or advocate some of the positions of the right – because the right is sometimes correct, that the right is “my tribe”, “my team” to be defended no matter what.
You are completely clueless. At different times in history and different places different groups and different ideas have been more dangerous than others.
In the US today the KKK, NeoNazi’s and white supremecists are not a serious threat to the nation or to peace and tranquiltiy. AntifFA is.
But MORE importantly is the extent to which the larger left is little more than a less extreme mirror for AntiFA.
This is the consequence of your destruction of language.
It is difficult for the left to properly condemn antifa, because the left has explicitly conflated
undesireable speach with violence. Accept that premise and Bray’s justification of antifa violence is logically correct.
I do not beleive that “the left” explicitly supports violent anarchist.
But thy do so implicitly and uncomfortably.
I keep trying to tell you that progressivism is rife with contradictions.
And that is exactly the problem you and DailyKOS are dancing arround.
Once you mangel the meaning of violence – self defence is a legitimate justification where it should not.
I do not know your mother. But I am not the slightest concerned about actual liberals.
The difference between modern progressives and Mao is merely one of degree.
BTW antifa is as you note not monolithic.
Factions are violenty anarchist
others are violently communists
or violently socialist
or violently anti-capitalist
or violently anti-racist.
The common thread is not anarchism – it is violence.
The core of antifa is that the use of violence to supress ideological enemies is justified.
The left as a whole has not gone that far – but it is far closer to accepting that than it was prior to the 2016 election.
Further the left as a whole ideologically accepts that certain ideas and expressions are violent. Once you accept that an idea or expression is violent you justify actual violence against it.
All antifa has done is taken a premise that most of the left accepts – that some expression is inherently violent, and followed a universally accepted premise – that violence is justified in response to violence.
I tend not to use democrats except where I mean democrats.
While the left currently owns the democratic party that is a recent development.
When I say left I mean collectivists (BTW the NeoNazi’s are collectivists).
Outside of the actual anarchists – and most people today who call themselves anarchists do not know what anarchy means, the entire left today is collectivist to one degree or another.
Whatever your mother is, if she is collectivist – that the extent she is I am concerned.
This country is not going to be destroyed by the KKK, or even by antifa.
But it is at significant risk of being destroyed by collectivism.
And antifa is but the tip of that spear.
“All antifa has done is taken a premise that most of the left accepts – that some expression is inherently violent, and followed a universally accepted premise – that violence is justified in response to violence.”
Which is bullshit, but ironically claiming that political violence is justified in response to political violence it is EXACTLY what you did above a few days back, to justify the coming right wing violence using left wing destruction of the country as your excuse. What you wrote was not a “warning” I hardly needed to be warned as I was the one who predicted it. It was a full fledged justification, your legal brief. Then you even claimed that what you wrote was simply more or less what the framers of the Constitution wrote!
Here is what you wrote: “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.”
Your words are clear; their meaning is obvious.
Now, there is not a person here so deluded that they will expect you to own to to the meaning of your own words, that would take an honest man, which you are not. But you are caught red handed. You are the very thing you fear: an ideologically extreme man rationalizing violence from your side by blanket demonizing the other side. Its loathsome. Your immorality and your dishonesty disgust me. Right-wing idiot!
Actual political violence is in some instances justified in response to actual political violence.
Once again you run afoul of you misuse of violence.
Actual violence is NEVER justified in response to expression, to unpleasant words.
Even when you falsely call those words violence.
Are the police justified in arresting protestors who assault the police or others ?
That is political violence in response to political violence.
If the police fail to protect us from the political violence of one group,
are they free to use political violence to take over government ?
Or if the police fail, does a point come at which we can respond to violence with violence ?
It is the INITIATION of violence that is immoral for individuals, and severely restricted fro govenrment,.
What is it you think I am not owning ?
What is it you think I have been caught red handed at ?
The american revolution was morally justified.
I am not hiding from that.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ”
“the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. ”
It is the obligation of govenrment to put down the violence of antifa.
If government fails to do so – then the rule of law collapses, and we are now free to ourselves.
Violence is a legitimate response to antifa – either the normal violence of the police or if that fails, then the violence of opposed citizenry.
Violence is also a legitimate response to a coup.
DailyKos is EXTREME Left.
They don’t represent the entire Left anymore than Brietbart represents the entire Right.
And the IDEA of confronting Alt Right Marchers is GRRRRREAT!
Of doing it violently, is not.
Blow, Blow, Windy Dave
Hot Air You Crave
The only arguably “alt-right” protestors have been at Charlottesville.
You are just praying more left wing nonsense – If you call someone a nazi – they must be a nazi. Does not matter if they are black, samoan, japanese american, or advocating for free speach and dialog.
If by confront, you mean engage is dialog that includes listening – absolutely.
If by confront you mean slug or shout down – then you are the Nazi.
Given that DailyKOS events are routinely attended by Reid, Boxer, Gore, Weseley Clark, Warner, Richardson and Dean – I think calling them extreme is a reach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos
And how is this different from Dylan Roof ?
Yet is the national media frothing over it ?
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article170340652.html
So is it acceptable for police to violently assault and arrest a nurse for refusing a police request to take blood from a patient illegaly ?
I would note that there is actually alot of law on this.
Had the nurse taken the blood, she could have been charge with assault.
The story gets worse the more you learn. The arresting officer was himself a trained phlebotomist. there have been numerous court cases on precisely this issue – including a supreme court decision last year that the office much have been aware of.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/01/every-cop-involved-in-the-arrest-of-this
Why aren’t you applauding the Left MSM for the outrage THEY are showing for this story?
It was propelled into public outrage by Lefty Tweeters who made the video go viral a full day before MSM picked it up. It’s a front page story on today’s NYT. CNN has covered it extensively. And, so far, no FAUX News claims from Trump.
Am I required to praise the media for doing their job ?
Fox, Brietbart, RT are Left MSM ?
And yes, I found it in Twitter, but not from the left.
I hope Trump does NOT comment. While the story is important, it is not relevant to the presidency.
Regardless, I keep hearing from those on the left how trustworthy government is.
Then how do things like this happen ?
“Regardless, I keep hearing from those on the left how trustworthy government iS”
Another idiotic statement from the Prince of Idiocy.
The Left is ALWAYS criticising government. Always has. Or haven’t you noticed the LOUD criticism from them of the present government in control of both houses & the presidency?
Some government is good, some bad – most sane people recognize that.
Only brain-drained defectives think itsy-bitsy teeny-weenie government is the solution – those with a beeny as mushy as linguini…
No the left is not always criticising govenrment.
In fact the left virtually never actually criticises government – it criticises the people running it – at the moment, and their policies – sometimes. But government itself is always for the left a force for good.
If only we could elect the right people.
James Buchannon and Public Choice Theory would agree completely.
But would note something you refuse to accept.
You CAN’T get the right people. History alone should tell you how hard and rare that is.
I can think of atleast a dozen nobel economics prize winners among those brain dead defectives, or Adam Smith, or John Locke, or Thoreaux, or ……
Actually I have heard very little criticism of government from the left currently.
The criticism of the left right now is much like yours – ad hominem and almost entirely attacks on people – and what they say, not what they do.
Another left take of AntiFa that is unintentionally hillarious but sad.
Gibson BTW is not far right.
Note the author equating Trump supporters with white supremists.
Note how the author constantly evalutates the merits of actions based on motives and intentions. He can see virtue in The AntiFa person who destroyed his camera – it is there in his face and eyes and therefore his violence can be understood and forgiven.
And later where he will return the property of another journalist – if that journalists is reporting from the correct perspective, otherwise it goes in the trash.
Has anyone on the left read the story of the good samaritan ?
Do none of you on the left grasp that acts are moral (or not) regardless of the virtue of lack of those on the otherside. ?
That good intentions do not make up for bad acts ?
https://newrepublic.com/article/144659/antifa-broke-camera
Another perspective
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/kevin-siers/article170543562.html
I have said repeatedly that the statues are the business of the communities where they exist.
I would expect that Russian history has not eliminated the chapter on the USSR.
The left is after more than statues, they are after history.
Excellent article by McCarthy on the Arpaio pardon, impeachment, and the Mueller investigation.
The gist of which is it is nearly impossible for the President to obstruct justice,
The power of the executive resides with the president – ALL the power!
The independence of other departments in the executive is aspirational – not real.
Ultimately only congress can hold the president accountable for using executive power constitutionally, but offensively.
To those of you who keep shouting that Trump is unqualified or whatever other perjorative you wish – there are only two remedies. Vote him out in 2020, or impeach him.
Muellers investigation is improper. It is an effort to make an end run arround the constitution and the rule of law. If you wish to investigate Trump, you must do so through congress. The executive branch is his, of it is acting at cross purposes to his wishes – even wishes you deem improper, he is entitled to terminate those acts.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451042/arpaio-pardon-why-doesnt-left-see-it-obstruction
Another huff and puff by Windy-Dave, who failed to mention this assertion in the linked article:
“Impeachment is the only context in which it is sensible to discuss President Trump’s warping of law-enforcement processes on behalf of political allies such as Arpaio and Flynn. A president may not be indicted for exercising authority he unquestionably has, no matter how disagreeable or even repugnant we may find the exercise. But if it is a corrupt exercise, he may be impeached over it.”
DUMP tRUMP!
I don’t like the piling on type of posting behavior, but I am going to pile on. Dave is intellectually dishonest to his core. Arguments that are 1/8. 1/16, or 1/32 true are 7/8, 15/16, and 31/32 false. Dave relentlessly builds his propaganda on such very, very partial truths. He is simply a nuclear powered liar, a fanatic, with an extreme agenda. Somewhere here he recently claimed that environmental regulation is completely unnecessary, that is just one example of his pure extremes. He is just waiting for someone to take him up on it so he can claim that every argument they make for any kind of environmental regulation is “fallacious.”
Imagine if I created an exact mirror-image Dave character here: 25-30 long tedious repetitive posts per day claiming that everyone on the right is the same, that they are all racists, that everything must be regulated, down to what time of day to turn off your lights and go to sleep. No one here would stand a week of the mirror image of Dave, it would be like Moogie with a double overhead cam on speed. I’ve listened to Dave’s garbage for 10 years. I want a purple heart for the injury to my brain in the Dave war.
💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜
Ten Purple Hearts, one for each year… 😎
Roby;
If you do not want to have your morals and integrity attacked – do not attack mine.
Before you left you ranted about the vitriol, and nastynes.
If you do not want things to get nasty – do not make accusations – especially false ones.
If you challenge someone elses integrity or morality, either you prove your allegation or you lose your own integrity or morality.
If you do not wish discussions to get heated – do not assert that the majority of what someone else says is a lie without proving it.
You seem to think that a claim that you do not like is false – just because you do not like it.
I have made the environmental claim many times. I have also backed it up – many ways.
There is a large section of Julian Simon’s book “the ultimate resource” specifically addressing environmental issues and falacies.
I recently linked to an article about the EKC – envirnmental Kuznets curve,
that basically demonstrates that every environmental issue tracks prosperity,
declining at first until prosperity is high enough and then increasing.
I have separately made the same argument myself – it is just a different perspective on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
There is not one proof of this assertion you think is certainly false – by myriads.
There are the many many instances in which our environment has gone from horrible to safe – long before there were environmental regulations,
There are the many instances throughout the modern world were the environment has improved absent regulation.
Absolutely I challenge sacred belifs of yours and that is disturbing.
But they are just beleifs, no matter how strongly you beleive they are not rooted in fact.
And if you were not too afraid you could find out.
If you do not want to be accused of being antifa – do not parrot antifa.
Being pushed to think does not injure your brain.
Thinking about bad ideas causes you no harm.
When you use words implying violence such as injury, without actual acts of violence, you muddle your own thought and you make it too easy to justify violence or censorship as a response.
If you don’t want to be accused of dunderheadedness, stop making dunderheaded statements. deal?
dunderhead
a stupid or slow-witted person;
Please identify an actual stupid statement ?
Otherwise you are just engaged in ad hominem.
Regardless the actual deal is if you make false accusations – then you are a liar.
That is not so much a “deal” as a tautology.
Stupid as defined by usage 2 & 3
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless:
a stupid assertion.
3. tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless:
a stupid party.
AGAIN
Please identify an actual stupid statement ? Otherwise you are just engaged in ad hominem. Regardless the actual deal is if you make false accusations – then you are a liar. That is not so much a “deal” as a tautology.
There is no substanative difference in your alternative definitions,.
Numerous DUMB Statements, like “I want sand in the gears – if I can not actually shrink government.”
Numerous STUPID generalizations, like “the left” supports violent anarchists.
Many ASININE Assertions, like your recent one that Texas would be better off if there was no government assistance provided to help storm victims.
And if you really ‘think’ “There is no substanative difference” in the alternative dictionary definitions (prepared by linguistic experts) you perfectly fulfill the “lacking keenness of mind” definition.
I’d go on, but you’re too dumb and blockheaded to admit your blockheaded dumbness.
I’m am sure, though, that ringing your gong will send you in a thither of wordiness (hopefully though you will be tempted to contradict me with a brief denial- silence would be GRRRREEEEAAAT!)
In otherwords anyone who disagrees with you ideologically – regardless of whether they can prove the wisdom of their position and regardless of the fact that you not only have not proved the wisdom of the alternate – but have not even tried – they are “dumb”.
And that is why we will always be in conflict.
Your beleifs – your religion obviously trump all else.
With respect to your examples – they are all quite obvious fallacies.
The false generalization is yours. Everyone on the right is not a nazi, everyone on the left is not an anarchist. Statements about groups are almost understood to apply to absolutely every member of that group. Most of the time I have qualified my generalizations sufficiently to make that clear. Most of the time that is not necessary.
What is “dumb” is YOUR false generalization. Is there no instance in which you think throwing sand in the gears of govenrment is not “dumb” ?
That would make the american revolution (and every other revolution) was treasonous.
We can debate how strong and broad the left’s support of antifa is – not whether that support exists.
With respect to your dictionary argument:
You again engage in misrepresentation.
The differences between dictionary definitions of the specific word we were address that effected the argument that I was making (or the argument you were making )
are not substantive – and that was obvious.
Those differences may or may not be substantive in other contexts or with other words.
Your arguments always devolve to faith or insult, I do not think I need to say more.
Why would silence be great ?
The link below is from an article on the coming Tax Reform legislations.
The article as a whole might be interesting. But the quote below reinforces my remarks on “the left”.
“Whatever name they go by—antifa, cultural Marxists, social justice warriors, Black Lives Matter—it is the left, not the liberals, who are the most active and energetic counter-Trump force in America today. Marxists would say Trump and the left-wingers relate to one another in dialectical terms. He is the thesis, they the anti-thesis”.
I would go further – there are not merely counter-trump. They own one whole side of the debate. The more moderate portions of the radical left, are dictating the future of the democratic party – not moderate and centrist democrats.
Trump won the election by appealing to blue collar democrats. The democratic party rather than adjust to get them back, has moved further away from them.
http://freebeacon.com/columns/the-irrelevant-democrats/
“Trump won the election by appealing to blue collar democrats.”
Older, White, Male blue collar Democrats.
And barely scraped together enough votes to snatch an electorial college win.
By 2020 the under 30 years demographic (disproportionately Democratic, even among white males) will have grown enough to swallow up the small tRump margins in those battleground states that barely elected him.
If the Democrats don’t nominate a candidate with Hillary level built-in hatred, and we still have free elections with DickHead Donald in charge, Dems win.
https://decisiondeskhq.com/data-dives/how-the-2016-vote-broke-down-by-race-gender-and-age/
The specific flavor of democrats that Trump won does not matter.
What matters is that democrats are doing everything in their power to assure not merely that those voters never come back – but that they lose even more moderates and centrists.
Demographics is ever changing – but the left fixates on those changes in a vaccuum.
It tends to be true that minorities vote democrat.
But the irish and italians once did too.
Now they do not.
Further there are other demographic trends besides race.
Generally The older voters are the more likely they vote republican.
But the “greatest generation” tended to vote democrat and they are disappearing.
Single voters vote democratic, married voters vote republican.
Parens vote more republican.
City voters vote democratic, suburban voters vote republican.
As those 20 and 30 year old voters leave their family, get married, get jobs, get promoted, have kids they slowly shift republican.
The current younger generation of voters shares two attributes – it is both the most socialist generation ever, and it is the most libertarian ever.
The democratic “demographics is destiny meme” has failed you and it is very dangerous, because demographics and its effect on voting patterns is complex.,
Future predictions based on narrow demographic traits are very dangerous and likely wrong.
Look at your own link – you seem to think that the lesson is that all those old republican voters are slowly going to age out and die.
But each younger cohort becomes more republican as it ages.
Dave, in the article it states. “And Republicans are unlikely to experience the defections over taxes that doomed them on health care. The health bill was a mess, a product of Republican confusion and infighting. There is no such uncertainty toward cutting taxes.”
How I would find this refreshing if all the Republicans came together, but with a party made up from the Ted Cruz’s and Mike Lee’s to the Susan Collin’s and Susan Murkowski’s, please don’t hold your breathe. The problem with this party is the position you hold so dear to your heart and that is no action is better than compromise.
So I would never bet my money on these clowns doing anything positive on meaningful tax reform, They will screw that up like they did healthcare reform. And they will screw up anything to do with immigration reform and anything else that the moderates will find appealing.
One may not agree with the decisions that the democrats make, but for their followers they are not screwed over like the moderate right voters that buy the GOP BS and then find the far right controls what happens, leaving the moderates to have to defend bad legislation or defend voting against bad legislation.
So where do you come down on DACA? That’s the next cesspool the GOP is wading into. Doing the right thing that the majority of Americans support or doing what the core 25%-30% supporters of Trump support.
Ron,
I provided the artical specifically for the remark on Antifa and the left, not Tax Reform.
I expect republicans to “come together” on tax reform.
I expect them to pass something – probably not something particularly good.
But something nonetheless.
Tax reform is easier. Good tax reform is unlikely to the point of impossibility.
But unlike PPACA, it is probable that whatever the Republicans pass is sufficiently much better than the status quo that I am likely to accept it – even as I bitch about it.
I am not sure what you think it is that I hold so dear that is a problem.
You seem to be suggesting that on Tax Reform compromise might be a good thing.
While I reserve the right to oppose anything the GOP manages to try to pass.
It is possible to pass a bad compromise tax bill,
my position on compromise is that it is a TOOL not a principle.
In the instance of PPACA, it is going to fail without legislation, that is an excellent reason that there should be no compromise.
With respect to Tax reform – failure is much farther off.
I have no problem with republicans compromising on tax reform.
They should get as much as they can pass now.
I am in the same place with the debt ceiling.
Republicans should not pass a debt ceiling increase without getting some fiscal constraint for it – not the filling Wall. That is just stupid.
With respect to your arguments.
Yes, democratic voters have been quite well screwed over by their politicians.
With regard to moderates:
On Obamacare they are wrong.
The least we should do is kill it.
The best would be a significant increase in healthcare market freedom.
ObamaCare lite is a political and economic disaster that no one should touch.
With regard to fiscal matters – the moderates are wrong. We need as much fiscal restraint as we can possibly get, and we should leverage everything from the debt increase to the budget, to shutdowns to get it.
It is moderate republicans that saved the ExIm bank – shame on them.
While Trump is wrong on immigration he is pushing something that is sustainable.
When moderates, democrats or whoever offer something better – I will seriously look at it.
So far I am not seeing that happen.
With respect to DACA.
As I understand things currently – Obama’s “amnesty” violates the law. I beleive the courts have shot it down. Trump is obligated to follow the law.
At the same time I beleive that what Obama did was the “right thing”, and that congress should change the law to allow it or something similar.
I would personally prefer open borders – but that would require eliminating minimum wages, and at the least rigidly limiting “entitlements” to citizens. And that poses a problem with regard to “anchor babies” and birth right citizenship.
The better solution is to eliminate the entitlements system.
But that is not going to happen.
More realistically:
I do not care how you got here. You serve in the US military and are honorably discharged, you should have a short path to citizenship. And I do not give a crap if you have committed a crime.
If you have not committed a fellony and have worked several years in public service – such as EMT’s, …. you should not be subject to deportation.
I do not care if you went to college – that is for you, that is not an inherent public good.
But I am prepared to shorten the route to citizenship bar deportation in return a variety of forms of public service.
But congress has to legislate, this can not come from the president.
Also I have a problem with characterizing DACA as “doing the right thing”.
I think we should do something similar – through congress.
But what Obama did was a breach of the rule of law, and therefore NOT “the right thing”.
I am opposed to pretty much everything Trump or his supporters wish regarding immigration.
BUUUUUUUT!!!!!!! That does not mean I support every alternative or no alternative at all.
In many instances Trump’s WRONG thing may still be preferable to what congress concocts.
It would be a very good thing for Obama to push democrats back towards the center.
The most prominently discussed democrats for 2020 are too far left and are likely to lose badly, or be extremely damaging to the country and their party if they win.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/348927-obama-teams-2020-signals-spark-chatter-among-dems
You complain about discourse here.
You complain about trump,
Trump’s dialog is philosophy dissertations in comparison to most of your posts.
Apparently your idea of moderation is juvenile insults.
Congratulations!
A comment from you in less than 30 words!
Can you read ?
My post is a near perfect paraphrase of the paragraph you quote.
In 3 places I note that the only remedy for perceived issues with Trump is congress.
Though I am guessing that you are conflating only congress can, with congress must.
Which neither McCarthy nor I have said.
another fine, reasoned, intelligent and BALANCED article by Jonah Goldberg:
http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/451040/antifa-alt-right-idiot-boys-young-men-pulling-stupid-crap?utm_source=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED
Actually, I thought it was pretty bad.
Hilter, Mao, and Stalin were not young men.
In fact I can not think of many significant world movements for good or evil started by young men.
Certainly young men are often snookered by the bad ideas of older men, possibly more so than others.
Nor is tiny some intellectual giant. Absolutely sometimes two competing causes are morally equal though in each others faces.
But sometimes they are morally opposite.
Sometimes It is chance or what gets their first that determines whether one is seduced by the dark side. But the fact that you could have ended up on either side of an issue does not make the sides equal.
Further, Gibson and “tiny” are not antifa, or nazi,
They are not white supremacists or Trumpkins.
They are not so eloquent as Goldberg, but they hold one important distinction in this particular instance – they hold the moral high ground – not perfectly, but well enough that arguments of moral equivalence are not merely falacious but evil.
Roby – are you saying that self defense is not legitimate ?
Or are you claiming that the american revolution was immoral ?
I am a libertatian. I am not a pacifist.
Libertarians tend to be non-interventionists.
That does not mean we do not defend when attacked.
Nor that violence to restore order when things become lawless is unjustified
Cut the crap Dave. The only justified use of force against left or right hooligans is via the legal authorities. You have a manifesto for the poor victimized right to take matters into their own hands against the left, who are “destroying the country”, or so you hysterically say. That is not moral, its disgusting, worse, its dangerous. Given the fact that you use the term left broadly and indiscriminately you are including me, my family, my friends, my state, and every shade of left leaning person everywhere in the targets of your justified right wing violent push back. So, fuck yourself.
Given your constant relentless over the top blanket condemnations of the entire left (25% of the country you have said) for supposedly supporting the far left anarchist violence (BS!) that makes very little distinction if any between its violent anarchist element and say me, or my kids, or Pelosi, or Sanders, your justification for future violence by the right adds incredible hypocrisy to your resume. Yeah, we get your thesis already: the collectivist left is EVIL and destructive and the sensible kindly live-and-let-live far right are their poor harmless victims. So, I say that you are a right-wing nutjob.
Nor do I consider a person who believes there should be no environmental regulations at all to be moral (not to mention that your belief is flat out delusional).
The nicest way I can explain your so-called morality is that you are one brick shy of a full load. You have been shouting that the left has an EVIL idea of morality. So, I see your rhetoric and your contempt for nearly everything I believe in and I return it with interest. You and I are not going to have an amicable relationship.
So our founders were criminals ?
So if you are attacked it is a crime to defend yourself ?
Let go of this nonsense that I am on the right.
No I do not think the right is “victimized”.
I really do not give a damn about Trump.
I do care about the rule of law.
Do you think that because I defend the free speach of Nazi’s, I am a Nazi ?
Let go of the shallow thinking.
The right is far less monolithic so it is hard to clearly point our my divergences from the right.
Regardless, I have aired a long list of grevianses with the right.
On many of those issues, you or others here on the left are with the right and at odds with me. Does that make you are right win loon ?
Get a clue. Take issues one at a time and decided them on their merits,
preferably rooted in principles rather than what “feels” right.
Regardless, the right has significant political power at the moment, and my expectation is that power is going to grow not shrink.
I do not pity the right.
In many instances I am afraid of the right.
But the right is not the biggest threat to liberty today.
The left is.
I have defined how I use the term “left” – collectivists,.
If you think it is ok to use force to restrict the liberty of others for some hoped for greater good – your a collectivist,
That would mean people who support PPACA and/or single payer, just as an example.
To be clear the critical part is the use of force – aka government, not striving for greater good. You want to protest McDonalds to change the standards for treatment of chickens, that is fine by me.
If you beleive that it is OK to restrict the free speech of some – say Nazi’s for the purported emotional comfort of others – that is collectivist – left.
If you beleive that speach can be violence – collectivist (that is just a different way of phrasing the above).
Now, you can be more and less collectivist.
I have not identified, you, your family, your friends, … as “left” – you have,
I know of your views from your remarks. I have not spoken to the views of your family, friends, … you have taken offense at purported insult that was never offered.
Regardless, if you hold a particular view, you should expect to be criticized by those who do not. It would be nice if that criticism was reason, logic, and facts. But whatever criticism is offered speaks of the person doing the criticism.
You are constantly confusing how things are. The norms of discourse with offense.
You are free to hate others, to deny the integrity, but no one may do the same to you.
The right is not suffering from a cult of victimhood – that is the left’s schtick.
Violence in response to violence is justified – it is called self defense, and we do not surrender the right to self defense as part of the social contract.
So long as the social contract is intact – individuals may not initiate violence against another. Only government may initiate violence and only in very narrow justifiable circumstances.
Breakdown the social contract – and those rules go out the window.
That is not me talking. That is just the way things are.
No I have not said the left is 25% of the country.
I have said the left 25% of the country is the problem right now.
Not the entire left – not even the left 25% explicitly supports antifa.
but far too large a portion implicitly does.
If you equate speach that you do not like with violence – then yes you atleast implicitly support antifa.
If you define some speach as violence the only difference between you and antifa is that as of this moment you have not used a false definition of violence to justify self defence.
But there is no logical difference between your view and antifa’s.
Antifa is not inherently anarchist – I would guess you keep saying that to pretend that all violence in antifa is anarchist, that allows you to pretend it has nothing to do with you.
Antifa self identifies as any of the below
anarchist
anti-fascist
anti-racist
anti-trump
anticapitalist.
socialist
communist
What is critical and all that distinguished them from the rest of the left with similar values is that they oppose these things “by any means necescary” – including violence, and they define fascism, racism, white supremacy and trump support as acts of violence justifying violent response.
If you too beleive that what someone else believes or says constitutes violence.
then the difference between you and antifa is black block and actual violence.
It is not in your beleifs.
Violence is always justified in self defense. There is nothing delusional about that.
Further you can argue whatever you want about justification – but as we become more lawless – there will be more violence – there is nothing delusional about that.
If your actions are lawless – I do not have much sympathy for the violence that comes your way.
Collectivism is evil. I do not need to say that – history teaches it quite well.
The more collective the more evil.
That is not a thesis. It is a self evident fact.
And you keep returning to this right or far right as victims.
This victim nonsense is your ideology not mine.
I am not looking for victims, I am looking for perpetrators.
I see perpitrators on the left.
We have lived without environmental regulations for 99,999% of human existance.
Are you saying all the past is immoral ?
Regardless the state of the environment is NOT a moral issue. It is not an issue of principle. It is an issue of values.
This is another area the left gets entirely confused. All positive outcomes are not moral.
The world has greatly benefitted from many of the medical experiments that the Nazi’s performed. That does nto make those experiments moral.
A cleaner environment is something we value
Food is also something we value.
Acheiving either is good, and good for us.
Steeling food would still be immoral.
If you actually acheived an envirmonental benefit through the use of force that woudl be both good, and immoral.
We are not free to act immorally even when the outcome is good.
That ignores the fact that environmental regulation arguably produces no good – i.e. the gains would have occured eventually regardless.
If you could make the air 100 times cleaner than it is today – but it would require taking $1000 from every person on earth – is it moral to do that ?
That question is easy – the answer is no. It would be no even if it only cost $0.01.
Knowing the answer only requires knowing the difference between what is immoral – the initiation of force at the cost of liberty to another, and what is a value – food, shelter, clean air, ….. we acquire values through our [productive efforts. so long as force is not involved, there is no moral issue.
My “so called” morality – is just morality. You can not have morality without free will.
This is just the standard Kantian or natural rights basis for morality.
It is not something unusual.
If you wish to offer another theory of morality – go ahead – we can debate that.
Now I am shouting ?
I have not challenged some left theory of morality – you have not offered one.
I have challenged some left conduct as immoral.
Roby, I do not honestly think you know what you beleive in so it would be hard to have contempt for it.
I do have contempt for many immoral actions that you beleive are justified, though you provide no basis for that conclusion.
Our relationship is up to you.
If you question my morality, my integrity or my truthfulness, and you fail to justify those challenges, it is your morality, integrity, and truthfullness that suffers.
You are entitled to the same.
I do not care whether you are pleasant, I care whether you are right.
The april 2016 Comey draft speach exhonerating Clinton 4 months before the investigation was over is not floating about.
Andrew McCarthy has a better take on it.
McCarthy does not tie it to Trump – but it should be.
McCarthy implies some guilt on Obama’s part.
But Obama did nothing illegal – however like Trump he did things that were improper.
We now know Obama was also emailing via a private account.
That may be disturbing – but unlike Clinton it can not be illegal.
Just as Trump actually can provide classified information to the Russians, or the press or anyone else he pleases, So can Obama. The president is the only person in the country who can handle classified information without a security clearance and without regard for security procedures.
I am not sure what the standard for Clinton would be if Obama sent her Classified information over the internet. It is arguable that in doing so he declassified it.
But it is also arguable that while he has no duty as president, she does.
Regardless, the rules are not different for Obama or Trump.
McCarthy notes that Obama spoke publicly proclaiming Clinton’s innocence in April – and that Comey cribbed his July non-indictment indictment from Obama’s remarks.
McCarthy is treated Obama’s public speach about the Clinton email server as an order to Comey.
I think that is reaching. But it certainly was a stronger statement to Comey than Trump’s private suggestion that Comey let Flynn slide,
Regardless, the point is that these situations must be treated the same as they are nearly the same – Obama’s public exhoneration is closer to a directive to the FBI.
All federal power is vested in the president. If Obama directs a white wash of Clinton, that is no more or less legal than Trump suggesting to Comey.
In both cases it is NOT obstruction of justice.
In both cases whether it is impeachable is up to the congress.
I have already addressed the botched clinton investigation as compared to Mueller.
What is disturbing is that so many of you do not grasp that what occured in the Clinton investigation is worse than Trump firing Mueller tomorow and shutting down the investigation.
Atleast with Clinton all the elements of the crime were present before the investigation started.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/451053/not-comeys-decision-exonerate-hillary-obamas-decision
Can I expect the Trump haters here to apply the same standards to Trump as they did to Obama or visa versa ?
In Seattle the police have learned to keep protestors and counter protestors separated by atleast a full city block – often then assign separate parks to the protest and counter protest.
In boston they separated protestors from counter protestors by 50 years and two separate physical barriers. If you were between the barriers you were arrested.
In Charlottesville the police created a single physical barrier separating counter protestors from protestors, Further they stationed officers only at the intersections not along the route, and the officers did nothing when counter protestors breached the barriers.
Even the death of Heather Heyer was a consequence of the counter protestors breaking down the barrier that had blocked that street from vehiclular access.
Mr. Fields never would have been able to reach Ms. Heyer had the police manned that barrier, and had counter protestors not removed it.
There remains some debate about the police orders.
There are now lawsuits from both the protestors and counter protestors – so it is likely we will know eventurally.
Officers interviewed have indicated that they were told to stay at interesections and not to separate combatants.
Further, there are indications that many of the orders regarding the event came from Gov. McCaulfie.
http://www.richmond.com/opinion/our-opinion/editorial-state-city-leaders-knew-it-would-get-ugly-in/article_ea1df138-3440-5edb-a288-7c9c1c01e368.html
Kasparov is right.
So where is the lefts better immigration plan ?
Rubio as well as several republicans were negotiating for a better immigration plan during obama’s tenure – this is one of several areas Republicans and democrats could have worked together. Obama essentially decided he could do better without negotiating, now it is all going down the tubes.
Regardless, I am absolutely for increased immigration – even from poor mexicans.
So how are you going to make that work ?
Are you going to allow them to be eligable for benefits ?
Are you planning to pay them minimum wage ?
Since you beleive in zero sum economics – how is that going to work as you add a million people a year ?
BTW are you prepared to admit defeat on your Income Inequality nonsense – beccause over the past 40 years the US has absorbed almost 45m first and 2nd generation poor immigrants and yet purportedly wages remaind stagnant.
How does the math for that work ? How can you swell the population 15% AT THE BOTTOM, and still have flat wages ? That does not work mathematically unless every quintile increased its standard of living dramatically.
Dave “BTW are you prepared to admit defeat on your Income Inequality nonsense – beccause over the past 40 years the US has absorbed almost 45m first and 2nd generation poor immigrants and yet purportedly wages remaind stagnant.
How does the math for that work ? How can you swell the population 15% AT THE BOTTOM, and still have flat wages ? That does not work mathematically unless every quintile increased its standard of living dramatically.”
Most every illegal immigrant in my neck of the woods that I come in contact with (mostly construction, carpenters, brick layers, sheet rock) are paid under the table. No taxes, no benefits, no insurance, etc. I am not saying these people are not in your figures somehow, but where does your numbers comes from showing these people being included in the wage data where it is stagnant, meaning for those not in this groups, there has been a significant increase in wages?
When so may are illegal, avoid contact as much with government as much as they can, do not trust government not to deport them or are afraid they will be fired if they divulge any information on work, I don’t see how meaningful data is getting into your data.
Where possible I try to make arguments at the broadest level, without getting to deeply into the weeds of details.
The details only matter if whatever is being examined does not obviously fail in larger terms.
We know the approximate number of immigrants.
We know that regardless of whether they are legal or illegal, whether they work under the table or not, they are entering at the bottom in the US and that they are not rising rapidly.
In scale they are equal to 3/4 of the bottom quintile.
They amount to about 15% of the country. If there income it not being reported – that would make my case even stronger. That would just mean that real wages are higher than those advocating for I.E. Claim.
Regardless, their numbers are counted. what they produce is counted., what they consume is counted.
The best case – for sustaining the i.e. argument is that 15% of the country is earning zero dollars/year.
If that is so and incomes are flat – that means that incomes are NOT flat, but have increased by about 15% over the past 40 years. Because if we added 15% new population at zero income, we need a 15% increase in everyone else’s income to remain flat.
The next case is they have significant real income – but much of it is unreported.
That just means that the Income inequality argument is missing all that unreported income at the bottom. Again that makes the argument wrong.
But the simplest argument is we have added 15% to the population AND median incomes have nearly doubled over the same period.
You can not have EITHER of those and sustain the IE argument, you certainly can not have both.
And I would note that during this same period of time while absorbing more immigrants by Far than Europe, we have also increased our standard of living relative to europe.
“Where possible I try to make arguments at the broadest level, without getting to deeply into the weeds of details”
You are the weeds.
Do you have anything to offer beside insults ?
Ron,
I am going to try this again.
There are only two things about immigration we need to know to grasp that it breaks the IE claim.
The size of the immigrant cohort over time – it does not matter whether they are legal or illegal – and we can count atleast the 2nd generation because of #2
That the income distribution of those immigrants skews much moch lower overall than that of the rest of the country.
It does not matter whether their income is under the table.
It only matters that the distribution curve for 1st and 2nd generation immigrants legal or illegal is very heavily skewed towards the lower quintiles.
So long as the above is true, that means that if incomes either by quintile or over all remained flat, that would require incomes for everyone NOT an immigrant to rise to balance the addition of large numbers that are poor first or 2nd generation immigrants.
While it is easier to make this clear using real numbers. it is still true that given the 2 assumptions I provided above – which most of us understand to be true, that there can be no real numbers that still support the IE argument.
A song to soothe the wounded spirit
http://parodyproject.com/2017/08/17/confounds-the-science-parody-sound-of-silence/
Jay
Catastrophic Global Warming is for me today a litmus test of whether you are retarded or not. Regardless of how well educated you are.
The CAGW hypothesis fails to reproduce in the real world. It is now off by 2.5 std dev’s
That should be the ONLY thing you need to know to conclude that the CAGW thesis is false. Anything beyond that is into bonus points.
If you argue CAGW today, you are arguing religion not science. Regardless of your education, or credentials.
No I do not think that either Trump or Fox are good sources for science.
Politicians and the media as a whole are not.
But more broadly scientists who are demonstrably wrong – are worse than the media and politicians that say they are wrong.
Trump’s business experience does not make him an expert in science.
But it makes him pretty good at recognizing hoaxes.
Every single malthusian claim of left science since … Malthus, has been wrong todate.
If you are arguing CAGW – then the burden is on you – and it is enormous, and the support of the media, many politicians and large numbers of science does not shift that burden.
Because we have had the same groups supporting nearly every other malthusian claim for over a century.
Whether it is polution, population, warming, peak oil, or any of myriads of other disaster porn claims, the historical evidence is that whatever the problem – without government intervention, it will solve itself. Sometimes it will just go away on its own. Others it will do so as a result of market forces.
Regardless, as much as the left wishes to beleive otherwise, we are not going to commit suicide.
A really great article on information, and authority and how it has changed in out lifetimes.
And why the exploding bottom up system is going to obliterate the older top down system of the elite.
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-tsunami-information-inspired-revolt-public?utm_content=59716998&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/08/animal_farm_in.html
Do we actually like to read bad things about others.
Are we afraid of being happy.
Part of why cutting spending is hard.
Why government grows even when its policies are bad.
Why you beleive what is bad for you is good.
If you think that the election of Trump is a failure of stupid voters, then you must be for limited govenrment.
Does providing police with military gear result in more or less violence ?
Results of research
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168017712885
A very good exposition of the difference between progressivism and the rest of “the left”.
Unlike Murray I am not willing to cede the term liberal to those who are at best less illiberal than progressives.
Further I think that Murray is wrong in that the Left is not like the right in that the right is made of different ideologies that do not fall along a continuum, but are capable sometimes of working and voting together.
The left is close to a single plane with people holding the same views – just more or less extremely.
Do those of you here who self identify as center left share more in common with those Murray identifies as liberal ? or those he identifies as progressive ?
My guess is that you beleive you are “liberal” because you “wish we could all get along”,
and wish to see yourself as centrists and valuing compromise.
But in terms of actual values, you are closer to progressives.
You believe that government is inherently good, that elite experts should guide our lives, that we can harness science to the greater collective good.
That when push comes to shove your vain hope for a better world from some collectivist government program will always trump the actual rights of individuals.
A good test would be the current fights over free speach.
Do you beleive that some speach is so offensive, that it causes actual harm, that it constitutes violence and that it can therefore be constrained by force – not necescarily antifa, but merely government dictating that you can not engage in hate speach ?
If you beleive that some speach can be restricted – you are progressive, not liberal.
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-trouble-isnt-liberals-its-progressives/
Interesting article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/magazine/america-is-struggling-to-sort-out-where-violence-begins-and-ends.html?mcubz=3&_r=0
A lot to mull over.
But no hints on how to untangle the Spider web of violence woven by both extremes
Though weak NYT’s last paragraph is best.
Truth is not determined by the number of decibels of our speach.
It is not determined by extremism.
It is not even determined by whether we are actually violent.
Nothing to mull over.
violence is undesireable – but it is the initiation of violence that is immoral.
Nearly all ideologies accept self defense and most defense of others as justified violence.
Violence begins when your fist strikes my face,
Violence is the actual use of force against someone else.
Prohibiting violence is the legitimate role of government.
There are myriads of things that can occur in life that may harm us in one way or another but are not violence, and not the business of govenrment.
We can get caught in a hurricane. Nature owes us nothing – not even equal treatment.
Life is not fair.
We can be falsely insulted by another. That would be misconduct, but it is not violence, it is not a crime and it is not the business of government. We have remedies, but they do not involve force or government.
You may not respond to hurtful words with violence.
How we speak and what we say is NOT the business of govenrment.
Virulent rhetoric – may inspire violence, but it is still permissible.
Stupid people saying stupid things are not responsible for what other stupid people do as a consequence of what they hear.
Whether outrage is sincere or political posturing can only be known by the speaker.
We are each entitled to our own view, but that is all they are opinions.
We can not know the sincerity of others.
The first amendment as interpreted by the courts, is merely a reflection of actual rights and liberties.
Our rights exist independent of government. Our constitution and bill of rights are merely ONE attempt to put those rights to words.
The constitution and its amendments are not the word of god etched in stone.
They are merely the highest law of the land – still imperfect and subject to revision.
It binds our actions, not our thoughts, beleifs, principles, and values.
You seem to have missed the point.
Pretending that everything is violence – will not get us answers.
Discounting views because they hurt our ears – will not get us to truth.
Presuming that the extreme is inherently false – will cut us off from some truths.
calm, quiet, moderation are tools that sometimes make truth easier to accept.
They are not substitutes for the truth.
We are “rethinking” this because the left has sought to restrict speach by labeling it as violence. History is full of groups seeking to restrict speech they thought was offensive.
Sometimes fromt he right sometimes from the left.
They are always wrong. This has not changed. “Rethinking” reveals nothing new.
Much of the ideology of the left is an effort to “rethink” matters that have been resolved a century or more ago.
John Stuart Mill took on those seeking to restrict speech nearly two centuries ago and won. Nor was he the first. Unfortunately he is not the last to have to defend speach.
The times article is muddled, it can not help but be. The left thinks all perspectives are entitled to equal treatment. The left fails to grasp that free expression is not a right to be heard. All ideas are not equal. They have an equal right to be expressed – not an equal right to be heard.
There is or should be no debate over what constituted violence.
Every child knows that “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me”.
Government is force – violence. We punish the unjustified use of violence with force – violence. We do not punish hurtful words with violence.
The response to speach you do not like is either more speach, or to excercise your right not to listen. But the most heinous speach does not justify the use of force – not by government no by antifa.
This is not an open question. The fact that the New York Times or any others think that it is, is a symptom of the destruction of our language and the resultant destruction of our principles.
Far too few seem to be able to distinguish between
“shut up”
and
“shut up or I will arrest you”.
An excellent economist on tax refrom.
http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2017/09/tax-reform-again.html?spref=tw
So you might be able to convince me with arguments like this. But I am one that is open to compromise. I am one that uses common sense in making decisions. Now take this same information to congress and see how far it flies. I suspect it would hit the floor so hard and fast it would go to the sub basement of the capital building!!!!!!!!!!!!
Compromise remains a tool – not a value.
I have no idea how the effort to get tax reform will go.
I have little problem with anything regarding tax reform that is an actual improvement over what we have now. In otherwords compromise should be possible.
But I have little expectation that their will be compromise.
I would not as an example be willing to add new subsidies, or entitlements, or regulations, or any of the other things that are bad in order to “compromise” on tax reform.
When you make decisions about yourself in your own life you can use ouji boards if that is what you want.
When you make decisions that are imposed by force on others, there are very few legitimate grounds for doing so.
Common sense is a phrase people use when they think the basis for their decisions is better than that of others. It has no objective meaning.
What you think is common sense – I may think is idiocy.
I would strongly recomend reading Bastiat’s essay
That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
Bastiat does an excellent takedown of many things that are purportedly “common sense”.
The most common flaw people make in these things is only counting the obvious impacts of their decisions.
Another major issue when we talk about govenrment is that decisions are crystalized in the moment.
If you in your life or a business makes a choice, and that choice either does nto work out, or has negative side effects, you adjust your choice.
That occurs 99% of the time.
That is difficult to impossible with govenrment.
Pres. obama quite effectively demonstrated this problem.
PPACA was passed and quickly failed in a number of ways.
But it was not going to be possible to correct it legislatively as the congress had changed and republicans would have required more other changes than he was willing to do.
So PPACA was changed by executive order, or just be executive fiat.
We have been fighting over these unconstitutional actions since then.
Trump was able to eviscerate many of them quickly.
The point is that government is not and should not be structured to respond rapidly to anything. It therefore should not do anything that might require that kind of adjustment.
Common sense presume that when we do something and it does nto work as we expect it that we adjust. That is how common sense deals with the fact that we never know all that we need to know to make good choices.
Government does not have that same real time ability to adjust.
Common sense – whatever it is, does not apply to government.
Tax reform is likely to be incredibly difficult.
Any reform that is actually good requires politicians to surrender power.
Our taxes are a complicated mess – because that grants power to politicians.
I read something about the 50’s recently regarding the high taxes – and why no one actually paid those
When a corporation or a wealthy person had a tax problem in the 50’s.
They did not fight the IRS,
They did not argue the law.
They hired lobiests and law firms that went to congress and attached a couple of line tax change to some bill or other.
Problem solved, and in this way politicians were owed favors and excercised power over the wealthy and business.
We can not get flat clean tax laws that are transparent and do not create bad incentives and make it difficult to create bad incentives in the future – because that would disempower politicians – both left and right.
The same btw is true of regulation.
Way too many here think regulation is “anti-business”. That is laughable.
You are involved in hospitals – how are “certificate of need” regulations and laws, not protectionism for entrenched interests ?
How are licensing laws not protectionism ?
The vast majority of regulation is driven buy and for business.
Way too many on the left and right think that free markets serve business.
Regulations nearly always serve business, not consumers.
“Sing, Sing, Sing”
Benny Goodman Orchestra
Gene Krupa on Drums.
( When the present world gets untenable, Swing Music is an antidote)
Words and music by Luis Prima
Louis
Right, but there are no words…
😎
http://www.metrolyrics.com/sing-sing-sing-lyrics-louis-prima.html
Words for Sing, Sing, Sing.
You’re right. Thanks for the correction. Louis sings it himself on his version:
On “Price gouging”
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-05/price-gouging-can-be-a-type-of-hurricane-aid
I would disagree with Cowen that rationing is sometimes a better choice.
Only in the world of unicorns.
Regardless, Cowen is interestingly noting that social media is stigmatizing price gouging to the opposite extreme.
I am going to trust the market absent regulation.
That said if you really are after the best possible outcome – rather than what people want, left prices rise when their are shortages.
That is substantially better than selling at what are actually below markey prices and running out.
Market prices disuade hording.
When it has been 4300 days since the last time a cat 4 or 5 made landfall in the US – then you have to acknowledge there is a problem.
Of course the climate has changed – the very fact that you use the nonsensical “climate change” meme is proof that you are engage in political science not climate science.
There is not and never has been a “stable” “unchanging” climate. The constant of the universe is CHANGE.
What is not happening is CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.
And we are way past where anyone should be arguing for that.
BTW that actual “science” of Climate – predicts LESS frequent and WEAKER strong weather. A warmer planet is a more stable one.
I get really tied of idiots who get their “science” from CNN or MSNBC.
Go read the actual IPCC AR5 report. Rather then the nonsense that gets sold on the media.
You should also read what “climate scientists” have said – including the myriads of quotes that the deliberately lie to the media, because they beleive otherwise people will not take “climate change” seriously enough.
That alone should give you a huge problem
It is not the role of scientists to tell us what the world SHOULD be like – that is politics not science.
Any scientist ever who talks about Better and worse has left the realm of science and entered political advocacy.
To the extent science is able to – which is very near ZERO, science should tell us what the effects of human or other action are on climate. Not whether they are “good” or or “bad”.
The moment you hear a scientist directing us what we must do – he is far from science and can no longer be trusted.
Here is the past 40 years of temps from the satellite.
The trend is under +0.11c/decade.
There was a significant rapid increase from 1993-1999 that trend has ended.
From about 1750 through the present that Trend has been approx. 0.11C/decade.
That is from the bottom of the little ice age.
The planet is unbeleivably large. There are hundreds of 100 year weather records broken every day.
It is not possible to “break” break a 500 year record. There is no such thing as a “500 year storm” because we have no reliable weather records from 500 years ago.
Do you have weather records from the atlantic – from Florida, or from the gulf coast from 1517 ?
Do you even have good ones from 1817 ?
We have only had the ability to measure the size of a huricane for about 40 years.
We have only been able to accurately measure its strength for about 100.
Even central european temperature records go back only to about 1640.
We have no direct measures of anything weather related anywhere earlier than that.
Most of the data that climate scientists use is through proxies.
All proxies inherently measure trends – they are not direct observations,.
The older or longer the proxy the more smoothing there is.
A 500 year proxy is unlikely to be useful at a scale smaller than a decade.
a 10000 year proxy can not tell us about things smaller than a century.
Anyone trying to compare the present to the past that is comparing precise data from the present to long term trends in the past, is either stupid or deceptive.
STRONGEST EVER RECORDED. DUH!
The first barometer was invented in 1643.
The aneroid barometer did not exist until 1844.
Prior to 1943 all measure of huricane strength were done at landfall.
1943 marked the first time a pilot deliberately flew into a huricane to gather weather data.
It was not until the mid 70’s that we were routinely taking readings of huricanes while they were out in the atlantic.
So any claims regarding attributes of huricanes before they strike land are either guesses or are about huricanes after 1975.
Irma is not the strongest huricane ever. It might be the strongest atlantic huricane.
Though it still has about a 5% chance of heading into the gulf.
There have been 3 gulf huricanes that are stronger.
Further we have cyclones – which are just huricanes outside the atlantic and Gulf of mexico that are much larger.
In fact the total “cyclone” energy from year to year is near constant, despite radical variations in a given region.
Further the claims regarding Irma are based on either wind speeds or pressure.
Actual power is a function of many many things.
Sandy was not even a huricane. But it likely was more “powerful” than Irma – But sandy had more than 5 times the total volume of Irma. It was likely far more “powerful”
“Anyone trying to compare the present to the past that is comparing precise data from the present to long term trends in the past, is either stupid or deceptive.”
Anyone ignoring the ENORMOUS evidence in front of their eyes is too dumb to waste time on.
There is no evidence Jay.
The entire CAGW meme rests on models.
We have no direct measure of the effect of CO2 on climate.
We do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know how the effect will scale with CO2 levels.
But we do not know the temperature coefficent for CO2.
We have a likely range – but that range is an order of magnitude large.
Warmists presume positive feedbacks. That is very non-scientific. Positive feedbacks are rare in nature – because the lead to self destruction.
Increasingly the evidence is that the feedbacks are net negative not positive.
We do not actually know the proportionate affect of Human CO2.
Human CO2 emmisions are miniscule compared to those of the ocean.
Further the Ocean CO2 exchange system is so large that we do not understand what the human effects on it are. The Ocean is so great a CO2 Sink/Source that human emissions could just mildly alter the equilibrium.
I can go on an on, but the fact is there is an enormous amount we do not – and can not know. Some of it is likely impossible to ever know.
I understand that it is hard for a lefty to beleive that there are questions science can not ever be able to answer – I would refer you to the heisenberg uncertainty principle
Regardless climate is a chaos system. The extent to which they are predictable is very limited.
So there is no empiracl evidence of CAGW. The entire conclusion that Human CO2 has a warming effect on the planet is rooted solely in the climate models.
The climate models do not verify against reality and have not been corrected.
Therefore while it is near certain That human CO2 has an effect on global temperatures. the scale of that effect is NOT actually scientifically known.
Given that the models have predicted warming on average 2.5 std dev’s higher than actual temps., it is near certain the effects of human CO2 are very small.
Further we now have satelite instrumentation and long enough date to measure the earth as a black box – which is far easier than the climate models.
The results of those are the energy budget of the earth is not balanced consistent with CAGW or the models. This is why Climate scientists are running arround like chickens with their heads cut of looking for the missing heat.
Which BTW can not exist or SLR would be greater.
So there is no evidence right in front of our eyes.
The earth is warming – slowly, as it has been for 250 years.
What it will do in the future is unpredicable.
We are in the midst of several unusually weak solar cycles (there is an astronomical reason), and will not exit that for a couple of decades.
Last time that occured we go the little ice age.
We increasingly know that the sun’s effect on the earth is not limited to TSI.
That cosmic rays – which are highly variable have and impact, and that gravity has an impact.
At current trends 2050 will be .3C warmer than the present, and 2100 will be .8C warmer than the present – +- 2.5 std devs. i.e. +- 4C.
That means the confidence of our future predictions is nearly non existant.
The very best we can say is that it is slightly more likely than not that 2100 will be warmer than the present.
This nonsense of taking every weather event and pretending it is significant, is part of the proof AGAINST CAGW. It is proof that hysteria is substituting for science – even among scientists.
Prior to harvey it had been 12 years since a Cat 4 or 5 huricane
The last cat 5 to make landfall in the US was Andrew in 1992
Before that was camille in 1969
The last cat 4 was Hugo in 1989
Irma while a Cat5 is less than 1/2 the diameter of Sandy and less than 1/4 the total size.
August, Sept. and October are the peak Huricane season.
We have been lulled by weak seasons for the past 11 years.
BTW I would note the Solar cycle is 11 years and huricanes cycle track the sun in 11 and 33 year cycles.
current predictions have Irma striking FL and only being a Cat 3 at that time.
Harvey was never a Cat5, barely making a Cat4 at landfall,
Carla in 1961 was the largest to hit TX.
The only way in which Harvey was unusual was the amount of rainfall.
It is particularly damaging because it dumped 1Tgal of water mostly on houston.
This is similar to Katrina – which was also not that unusual a Huricane, it was damaging because it struck New Orleans head on, and because the storm surge was enough to cause New Orleans levi’s to fail – and parts of New Orleans are 29ft below sea level.
Sandy was only a tropical storm – but it hit The Jersey Coast and New York City and therefore caused a great deal of damage. Had it struck part of the country that gets frequent huricanes the damage would have been minimal.
You are creating unusual from thin air.
Jay, so the climate has changed. What’s your point? The climate has changed for billions of years. We had millions of years ago a very high global temperature, then we had an ice age, then it warmed again and then we had a mini ice age when the pilgrims settled Jamestown. (Many died of starvation and the cold, actually resorted to cannibalism to stay alive. ) Since then the global temperatures have been rising.
As for storms: 2005, Wilma 185 MPH, Barometric pressure 882, 2005 Rita 180 MPH, 895 B.P., 2005 Katrina 175 mph, 902 B.P Now IRMA, 185 mph, 920 B.P. All of the 2005 storms had barometric pressures lower than Irma.
So just because a storm with 110 mph winds comes into Texas and stalls out or a storm comes up through or next to Florida does not mean anything other than we have two storms and they are strong storms and god only know where they are going and when they will leave. Those storms in 2005 were stronger than Irma and only weakened as they it landfall. And remember, both Katrina and Rita came in on the guilf coast not far from each other.
The damage a storm causes more strongly correleates to where that storm occurs and how prepared that community is.
Houston has not seen a Storm like Harvey likely in Centuries.
But there have been dozens like Harvey in the past decade.
Andrew was by far the worst US huricane at landfall in eons dwarfing everything before and since. It was a cat 5 at landfall and so large it went from the gulf to the atlantic.
The damage was enormous – but tiny compared to Katriana, Sandy or Harvey.
Sandy was not even a huricane when it struck.
Harvey was not a strong huricane – but it carried a huge amount of water and dropped it all on Houston – which had not seen that much water in centuries.
But If Harvey had hit Cuba or Florida it would have been relatively inconsequential.
Projections have Irma striking FL as a Cat 3.
Did dirty donald get Russian prostitutes to pee on the bed Obama slept in?
“Perhaps more intriguing, the most explosive charge in the Steele document was the claim that Trump hired prostitutes to defile a bed slept in by former President Obama. The important factor to consider is that Trump did not engage with the prostitutes himself, but instead allegedly sought to denigrate Obama. If there is anything consistent in what we have learned about President Trump, it seems that his policies are almost exclusively about overturning and eradicating anything related to President Obama’s tenure. In this sense, he is akin to the ancient Pharaohs, Byzantine and Roman Emperors like Caligula, who sought to obliterate the existence of their predecessors, even destroying and defacing their images. Is it inconceivable that he would get some satisfaction from a private shaming of the former President?”
Overall, is the Steele dossier looking more credible with what we now know?
“I think it is fair to say that the report is not “garbage” as several commentators claimed. The Orbis sources certainly got some things right – details that they could not have known prior. Steele and his company appear serious and credible. Of course, the failure of the Trump team to report details that later leaked out and fit the narrative may make the Steele allegations appear more prescient than they otherwise might. At the same time, the hesitancy to be honest about contacts with Russia is consistent with allegations of a conspiracy.”
https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/
And the Cloudstrike report claims that the DNC was hacked by the Russians.
The fact is the more that we know the LESS reliable the Steele Dossier looks.
Is everyone on the left completely incapable of logic ?
What we do know is that true or false the report relies nearly exclusively on russian sources for dirt on Trump.
That is exactly the opposite of what you need.
That would suggest Putin hates Trump, not clinton.
It would also mean russia provided dirt to Clinton not Trump.
So the only collusion you have is between Clinton and Putin.
Even the claim that it was used to blackmail Trump makes little sense.
Falsehoods are not useful in blackmailing someone.
Further the only reason you would ever share blackmail material with a person’s enemies would be if the blackmail FAILED.
Anyway, the article you linked to says nothing new.
It is just a rehash of the Steele Dossier.
BTW, you can not make shit smell better by proving that it was actually provided by real Russian Spies. That actually makes it worse not better.
At the very best what you have is a failed effort to blackmail Trump with a bunch of lies, followed by providing those lies to Trump’s opponents and the media who were all smart enough not to use them.
Your article does the opposite of what you hope.
There is no means of understanding it that does not indicate that Trump/Russia collusion is LESS likely.
At best you have proof that Putin tried to Blackmail Trump and failed.
That is not the story you are after.
Have you read the actual article that you linked ?
While it breathlessly amplifies the significance of the few things we do know – such as that Maneforte was working for Russian connected Ukrainians – prior to any connection to Trump and while having connections to Clinton, it does not actually add anything.
The argument is that it is somehow more credible because it reports some things that are true, but inconsequential.
What we keep getting is a long list of links between Trump and Russia that never actually connect.
There was no Trump tower deal. Maneforte’s connections are only indirect, while he was tied to Clinton and before he worked for Trump.
After starting with Trump Maneforte actively blocked all overtures from anyone remotely Russian to the Trump campaign.
You make a huge deal over a meaningless 3 word change in the republican platform.
It is absolutely true that during the Campaign Trump pushed for better relations with Russia.
Which would STILL be a good idea.
Left wing nuts and politicians make a big deal about “sanctions” as if they are meaningful.
Historically govenrment imposed sanctions are highly ineffective.
That does not mean that trade is inconsequential.
When Russia invaded Crimea several hundred B in foreign investment rapidly fled Russia and the effect was devistating.
It happened long before sanctions.
It happened because investors do not invest in rogue nations.
They do not need sanctions to make that a bad idea.
“You make a huge deal over a meaningless 3 word change in the republican platform.”
Why do you persist in idiotically ascribing views expressed in articles by others as if I expressed them?
Because you present those articles as meaningful.
I found the article you linked to pretty much demonstrate:
There is nothing new.
What little is new – leads AWAY from Trump/Russia.
Frankly your article read to me like Putin was looking to tank Trump and failed.
“Russian politician says ‘let’s hit Trump with our Kompromat’ on state TV
Claims made in explosive Trump Russia dossier, though unproven, have led many to speculate Kremlin could be holding sensitive information on former real estate mogul”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-donald-trump-kompromat-nikita-isaev-new-russia-movement-state-tv-us-president-a7929966.html
Right.
Someday in the future the Russians are going to blackmail Trump ?
Lets see relations with Russia have deteriorated despite Trump’s prior wishes to the contrary.
Our relationship with Russia is nearly as bad as during the cold war.
At the moment it is the left that is the anti-russian cold warriors
Regardless, Jay – how can you make any of this makes sense in the way you need ?
The Steele Dossier is antiTrump Opo research, and its sources are FSB, and GRU agents.
The claim that it was paid for by a republican appears to be dying – part of why the Senate is trying to get FusionGPS to testify.
When Russian’s do something Putin does not want they end up dead.
That strongly suggests that Putin intended the stuff in the Steele Dossier to get out.
If you want someone elected – you do not leak dirt on them.
If you want to blackmail them – you do not give away your hand to their opponent.
How is it you expect this to actually make sense ?
Please concoct a plausible explanation that matches the facts we know.
We know the GRU and FSB were invoved int he Steele Dossier.
BTW Putin was KGB which is now the FSB – so it is really really hard to beleive that FSB agents provided anything damaging on Trump to anyone without Putin’s permission.
This entire thing looks more and more and more like Putin was trying to tank Trump, not Clinton.
On to Putin is going to blackmail Trump.
That comes very very close to precluding collusion during the election.
Do lefties actually try to make their theories consistent ?
The bad logic the left is selling is worse than a day time soap opera.
It is plausible that the leader of a nation might be so deluded as to behave in ways that make no sense at all.
Putin and intrigue go together like hand in glove.
But the kind of intrigue Putin engages in is not stupid and self harming.
If Putin is going to blackmail Trump – what is he saving that for ?
Relationships could hardly get worse.
Trump has actually increased the sanctions – beyond what congress directed.
Trump opposed the congressional sanctions – not because he imposed sanctions, but because he wanted to be able to impose and remove them at will.
What is it you imagine ?
Putin coming to Trump and saying – we got the pictures of prostitutes peeing on Obama’s bed, turn over the nuclear codes ?
Or let us invade Ukraine ? Oops Hillary already allowed that ?
Your thesis has myriads of problems.
There is just no way the Steele Dossier can fit any collusion or blackmail scheme.
There are only two things it might fit.
Putin wanting Clinton to get elected and providing him dirt on Trump.
Or Putin wanting Trump to get elected and feeding Clinton dirt on Trump that could be proven to be false and a russian plant, thereby embarrasing Clinton.
“President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday it would be misplaced to talk of “disappointment” in the context of U.S. President Donald Trump, because the two leaders are not married.
“Your question sounds very naive,” Putin said in response to a reporter’s question asking whether he was “disappointed” with the U.S. president. “He is not my future wife, neither am I his bride or groom.”
“Each side has its own interest,” he added, speaking on the last day of the BRICS summit in China.
Putin left a reporter’s question on whether he thinks Trump faces impeachment, unanswered. The question followed comments from Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on a Sunday talk show that “it could be worth remembering” that “not all American presidents have reached the end of their term.”
The comment marks a significant departure from the positive tone struck by Russian state media and officials leading up to Trump’s election last November.”
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/putin-says-trump-is-not-his-wife-58853
Another tRump Honeymoon quickly over?
Isn’t it interesting that TweetyBirdTrump – who immediately responds with venom on Twitter to the merest of slights – hasn’t responded to Putin’s? Not one peep. Why the atypical silence? Doesn’t that suggest the Russians have something on him, and it’s in his interest to keep his tweeter shut?
So Trump throwing Russians out of consulates is something that someone enthralled to the Russians does ?
But not tweeting means he is being blackmailed ?
I will happily cede that during the election Trump had a one way bromance with Putin.
I will happily cede that Trump intended better relations with Putin after the election.
That is not a secret – Trump has been open about that through his campaign.
Personally I agree. We should not pretend that Putin is not a bloody thug.
But we should be on the best terms we can with the nation in the world that has more Nukes than we do.
Regardless, since the election relations with Russia have been bad and continue to deteriorate.
That is driven almost entirely by the left. there is absolutely no way in the current political environment that Trump or Republicans can afford to be friendly to Russia even if that is the wise thing to do.
Regardless, your blackmail meme – in addtion to all the other problems, requires Putin to be able to secretly make a demand to Trump, that Trump can secretly grant.
I have never beleived that Putin wanted Trump elected.
I think so LESS now.
If Putin did not try to take out Trump with the Steele Dossier, he is making things difficult for Trump now – and Trump is reciprocating.
That does nto fit any of your stupid meme
“If Putin did not try to take out Trump with the Steele Dossier, he is making things difficult for Trump now – and Trump is reciprocating.”
Reciprocating for show: Putin responding with the same false indignation. How dull-witted are you? US has ordered Russia to close diplomatic offices in San Francisco, New York and Washington, but no Russian personnel ordered to leave the US, all can be reassigned elsewhere here; this in response to Russia seizing two US embassy properties, and ordering the reduction of diplomatic staff from 1,200 to 455. This US move is a wink- wink at the Russians, and Trump was forced to accquess to the response by our disgruntled state department as well as Republicans in his own party:
“The retaliatory move by the state department comes at a time of remarkable dissonance between Trump and his secretaries of state and defence, who have taken a much tougher line on Russia. Trump has refused to be drawn into any criticism of the Kremlin, and even welcomed Putin’s announcement of cuts to the US embassy, saying it would save his administration money. The White House later said Trump was joking.”
If, knowing how quickly tRump reacts to ANY criticism, his continuing refusal to say anything at all critical of Putin doesn’t alert you something is rotten in Trumpville, you’re even more brain-dazed than I thought.
Wow! Everything is for show!
Really Trump is in the process of giving away the country to Russia.
Even though in every visible way possible US/Russia relations have gotten worse.
In your mind that is all fake.
Anything short of precipitating a nuclear confrontation with the country with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world is really a sign that Trump has sold out to Russia.
Our actions with respect to Russia have been stupid and poor through atleast the start of the Obama administration, and probably longer.
In the event that Trump was actually trying to descalate with respect to Russia – which he is not and YOU and those like you have made politically impossible, that would be a good thing.
I do not want to pretend to know that answers to everything that our government actually should do – as opposed to the myriads of things it should not.
But whatever the right choices is with Russia – what we are doing has been the wrong choice for more than a decade.
The cold war is over.
We are not starting a land war with Russia.
We should quit messing with the internal affairs of other countries – not specifically because of Russia, but because our intrigues have been disasterous. Ukraine is just the latest addition. Maybe conflict between Russia and the Ukraine was inevitable.
If so – we accelerated it.
But if not then we – and more specifically CLINTON was the cause of conflict that might have resolved on its own over time.
It is interesting that the Neo-Cons are the most prominent members of the NeverTrump crowd, and that they are returning to the Democratic party.
Once again the democrats are becoming the power of a beligerant US, and endless war.
I am unhappy with Trump’s actions regarding Russia. I am unhappy with those of Obama for the same reasons.
I guess part of the problem is that you see government as the answer to all the worlds problems.
I see government as the cause of most of them.
I would recomend reading Burdick and Lederer’s “The Ugly American” – it is an old work of fiction – though it is quite clearly intended to refer to specific real world geopolitics.
Regardless, it is a wonderful exegesis of the positive and negative influence the US has on the world. Our people, engaging in commerce with the rest of the world are our greatest and most effective ambassadors, and the most potent force for change in the world.
Our state department and govenrment in contrast is an almost entirely negative factor with respect to our relationship to and impact on the world.
To the extent the US is seen as a force for freedom int he world – that is because of our people. To the extent we are seen as colonialists, and tyrants, that is because of our government.
Trump was elected on a platform of almost non-interventionist foreign policy.
Of acting where our interests lie, and doing so forcefully – and then getting out.
And otherwise not acting. We are not the police for the world.
But another difference between us.
I grasp that ultimately – just as the colonists ultimately separated themselves from the bad rule of England, that ultimately colonialists and other governments that repress their own people and those of their neighbors will fail under their own weight.
It is not out business to try to step in.
We have far more substantive connections between Putin and Clinton – and these were actively hidden by those involved.
Podesta is increasing tied to millions in Russian investment, all of which he has very actively hidden.
Clinton isn’t President. Why bring her up?
And if she had been elected, she wouldn’t have kissed Putin’s patootie like tRump has done.
Are you saying that colluding with Russian is only a crime if you get elected ?
The reason for bringing Clinton up, is in the hope that you can grasp that the whatever standards apply to Trump apply to clinton.
Clinton did “collude” with Russia in an attempt to win the election.
She did get Opo research from FSB and GRU officers – maybe indirectly – but that is still where it came from.
Putin did provide Clinton material assistance towards getting elected.
Putin did seek to harm Trump.
All of the above are quite clearly true, and beyond any dispute.
None of those are crimes.
All are disturbing.
All are reasons to vote against her.
In the unlikely event you actually ever come up with the equivalent with respect to trump, it STILL would not be a crime.
And you got to cast your vote and will again in 2020.
If you wish to make those things crimes – then pass a law.
If you beleive those things are crimes – then prosecute Clinton and impeach Trump.
But quit playing this nonsense that the election was stolen.
The mounting evidence is that to the extent Putin favored anyone – he favored Clinton.
That is also what would make sense, and Putin is not stupid.
I think he would like to remain in office.
Clinton would have been good for him.
She would have driven oil prices up,
she would have made deals with Russia.
and she would have been weak and stupid in foreign affairs leaving him free to look strong to his own people, which is incredibily important to him.
Instead – while democrats have successfully made our relationship with Russia even more hostile. Russia is still on the losing side. Russia looks weak in relations to Trump.
And Putin looks weak to his own people.
Which is very dangerous for all of us.
I do not expect that Putin is going to blackmail Trump.
I expect he is going to find some way to confront Trump and try to force him to back down.
Probably in a military context – because russian agression plays well in russia for Putin.
Is that really the outcome you wanted ?
“And if she had been elected, she wouldn’t have kissed Putin’s patootie like tRump has done.”
What are you smoking ?
Clinton has been played by Putin in every possible way.
They only aspect of Clinton’s dealings with Russia have been good – are her personal finances.
If there is anyone who looks like a Putin puppet it is Clinton.
She stupidly staged the abysmal coup in the Ukraine which gave Russia the justification to invade the Crimea – which is exactly what Putin wanted.
Elsewhere in the world she has been thoroughly inept and weak.
One of the many reasons she did not get elected is she was an abysmal secretary of state.
Two “once in 500 year” storms in a week, but climate change isn’t real.
Hurricane Irma slams Caribbean islands as Category 5 storm
“ST. JOHN’S, Antigua (AP) — Hurricane Irma roared into the Caribbean with record force early Wednesday, its 185-mph winds shaking homes and flooding buildings on a chain of small islands along a path toward Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cuba and a possible direct hit on South Florida.
The strongest Atlantic Ocean hurricane ever recorded passed almost directly over the island of Barbuda, causing widespread flooding and downing trees. France sent emergency food and water rations to the French islands of Saint Martin and Saint Barthelemy, where Irma ripped off roofs and knocked out all electricity.”
Again of course “climate change” is real – that is the entire problem with the left’s nonsense.
The entire warmist position is based on the lunacy that but for man climate is stable – unchanging, and that posistion is hillarious.
What is dubious is the claim that humans have consequenctial effect on climate.
The evidence of that is non-existant.
The planet has warmed and cooled naturally and frequently in the past.
Even the high priest of warmendom do not beleive that Human CO2 had any effect prior to 1975 – and yet we have almost 250 years of rising temps.
As to your huricane claims – no we do not have two 500 year events.
We do not have the records to have 500 year events.
If Houston was deluged by a trillion gallons of water in 1517 no one would know.
Harvey was a cat 4 when it struck land and rapidly declined to a cat 3.
Its destruction was primarily through massive rainfall.
A worse huricane hit TX in 1961.
Irma will likely be a Cat 3 before striking Florida. Andrew was a Cat 5 when it hit FL.
We have only been accurately recording Huricane strength for a short time.
During that time 3 Gulf Huricanes have been stronger.
BTW Stronger merely means the lowest barmotric preasure reading.
“The entire warmist position is based on the lunacy that but for man climate is stable – unchanging, and that posistion is hillarious.”
No, that’s NOT the consensus, dummy.
It’s that human’s are ADDING destabilizing elements to the planets climate that may be catastrophic – contributing to raising the temperature enough to precipitate disaster – which seems to be happening.
Concensus is not science. the concensus was the sun orbitted the earth.
And BTW the “concensus” is that humans are causing MILD warming, not catastrophe.
Next, the CAGW debate is entirely about CO2 – not “It’s that human’s are ADDING destabilizing elements to the planets climate that may be catastrophic”
There are myriads of other human effects, some even effect temperature.
IPCC scientist Roger Pielke Sr. has authored work claiming that land use changes are responsible for most global warming.
That is an excellent claim. It is not widely accepted – because land use changes are self limiting – they will not produce catastrophic warming.
Regardless, every living thing effects the environment in both good and bad ways.
Again the universal constant is change.
Ultimately you should consider whether humanity or some preconsception of the planet are more important.
We attempt to miminmize pollution – because humans value a clean environment.
Despite the assertions of the warmist cabal it is unlikely that humans can yet manipulate climate.
But in the event we actually can, then we should – to whatever is best for us. That more likely means warming than cooling.
We can if we choose today eradicate any species on the planet.
It is inside our ability at the moment to eliminate malaria, or zika or numerous other insect born diseases.
In the past with more blunt tools we have eliminated many of these diseases form much – but not all of the earth.
What we can do now is absolute. If we want the anopheles mosquito or the Tsetse fly can be exterminated in about a year.
We have not done so because we are not yet sure of the actual implications of doing so.
But we have the power to do so and the only limit on that power are concerns over the unknown potential harms to us.
Value is measured by humans.
There is and can not be any intrinsic value outside of that humans attach.
Now you are certain we are going to “precipitate disaster”.
How so ?
Whether it is CAGW or any other malthusian projection – ALL universally have proven false.
Warmists constantly tell us things such as that warming will produce more severe weather.
That is not what the science and the models say.
Though it is what the news tells us – because climate scientists lie for political rather than scientific reasons.
Regardless, what disaster looms ?
With near certainty another severe ice age is coming – sometime.
That will be disaster.
As we exit the quiet period of the current astronomical cycles – we will likely see alot of earthquakes and volcanoes. That would be a disaster.
We could get hit with an asteroid – that would be a disaster.
Accoring to the IPCC Sea levels might rise 30-50cm by 2100,
That is about 12-18″.
Sandy’s storm surge was 13′, Harvey’s was 12, Katrina’s was 20’+.
SLR is inconsequential.
Violent huricanes are likely to decline if the planet warms.
Better science has informed us that a warmer planet means LESS deserts and more rain.
The Sahara (and most other deserts) are shrinking.
More CO2 is exploding crop yeilds.
I know this does not have anything to do with statues, racism or any of the 12 things that Rick wrote about, but maybe I can also get us off the personal innuendos and attacks on Trump for a few comments and on to something more imortant than where we are at this point in this post.
Please read this article before reading more of my comment.
http://www.journalnow.com/news/columnists/scott_sexton/sexton-medical-costs-inspire-a-different-approach/article_40c1b239-8474-5d5a-a951-3971b87af424.html
How can it be that a doctor can buy equipment, hire staff, pay for supplies and provide a service at a little more than 15% of the cost provided at locations accepting insurance. There have been many article from around the country where physicians have begun private practices and doing that on a monthly “retainer” fee or on a cash basis and provide that service at a vastly reduced rate.
We see where white appliances became many different colored appliances and now we are back to basic white. We see houses go from hardwood floors to wall to wall carpeting, covering hardwood floors, back to hardwood floors. We see cars go from black side tires to white wall tires, to white stripe tires and now back to all black tires. Everything that “was” seems to come back and become “now”. So could it be that doctors that treated patients years ago for cash and then started accepting insurance will be replaced by doctors accepting cash on a wide basis? Might it be that we walk into a physicians office that files insurance, you have insurance and you agree to pay the bill in cash and file the claim yourself with the insurance company, the cost to you is much less than the deductible you would have to pay if the doctors office filed the claim. (And there are discounts that are legal and can be given, the doc’s just have to pick the right one. Many discounts do not impact “price”, ie 10% discount if paid within 5 days, 50% discount at time of service, etc.)
The one thing that I took from this article is insurance has created many of the problems we have in healthcare today. Insurance signs a contract, forces people to specific providers, providers jack up the cost, then give insurance a 50% discount and everyone is fat dumb and happy except the patient because rates include insurance profits. In 1990, we had managed care companies telling us even though we were the less expensive hospital in the area, they could not sell us as a preferred provider since they could not show employers we were giving a discount. So we increased our rates 15% overall the next year, gave the managed care companies a 10% discount, they were happy, but the ones that were not part of that large insurance companies plan were paying higher prices.
Despite the article – I do not think Dr. Singh is actually engaged in charity.
I will bet you that he intends to make money, and I would further bet that if government does not get in his way that he will.
Singh is following exactly the method I keep pounding on for raising standard of living.
Provide more value at lower human cost.
I would also refrain from trying to impute moral judgements to any of this.
The “cost” for an ultrasound may actually be $1200 at one place and $199 at another.
This is why government efforts to control costs fail.
Those charging $1200 can certainly justify their charge. An army of forensic accountants will find no evidence of fraud or malfeasance.
It is even possible that those charging $1200 are making less profit than the person charging $199.
Value is subjective. Costs are not determinate.
The market highly incentivizes finding ways to cut costs whole delivering greater value.
My first computer cost 6400. The last one I bought cost $9.99 – and had MORE of everything, more power, more memory, more speed, better graphics, more, more, more.
We have to be careful looking at Dr. Singh and subscription health care models no to presume they are the answer.
They are AN answer. They are one of many many many possibilities.
We though our choices in the market decide which ideas are best.
And we may change our minds on a daily basis.
If we change our laws to allow subscription medical care – we will have missed the point.
We have to change our laws to allow innovations we have not even thought of.
I do not know the future of medical care.
But I know that the more freedom that the market has the better than future will be.
Dave, I did mention that he hired a staff, bought the equipment, buys supplies and makes a profit. So no, he is not giving this as charity. But remember the market dynamics with providers and insurance. Insurance makes money by selling policies. Policies are sold by offering employers better deals, with one being larger discounts on provider services. Higher charges provide for more room for larger discounts. Larger discounts by providers gives providers a much better chance to be in the network. So in NC, many of the Blue Cross contracts havr 60%-75% discounts.So using an average 70% discount, that $1200 charge results in income of about $350-$400 net, very close to this docs cash price. And in some instances, his charge is much lower than the deductible for those covered by insurance
I do not disagree with anything you say except:
discounts are how insurance currently works. It is not necescarily how it did in the past.
I do not have a problem beleiving the cost to others was 1200.
My daughter was given a TB vaccine in China.
She was TB tested for school – and barely passed.
She was then TB tested to become and EMT and was borderline and required to test again.
The next test came out strongly positive.
My Daughter does not have TB, worsening false positives are a well known side effect of Chinese TB vaccines.
Anyway the state wanted to treat her for TB – no further tests. They understood this was likely a false positive – they did not care.
There was an option to get the TB blood test through the state.
That would have taken months and she would have had to continue TB treatment until the results came back. It would have been free to her. But it costs the state 4000 per test and it is very hard to get them to do it – part of why it takes months.
Or we could go to the local hospital – they do it for 1200.
But you must pay, it may or may not be covered by insurance,
and takes 2 weeks to get results – during which she would have been treated for TB.
The final choice was there was a private test center about 2 mi from us in a strip mall.
They want $100 for the test,. It is not covered by insurance and the results come back in 24hr. They required a doctor to schedule the test – but they have a doctor they call, you talk to, and he requests the test, and his service is part of the cost of the test.
The point is the real world is messy. Prices vary all over.
I buy stuff from China all the time for 1/3 of what it costs from the US.
Often exactly the same stuff.
Oddly I have bought things from China that were made in Germany.
How insurance is does not have to be how it will be.
Enough Dr. Singh’s and the practice of discounting to insurance companies could end.
In fact insurance companies could pay higher rates.
Regardless, in an actual free market people will ultimately get the best deal that the market can provide at the time.
Dave “Regardless, in an actual free market people will ultimately get the best deal that the market can provide at the time.”
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Individuals are becoming more involved with their healthcare cost, but most still will go where the insurance plan has its preferred provider. Few people know they can call and ask doctors if they pay the bill when they walk through the door, will they provide that service for the same price as Blue cross or whatever the largest insurer in the area pays. Many physician offices will say yes because they get the money up front, they don’t have to wait 30-45 days for the insurance to pay, they don’t have to bill the insurance company and they don’t have to put up with a denial if some little something is wrong with the claim, which the insurance companies will try and find. As for the patient, most likely what they pay out of pocket will be less than what the co-insurance would have been had they had insurance and for some, much less expensive if they forgo buying insurance. In many cases finding a catastrophic plan and self insuring (with PPACA penalties) is far less expensive than the current insurance now on the market.
So once more people learn how to play the game, movement to a more freer market driven healthcare system will develop.
Dave “Regardless, in an actual free market people will ultimately get the best deal that the market can provide at the time.”
If your measure is utilitarian – always.
Absolutely the market does nto always produce the best possible result for each individual.
Nothing does. Perfection is unacheivable. Utopians are chasing a ghost – and all top down schemes are utopian (actually dystopian).
But it produces the best outcome for the largest number of people.
And it actually must.
One of the problems with all other arrangements is that the best outcome is not the same for each person. free markets are the only arrangement that gives each individual person a shot at their specific best outcome.
Top down solutions mean that those people whose preference coresponds to that of the planners in government tend to get a good deal – maybe a better deal that govenrment,
Everyone else – and that is most of us, gets screwed. We get the choice the planners want us to have at the price that industry has decided we must pay.
Free markets are the only system that copes with the fact that everyone does nto have the same values, and does not want the same thing.
I would be careful about presuming what “many physicians offices will do”
We had the debate over whether a provider can legally sell at prices under medicare.
It appears that that is not blanket prohibited – actually it is, but the blanket provision is being expelled as a medicare provider, not going to jail. And that provision is never enforced.
But outside the blanket context, there are many specific instances where pricing under medicare prices can result in criminal prosecution.
All ? Nope. But what provider is willing to risk jail ?
If any it will be the big institutional providers – because no one will go to jail there.
Dave ” But outside the blanket context, there are many specific instances where pricing under medicare prices can result in criminal prosecution.
All ? Nope. But what provider is willing to risk jail ? ”
Well anyone that knows anything about Medicare knows that most all insurance companies pay more than the medicare fee schedule, so paying cash based on an insurance payment rate is not a problem . Most physician offices would never discount below Medicare’s low rates.
IF you want Free markets and the benefits – greater value for less cost, then you need to eliminate medicare as floor to medical prices.
Dave “IF you want Free markets and the benefits – greater value for less cost, then you need to eliminate medicare as floor to medical prices.”
Well my last comment on this subject with you since I can clearly see I am making no progress and you clearly have not seen a Medicare EOB lately. When you find charges of around $50.00 and you see cash payments of around $4.50, or charges for $100.00 and payments around $25.00, you don’t have to be a genius to understand Medicare payment rates are far below anything a sane physician would set their rates at for all patients.
The issue is private insurance jacking up prices so they can sell discounted services as their main selling point. If insurance A comes in and says they have providers with 50% discounts and insurance B comes in and says their providers giver 65% discounts, which insurance are you going to contract with as an employer for your employees?
Look at the numbers, only about 15% of the population is covered by Medicare. Over 50% is covered by private insurance companies. They are the ones driving the games played in rate setting in America. They are the “market” forces playing your “market” game.
Ron;
You are successfully persuading me of something that I do not see as relevant to the argument.
It is irrelevant specifically what medicare re-imbursements are.
In fact if they differ significantly whether up or down from schedule or charged amounts – that would be a BAD thing.
Nor do I disagree with you regarding “private insurance” – with the exception that what you are observing would not occur in an actual free market unless people wanted it.
When you have a real free market you will have more like Dr. Singh – trying something different – at the margins. Many of those will fail. If it were possible to predict ahead what would fail and what would succeed – you and I would both be very rich.
Those changes that succeed at the margins will ultimately change much of the market.
But the market as a whole will not change much – absent great freedom that allows the greatest possible changes to be attemted at the margins.
Close to 17% of the population receives medicare. Close to 22% receives medicaid,
Another 10% are uninsured.
Absolutely in an unfree market – the big players drive everything – because there is little threat at the margins.
If you want real healthcare reform – that will positively transform everyrhing and improve standard of living,
the fundimental thing you need is not to change insurance or medicare or medicaid.
It is to create broad oportunities for the greatest possible change at the margins.
Do that and the rest will follow.
But when you say the answer is HMO’s or any other specific thing – even some good thing such as subscription medicine that sounds intriguing – you will fail.
Any approach can be transformed into an expensive debacle by government.
http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/how-this-screwy-irs-policy-kickstarted-the-american-health-care-crisis/
Dave: So whats your point? What we have today and how we got there has nothing to do with the way the game is played. So the IRS put wage caps on 80 years ago that drove benefits that the unions used to negotiate better contracts that caused people retiring 25 years later to not have insurance that drove government to create medicare that is now covering 15% of the population. That has nothing to do with insurance companies jacking up discounts that are jacking up rates.
If we purchased cars through third parties contractors, dealers would have $100,000 prices tags on Chevy’s and then depending on which third party contractor you did business with, you would actually pay $25,000 to $100,000 (if no association with one).
Sorry medicare is not the problem here. Third party insurance companies are the problem!
We are so arguing past each other.
The wheels on a car are not balanced – so the car vibrates, and the hoses to the radiator work loose and leak.
Absolutely we need to tighten the hoses.
But the problem is the unbalanced wheels are vibrating the car.
I can disagree on the relatives ranks of that specific failures you have identified.
But I am not arguing the specifics.
The problem is the existing regulation that stiffles innovation.
Not merely innovative new treatments, but innovative new ways of conducting business.
Insurance companies respond to the circumstances they are in.
You and I may not like their choices, but that does not matter, in an actual free market what you think are the bad choices of insurance companies will have to change with competition.
Law and regulation and govenrment do not. Medicare, Medicaid, Healthcare regulation remains – regardless of whether it works. These are not subject to market impetuses for change.
Yes, people learn how to play by whatever rules exist.
Further over time whatever rules exist the market will seek to find as much freedom as possible.
BUT:
Where government actually prohibits something – if there is significant incentive to go arround that – you get black markets, crime and violence.
Where it is not clear that government prohibts something innovation is stiffled.
Sr. Singh as an example appears to be doing a cash up front low price model.
My guess is that he is doing that because it runs the lowest risk of running afoul of the law.
Market changes do not always evolve disruptively – or atleast not completely disruptively.
Dr. Singh or someone like him might otherwise have taken a traditional practice and added low rates for the uninsured or people who pay cash up front.
Further I would highly recommed Ronald Coase’s how china became capitalist.
Change ALWAYS occurs at the margins.
What does that mean ?
Not at the center of the market. Not with the market leaders, not in the status quo.
It means the new player in the market saying “I need to distinguish myself and do something different from everyone else”.
It means established providers saying “If I have paid my capital costs, I can sell additional services for almost any price, because every added dollar is profit”
This is BTW why Drug prices in the US are high and low elsewhere.
The US is the biggest market and a walled garden. US sales are protected from prices elsewhere by law. That means drug makers price product so that the US sales will pay for the cost of developing the drug. Foreign sales – even to africa are marginal sales – they are after nearly all costs have been paid. Almost every dollar collected for a drug sold in Sweden or even africa is profit, while the same drug sold in the US at a much higher price is paying for the development cost of the drug.
The concept of the margin is important – because margins are also the grey areas, the places where the market actions appear the most scurilous, and are therefore the most prone to regulation.
But these are where change occurs, and these are where the regulation is the deepest.
Insurance did not create the problems with healthcare any more than the bit and brace precluded cordless drills.
The problem is not insurance. But the encoding of presumptions into our law and regulations that make disruptive innovation impossible.
If there was a regulation that had dictated that the crank on a drill must be 6″ high – that would have precluded or significantly altered the development of the electric drill.
While a similar regulation specifying that the cord must be 6’s long would have precluded cordless drills.
The probability of innovation is exponentially related to the degree of freedom in a market.
We can not know what the future will bring in any part of the market place.
But our laws and regulations can determine what it will NOT bring.
“In its latest forecast discussion, the NHC said: “The chance of direct impacts from Irma later this week and this weekend is increasing in the Florida Keys and portions of the Florida Peninsula.
“However, it is too soon to specify the timing and magnitude of the impacts.”
My brother in law who lives in the Keys, has been told to evacuate. They have dogs, and are worried about finding accommodations that will shelter family and pets.
If I lived in the Keys I would be preparing to evacuate.
There are about 20 hurricanes a year.
But most years FL is NOT hit.
All we have right now is models.
Those models have a high probabilty of Irma striking FL and being Cat 3 when it does.
But there remains a 5% chance it could head into the gulf, and a small chance it could head off into the atlantic.
It could grow stronger, or not weaken. or it could just die.
You want to bet the future of humanity on a climate model that is many orders of magnitude crappier than the huricane models.
Predicting a week ahead is far easier than 80 years.
Irma, at Cat 5, just hit Puerto Rico, which has 3.5 million U.S. citizens living on the island.
This reflects a great deal of what is wrong with the left today. Nor is it confined to journalism.
It is present in academia, in science, and even in blog posting here.
When those on the left beleive something to be true – that is sufficient.
Like Dan Rather, what they beleive remains true even if the evidence has been discredited.
Modern progressivism is a religion. It is not an ideology. It is not credible.
It is wrong about what it beleives to be true about itself.
It is wrong about what it beleives to be true about others.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451141/cnn-investigates-team-trump-new-york-times-reporting
A wide variety of goods and how their real cost has changed over the past 40 years.
http://humanprogress.org/static/3028?utm_content=buffer9a23b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
After we lose the fight for Free Speach, the fight against Free Thought is next.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/20720/leftist-editor-you-shouldnt-be-allowed-even-think-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=051717-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter#
Innovation running afoul of regulation.
https://economics21.org/html/regulators%E2%80%99-bark-bad-their-bite-2528.html
Both Maynard Keynes and Paul Krugman think this is wrong.
Whether you agree or not, some very smart people are clearly very wrong.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-hurricanes-are-not-good-economy?utm_content=bufferfddb1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
I’m from the government and I’m here to help
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJEQwhbWAAAti2Z.jpg:large
Do Building codes make building safer ?
Click to access regulation-v37n2-1.pdf
And here is what Facebook has to say:
“The vast majority of ads run by these accounts didn’t specifically reference the US presidential election, voting or a particular candidate.
Rather, the ads and accounts appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum — touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.
About one-quarter of these ads were geographically targeted, and of those, more ran in 2015 than 2016.
The behavior displayed by these accounts to amplify divisive messages was consistent with the techniques mentioned in the white paper we released in April about information operations.”
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/09/information-operations-update/
“Rather, the ads and accounts appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum — touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.
About one-quarter of these ads were geographically targeted, and of those, more ran in 2015 than 2016.”
OK, now think it through.
What were the Russians up to in 2015, spreading those divisive ideological messages?
Hint:
You do not seem to understand.
I do not care what or why the Russians or anyone else was advocating on Facebook.
I expect that the AFLCIO was advocating on Facebook.
Everyone on this blog has engaged in issue advocacy.
I do not care if Facebook has a Der Stormer page.
They certainly have plenty of Antifa pages.
It does not matter what Russia was trying to advocate for.
It does not matter what anyone was advocating for.
You are quite litterally arguing that no one should be able to engage in advocacy that offends you.
That is offensive.
Jay,
Facebook can make its own rules – just as Rick can here.
The rest of us can then decide whether we wish to participate.
With respect to the claim of collusion and interferance in the election – it is not Facebooks rules that matter, it is the law.
Is it illegal for facebook to allow accounts that may or may not be of Russians ?
Is it illegal to advertise on Facebook ?
Is it illegal to advocate for guns ?
Is it illegal to advocate a position on LGBTQ issues ?
This is a part of what I have been trying to get through to you.
Even if you actually find what you think you are looking for, it is neither going to be illegal or disturbing – atleast not to Trump voters.
Lets just say Facebook is correct and this was all done by one or a few people.
And that they were Russians.
Lets go further which Facebook does not and assert that they were fronts for Putin.
Are you saying that Putin or Russia can not open Facebook Accounts ?
That Putin or Russia can not advocate on Gun or LGBTQ issues ?
According to facebook there was no candidate advocacy associated with any of this.
But lets actually go further and presume that the Russian government created fake accounts and used them to post favorably for Trump (or Clinton).
Maybe we could argue that is illegal – I am not sure.
But we can do nothing to stop it.
Are you going to war with Russia over this ?
If we are going to police Russia with regard to Facebook,
what about other countries ?
What about other groups ?
Are we going to bar Bloomberg or NRA from engaging in issue advocacy on Guns ?
Are we going to ban the RNC or DNC from engaging in advocacy for candidates ?
Are we going to bar Jay, and Roby and Moogie and … from advocating for candidates on Facebook ? other Social Media ?
Next we have the scale of this.
Facebook claims this was about 100,000 of advertising that violates their rules.
BTW that is all that is actually wrong with it – it violates their rules.
Hillary spent about $25/vote in this election.
Given that 75% of her voters were near certain to show up and vote no matter what,
that means she spent $100/vote to get undecideds or unmotivated voters to the polls.
Presuming that the $100,000 was as effective (or ineffective) as Clinton – that means that Russia might have “influenced” 1000 votes.
Even if somehow Russia was remarkably efficient and got $1/vote that would be 100,000 votes.
To alter the outcome of the election that would require those to be 100,000 very specific votes.
Getting 50,000 more Trump votes in NY, or GA, or CA would not have changed the election one iota.
And finally we have the universal problem
that lets say all of this did work and did change the outcome of the election.
How is persuading a voter to vote – even if the persuasion comes secretly from Russia troublesome ?
Individuals and groups thoughout the country do that all the time.
People across the world express views on our elections.
In the end people go to the polls and they vote.
They vote for the candidate with the shortest name.
The most handsome candidate,
The candidate that has promised them the most,
The better liar,
The one they trust more,
They vote for their own reasons.
Nearly the entire world seeks to influence their vote.
But No one holds a gun to their head.
Maybe some Facebook add either persuaded them to get out of their chair and vote,
or less likely persuaded them to change who they voted for.
Maybe the add was a lie ?
So what ?
You are seeking to perfect what is imperfectable.
You are looking to perfect something we can not even define what perfect is.
This is not going to be the “evidence” you need.
I am sure it will convince Clinton voters that those racist dolts out their were driven to vote by evil russian influence.
I am sure it will have them frothing at the mouth.
But it is not going to persuade people who voted for Trump that they were duped.
Buyer’s remorse might do that – but they are not going to beleive they were fooled by Russia. They are going to believe they were fooled by Trump – if they beleive they were fooled at all.
And Buyer’s remorse is bidirectional.
If Clinton had won, do you think that her voters would have stuck with her ?
Particularly given that she is losing to Trump worse today than on election day ?
The Russians are “sowing seeds of discord” and “potentially laying the groundwork for what they’re going to do in 2018 or 2020,” elections.
Stop your enabling rationalizations-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-01/russia-linked-bots-hone-online-attack-plans-for-2018-u-s-vote
I would completely agree that Russia was and is sewing the seeds of discord.
That was their goal all along. They care much more about causing chaos, than in who is president. They care more about discrediting whoever is president than specifically who is president.
So why are you helping them ?
“I would completely agree that Russia was and is sewing the seeds of discord.”
Do you need a tiny needle to sew seeds of discord? Is there a special stitch?
Finally what this demonstrates is what many conservatives have claimed all along – that Facebook is hostile to them.
Facebook has terminated these accounts.
Which they can do.
But if facebook is a place that terminates accounts of those advocating for gun rights or advocating on other issues that Facebook disagrees with, that just increases the impetus for many of us to leave facebook.
I have no problem with private censorship.
I have no problem responding to it.
I quit using google as my search engine when Google fired James Damore.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/07/john-le-carre-on-trump-something-truly-seriously-bad-is-happening?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I read books of the spy genre that LeCare writes in, but I have only read a few of LeCare’s books and I do not like them.
I prefer Clancy, Fleming, Follett, Ludlum, Flynn, Higgins, Deighton, …
AUTHORS AGAINST TRUMPANZEES
Has there ever been a president so dispised ?
Lincoln.
AUTHORS AGAINST TRUMPANZEES
‘Art of the Deal’ co-author’s astonishing backstab of Trump”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/18/tony-schwartz-art-deal-co-author-backstabs-trump/
Putin has also said something negative about Trump recently – or is that just some sneaky plot to make us think they are not colaberating ?
Regardless. I do not get my views spoon fed to me by celebrities or authors.
I am sure I can find other co-authors and ghost writers who have trashed the people they worked for.
Is it possible for you to debate or discuss something of substance ?
With respect to the “dreamers” – sorry that one is easy – That is Obama’s fault. He could have had a deal with republicans, he chose to act alone and unconstitutionally.
He got the credit, he gets the blame.
DACA was likely to die in SCOTUS anyway.
Congress can now fix it if they want.
If they do not – then you will know which reps and which senators vote how.
Further legislatively we can constructively address the whole problem – if we wish to.
Though honestly I can not understand why the left supports immigration.
The left’s views on economics are ludicrously stupid, and applying them to immigration would yeild the false impression that immigration was bad ?
Also if you support the Dreamers then why don’t you support the businesses that hire them illegally ? You want immigrants, but you do not want them to have jobs ?
But then neither the left nor the right understand that when you criminalize conduct that does not violate fundimental principles, that you get extensive black markets, and often violence.
Look at laws against sex work, minimum wages, immigration, drugs.
There are many issues that we rarely discuss here that you and I likely agree on.
But you do not grasp that when we agree the facts, logic and principles that support what we agree on, are the same facts, logic and principles support the liberty proposition when we disagree.
You seem to beleive that you can pick and choose what is illegal and what is not emotionally, and that will work.
Those who disagree with you feel just as emotionally strongly about their views.
If strength of emotion is the standard for measuring the truth – you lose.
“Putin has also said something negative about Trump recently – or is that just some sneaky plot to make us think they are not colaberating ?”
Well yes, that’s surely a possibility, as John le Carré, a former MI5 and MI6 insider, who thereafter for decades wrote about covert spy game chess moves, would instantly surmise as a possibility.
Or perhaps, referring to Putin’s recent remark that that Trump isn’t his his ‘wife’ – their honeymoon is now over – but both options still support the possibility of past collusion/collaboration.
If nothing was going on, why all the tRump lies to cover up those meetings?
Why the shifting cover stories?
Why does he continue to refuse to release his TAXES?
I would also immagine that a capable master spy would also grasp that Trump was never in Putin’s best interest. That nations very very rarely act outside their perceived best interests.
Therefore the claim that Putin helped Trump should be regarded with the deepest suspicion.
It is near certain Putin did want to delegitimaize the US election.
And the left has bit hook line and sinker giving him everything he could possibly have hoped for. An incredible return on a tiny investment.
All claims of collusion require the beleif that Putin would allow purported personal animus to Clinton to color his actions as national leader.
They would require you to beleive that despite this animus to Clinton that he permitted her and her associates far greater business involvment with Russia than Trump.
And it would require you to beleive that somenthing occured that had no observable effects.
I find it hillarious that as the purported “evidence” of collusion keeps leaking out – that the left is not unbeleivably embarrased by it.
That latest ? Some russians – maybe only a few, maybe affiliated with the Russian government put up $100,000 in pro gun and anti LGBTQ adds on facebook.
Do you think that Putin has any involvement in $100,000 expenditures ?
We are talking about effecting a US presidential election – not that of a district magistrate.
Further, what you are really saying is that the US owns the internet, that foreign governments can not act on the internet.
I think probably 10% of the media articles I view are sourced from the UK or Canada, or from Candian or British journalists. Are you going to make that illegal ? Or is it only Russians supporting Trump in the most indirect way possible ?
Why are you still making this stupid claim ? Why have you not crawled into your hole and disowned this nonsense ? This is making you and the left and the media look stupid.
The damage to Trump is minimal and transitory. And it is highly unlikely to ever be different. There is no army of dead people voting for Trump, no thousands of illegal immigrants voting for Trump, no ballot stuffing, no successful voting machine hacking.
You are arguing that people were persuaded to vote in a way you did not like, and that Russia somehow helped persuade them.
Even if True, that is “ho hum”.
Do you think Trump traded Sanctions for 100,000 of Facebook adds for guns ?
Trump spent 6,000 times that on his campaign.
If Trump had wanted to push things through Facebook he did not need Russian help.
Thus far I have heard nothing that I would call a lie regarding “meetings”.
You demand rocket science precision in Tweets.
Trump has not done anything equivalent to saying “I did not sleep with that woman” on national TV, or under oath.
None of these “meetings” involved Trump.
Very very few involved any at high levels in his campaign.
None involved anyone at any consequence in Russia.
I was a key person in a project to build luxury apartments more than a decade ago.
We were converting a 5 story tobacco warehouse owned by the city.
We had to get an option to buy the property.
We spent 3 years going through proposals and dances with the city, and county.
Meetings, emails, thousands of hours of work.
The project fell through when a new mayor was elected and fed the project to a crony.
Who also had to go through several years to get to go forward.
There is a huge story of government inefficiency – the tax losses to the city were over 100K/year. The sale price for the building was only 180K. Had the City approved the project in a few months, they would have collected over 1M in revenue that because they stalled the project for about 6 years they never saw.
Regardless, I would not have called that “business dealings”.
The project fell through. There were no actual approvals – we could not get any of those until we actually owned the property. The most we could do is meet and discuss the project hypothetically.
You have also clearly decided that the meetings in the Steele Dossier actually happened – despite the fact that even the FBI determined that those they could check did not.
The Montforte thing is worse than Facebook – turns out at the time that Montforte was dealing with Russian affilated Ukrainians he had nothing to do with Trump but did have connections with Clinton. And subsequently when low level people were reporting overatures from Russia Montforte loudly said NO!!! over and over.
Finally If Trump managed to swing the US election by spending 100K through Putin – that is who we WANT as president.
Why do you think you are entitled to anyone else’s tax returns ?
Dave, your ignorance is appalling.
As is your selectivity in filtering information to script it to your own views.
devious Donald CRAFTED the lying narrative to explain his statement son’s meeting:
“Flying home from Germany on July 8 aboard Air Force One, Trump personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said that he and the Russian lawyer had “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children” when they met in June 2016, according to multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations.” This has been confirmed multiple times. Despicable Donald confirmed his sons varicity in the phony story to the media. He structured the lie then reinforced it. When it came out that the primar reasoning n for Junior to attend the meeting was to get damaging information about Hillary Clinton. In an email Jr. was told prior to the meeting “that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy.”
Both Trumps mucked that up that up.
“Why do you think you are entitled to anyone else’s tax returns ?”
Are you retarded?
It’s not ANYONE’s tax returns, it’s a candidate for the presidency, who made a CAMPAIGN PROMISE to release them, an expected transparency for recent candidates. You saying he should be able to reneg on that promise for no reason?
What is obvious jay – is the extent to which you are willing to warp reality.
Apparently Trump and Trump Jr. confered on Trump Jr. Statement regarding the Trump tower meeting.
So ? You use the word “crafted” – So ?
You are absolutely intent on finding some way to spin anything into something meaningful, and more importantly something that means what you want it to.
We see this over and over.
Rosenstien produced a report on Comey that the whitehouse claimed as the basis for his firing Trump gave a slightly different reason.
You and the media therefor conclude someone is lying.
It is inconceivable in your world that there could be more than one reason to fire someone – there almost always is. Or even that people can have multiple good reasons and change their mind as to which matters.
There were a good dozen reasons to fire Comey – and we learn more as time passes.
It is not lying to state one one day and another a different day.
You have no clue what lying is.
Lying is not saying different things at different times.
It is knowingly saying false things. Usually knowingly saying false things about something important.
With respect to Trump Jr. – the facts of the meeting were well understood.
Regardless, even not having any facts at all, it is actually impossible for the meeting to have risen to the standard you are looking for.
You can look at the worst possible case for Trump/Trump Jr. and it does not reach what you need.
Lets say Natalia came to Trump with a personal message from Putin – providing dirt on Clinton.
That is far more egregious than the meeting was advertised.
It still not enough.
Not only are you fixated on this Russia/Trump collusion – you are never going to find what you hope for – because it can not exist.
I was deeply concerned shortly after Trump fired Comey that there was some possibility this could blow up and Trump would resign or be impeached.
So I examined the collusion meme more deeply.
It ultimately can not work.
You can do reductio ad absurdem or inductive reasoning on it.
Look at the worst possible evidence that you could hypothetically find that is not inconsistent with fact we know. That will just not get you what you need.
You either need the Russians to have hacked the voting machines in the rust belt AND to have conspired with Trump to have done so AND to have altered enough votes to change the outcome. I guess that is hypothetically possible, but numerous agencies have claimed that while the Russians tried, that did not happen. Given those agencies are hostile to Trump that makes that conclusion credible.
Lets say the Russians hacked the DNC – and somehow Trump is complicit.
That would weaken Trump – but unlikely reach impeachment.
Why ? Because ultimately the DNC emails released by WikiLeaks ARE a real accurate insight into the dark soul of Hillary and democrats.
You just do not get to punish people for demonstrating that your shit stinks.
The last meme you have is that Russia in some form or another provided political advertising. Again disturbing but as the recent Facebook analysis shows – there just isn’t any meat to that bone. No one is going to view Russia pissing over Clinton (or Trump) throught the media as problematic.
What you might find the more you dig, is evidence that allows people who already beleive that some conspiracy exists to think they see proof.
But most of this actually proves the opposite.
You were entitled to ask for Trump’s tax returns as a condition of voting for possibly him.
No one cares what those who never would vote for him want from him.
He may have waffled but ultimately decided no.
You can be upset about that.
But that is all.
You have no right to anyone’s tax returns.
In point of fact there are places and offices that do require such.
And that has driven good people off school boards and out of politics.
A smart businessman shares his tax return confidentially with his bank – because they require it. Never with a journalist.
As typical of the left you constantly think you have rights you do not. That are not even rights.
Transparency is a requirement of government.
You have it entirely backwards.
You want to know where politicians get their money – unless you can demonstrate probable cause that the source was an actual criminal transction – that is private exchange and not your business.
Conversely everything that GOVERNMENT actually does is the publics business.
I have no right to Trump’s taxes before becoming president. He was a private citizen.
I might have some right to the presidents tax returns during his presidency.
I have or should have very broad rights to what the government has done
Transparency means you get to know with the EPA or IRS or WhiteHouse has done as part of the public’s business. You do not get to know what some EPA clerk does with her evenings.
Again you misuse words and that gets you to broken conclusions.
I did not vote for Trump – I do not beleive you did either.
That voids any promise trump made to me.
Campaign promises are of the explicit or impllied for – vote for me and I will do X.
I did not vote for Trump, I can not hold him accountable for campaign promesses
But beyond that – do we have to list the littany of broken Obama prmosies ?
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/liberals-democrats/obamas-long-list-of-broken-promises/
No I am not entitled to know the reasons that other people do things.
I am entitled to have my own rights respected by others
“Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
Locke
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
Jefferson
“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”
Jefferson
Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.”
Spencer
“the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”
Mill
The first law was “hurt no man” and the second was “then do as you please”
Nock
“The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. … In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.”
Rand
“No one may threaten or commit violence (‘aggress’) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.”
Rothbard
The above are all different formulations of the Non-Agression principle.
That is the foundation of the social contract, the basis for legitimate government.
It is about ACTS, not reasons,
I have no right to know what is in someone else’s head.
AUTHORS AGAINST TRUMPANZEES
And why would Stephen Kings oppinion dictate who should be president ?
The mess with DACA is Obama’s fault.
Regardless, don’t you want a president – particularly one who is at odds with you over nearly everything you care about, to be respecting separation of powers and constraining his conduct to narrow constitutional realms ?
You are constantly accusing Trump of being a Nazi, Fascist, Authoritarian.
Yet, there have been few if any instances thus far he has acted outside his constitutional authority. And His most offensive acts have been to undo the unconstitutional overreach of Obama.
As Obama noted – “Elections have consequences” Starting in late 2009 after voters soured on the lunacy of 2009 Single party democratic rule, Democrats lost the consent of the governed to impose their agenda unilaterally.
Instead of working with Republicans, or doing nothing, which is what voters had chosen.
Democrats tried to go it alone without the necescary consent of the governed.
The consequence is that they have lost over 1000 elected offices in state and federal government, they largest political shift in US history. And now you are complaining because your authoritarian actions are being torn down – because they had no legitimate foundations.
Immigration reform has always been possible. There actually is common ground between the parties.
“And why would Stephen Kings oppinion dictate who should be president ?”
And why shouldn’t his opinion be considered more seriously than yours?
And his opinions don’t dictate; they inform.
The only thing Stephen King’s oppinion inform’s you of is Stephen King’s oppinion.
Stephen King’s oppinion of a new York Times fiction best seller would have a great deal more weight than mine.
His views on politics have no more weight than any of the rest of us.
You are free to give his views whatever weight you want. but placing a high weight on them makes you little different from my Grandmother who voted for the most handsome candidate.
You don’t think this has gravitas ?
I think it is a truism misapplied.
Trump is quite obviously not dumb.
No one accomplishes what he has accomplished without a great deal of intelligence.
In fact there is no evidence of Dumb.
Most of the complaints from the left are that he lies, some are that he is evil, racist, or sexist, or some other reprehensible trait.
Those may or may not be true, but none are evidence of stupidity.
Suggesting that Trump is dumb, does nothing but call your own intelligence into question.
But you and the left do this all the time – you lobb insults without even bothering to decide if they make sense.
Moderates here claim to want compromise.
Immigration is a perfect area for compromise.
My position – the “extremist position” and also one the left quasi shares, that we should have nearly open borders, also requires either eliminating or strongly firewalling the welfare state. That includes issues such as minimum wages.
The political likelyhood of that is zero.
The alternate extreme – severely restricted immigration requires massive ammounts of force and cost.
The “best” solution – open borders, is not politically possible.
At the same time though this issue does nto really split left right, despite portrayal otherwise, there is plenty of space to accept that compromise is possible.
I can propose something – but I do not represent either the left or the right.
While there is some possibility that a compromise would be something that might suit me more than either side, what matters is that we work something out.
Contra the left the Obama years were disasterous.
On the one hand Obama concocted DACA from thin air.
On the other he was more aggressive enforcing immigration law and deported more people by far than any president before him.
Even Obama relized as a matter of practicality that open immigration with the rest of our government laws and entitlements was dangerous and unsustainable.
So what can be done ?
I think it is nearly certain that DACA in some form will turn into law.
While there is no right for people brought here as children to be here.
And creating one is dangerous and stupid.
Still most of us grasp that deporting people who know no life outside the US is cruel.
So lets start their – congress is going to allow those who arrived in the US as children prior to 2007 to remain in some legal fashion.
So what does that actually mean ?
Does that mean citizenship ?
Does that mean green card ?
Does that mean under 18 at the time of arrival ? Under 16 ? Under 12 ?
Further how are we going to address this in the future ?
Are we going to continue to allow the children of illegal aliens to permently have a right to stay ? And again under what terms ?
The EU required member states to accept immigrants under 18. Sweden actually tested those it received under child waivers. 86% of them were over 18 – many as old as 31.
IF you make the “dreamers” legal – that means they can get jobs.
That will increase the labor pool – mostly at the low end by about 1M people – that is a bit less than a 1% increase in labor. Worse it is going to make competition for low end jobs intense. That effect is mostly already present.
Next I get livid at the left for criminalizing hiring “ilegal aliens”.
That is a problem with out laws, not a problem with criminal employers.
The left wants to incentivize foreigners to come here, but then make it near impossible for them to get a job legally, and worse to fine or jail people who hire them and then wag their fingers at them for doing so.
Anyone who offers Anyone else Any Job, regardless of pay, that they are free to accept or reject, is doing something morally GOOD – regardless of the job, regardless of the rate.
If I offer an illegal or someone with a criminal record, or otherwise disadvantaged work at $4/hr and they voluntarily take it – I have done something GOOD for them.
Yet the idiots on the left wish to criminalize that.
No, they say – I am not free to offer a job at the price I can afford – I must offer it at twice that rate – otherwise I am an evil criminal and morally bankrupt.
How is offering something freely to someone ever a bad thing. All voluntary free exchange is a positive good.
Regardless, the work problem is one of the left’s making – how are you going to solve it ?
If you have a high minimum wage and lots of available labor at the bottom of the labor pool, that means very high unemnployment for those at the very bottom.
It that what you want ? A large pool of angry but now legal immigrants who can not legally get a job, because no one will hire them at high wages ?
This is but one of the myriads of tough problems that we need to discus and resolve.
That do not have perfect answers that DACA unconstitutionally ducked.
Reclassifying dreamers so they are no longer illegal does not inherently mean “a route to citizenship”
While I have no personal problem with citizenship – it is not the only possible legal status.
Nor is it owed to anyone merely by virtue of their presence here.
Even my open borders values does not inherently create a right to citizenship just because you have crossed the borders.
So we can decide these people can stay – without giving them anything more
We can say you can legally live here – but you can not work.
We can say you can legally live and work here – but cant not become a citizen
Or we can say jump through hoops and you can become a citizen.
Regardless, a work permit or citizenship are not rights.
We must decide what we will do. And those choices impact alot of citizens who are already here.
What about crimes ?
This group is famous for having extra-ordinarily low crime rates – good.
But do we deport “dreamers” who are convicted of a crime ?
Summary ?
Misdemeanor ?
Fellony ?
We also have this sanctuary cities game.
Personally I would just completely eliminate federal involvment of any kind in law enforcement. There is no federal general police power in the constitution.
But that is not happening.
So what is ?
Trump is forcing our legislators to confront these and many other questions.
That is a good thing.
It is not the president or the courts job to write the law.
Aside from why should I care what LeCare thinks – or Madonna, or …. ?
There is the separate question of how does this argument makes sense ?
Regardless, I would suggest reading Hayek’s “The road to Serfdom” that will give you a better idea of what is going on.
Absolutely throughout much of the west there is an anti-left, anti-socialist back lash.
That is a consequence of the failure of left/socialism.
Had it succeeded there would be no backlash.
The consequences of the failure of progressivism, social democracy, socialism light, socialism are always a strong risk of a more authoritarian regime.
When things go to hell. When statism results in instability and chaos, a strong leader promising to solve all of our problems will be extremely appealing.
It does not matter much whether that authoritarian comes from the right or the left.
Frankly the entire concept of left/right is nearly meaningless with respect to totalitarians – as it is to libertarians.
Authoritarianism vs, Liberty is a DIFFERENT political axis than left/right.
That is why libertarians are not for the most part left or right.
Our positions smear all over the political spectrum.
We make out choices driven by reason and a high value of liberty.
The left is driven by emotion – particularly empathy.
The right is driven by disgust.
Authoritarians are driven by power and order.
This is also why there is so much confustion about whether Nazi’s or fascists are left or right.
The nazi’s were racist, nationalist, traits often associated with the right.
But there were socialist, anti-capitalist, collectivist, worker oriented, traits normally associated with the left.
Other fascists – such as peronists share the nationalism and militarism of some on the right, but again were strongly socially on the left.
Trump has strong authoritarian tendencies.
But thus far they have been manifest only in deconstructing govenrment.
That is not and can not ever lead to fascism.
Conversely Mao, Lenin Stalin, Che, Castor, Chavez, are all purportedly of the left, but they are inarguably authoritarian. And frankly nationalist and very hard to distinguish from “fascists”.
19th and early 20th century progressives – through to FDR were extremely fascist.
Actually read Sanger. Some of the leading lights of progressivism openly admired Hitler.
In fact Hitler credited american progressives as the source of his ideas on Eugenics.
Anyway, I have little doubt that both the US and the west are in danger of moving into fascism.
But contra you – and aparently LeCare, it is those like Trump that are our best hope of avoiding it.
Trump’s authoritarianism is well managed. It is constrained to what he can do as president unilaterally with a hostile press, and suspicious country.
For the most part this is tear down the lawless totalitarian light overreach of the left over the past couple of decades.
I support some – not all of the Obama actions that Trump has rescinded.
But i do not support doing them lawlessly – FASCISTLY as Obama did.
If you do not like all the Obama actions Trump has reveresed – go to congress and get them made into law.
We are a nation of laws, not men.
Obama was more of a benign fascist.
“You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!”
Galadriel LOTR
Power is most dangerous when it appears to be exercised by the good.
“Power is most dangerous when it appears to be exercised by the good.”
Conversation is the most boring when it is exercised by the overly windy.
atleast you read to the bottom.
Do you disagree or are you just being grumpy ?
You are dense.
The point is that a hostile foreign nation intentionally was trying to interfere in our elections, to benefit their own interests. I consider that a warlike act that requires response. Don’t you?
“The point is that a hostile foreign nation intentionally was trying to interfere in our elections, to benefit their own interests. I consider that a warlike act that requires response. Don’t you?”
Again strip the adjectives.
Does it matter if they were “hostile” ?
If the swedish government is pushing adds for rainbows and fairy dust – is that different ?
How is gun advocacy or positions on LGBTQ issues interfering in our election ?
Can Merkel state in public that she would prefer Clinton – or is that “interference in our election” ?
I am asking you to try to really think logically about this.
Take every bit of this claim and invert it and see if that makes a difference to you.
Does it matter that it is Russia ?
Does it matter whether it was issues or candidates ?
Does it matter that it was in their self interest ?
Is it even possible to prevent this ?
Why do you presume the US owns the internet ?
Are we going to curate Facebook so that Russian sourced items are only visible in Russia and visa versa ?
Why is this “warlike” ?
Nations throughout the well think their values are better than ours – and we think ours are better than theirs.
We try to shape their values all the time.
Are they not allowed to try to shape ours back ?
What if this was Saudi Arabia advocating for Islam ?
No, I do not think this is an act of war.
And No, I do not think it requires a response.
I think it is the ordinary actions of nations in the affairs of other nations that has gone on for centuries just played out in the internet world.
Further, your perspective is extremely dangerous.
When you call something warlike – then you are marching towards war.
So do you think this is something we should go to war with Russia over ?
BTW I would suggest that as the standard for far more than just this.
Just as our govenrment is limited in its acts towards our people
to prohibiting actual violence,
enforcing contracts,
and punishing actual harms.
Are relations to other nations are much the same.
It is not the business of our government how our people trade with foreign nations.
It is not the business of our government to attempt to limit the actions of foreign countries in ways we can not limit our own citizens.
Why ? Because we should not be marching towards war over stupid crap like this.
When you accept that individuals are free, you ultimately accept that foreign govenrments have much the same freedom
So no this does not bother me. Not even if it was not something we do to Russia and other countries all the time.
Freedom means accepting that others are going to do and say things that you do not like.
Everything you do not like is not an act of war.
Purportedly Bad motives do not make acts that would be acceptable by someone else, or with other motives, into actual bad acts.
The adds or advocacy are legitimate on their face.
They do not become illegitimate because someone we do not like was involved.
That is what the rule of law, not men means.
With all the record breaking hurricane disruptions assaulting the US, can’t you at least reduce your hot air windiness?
“Can Merkel state in public that she would prefer Clinton – or is that “interference in our election” ?”
If, Windy Dave, you don’t understand the difference between a foreign leader OPENLY endorsing a candidate, and one surreptitiously trying to influence the electorate by flooding US social media with armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news to socially engineer opinion as interfering in the U.S. elections, you’re brain-farts are nearing Catagory 4..
Why is PPACA raising rates so much ?
http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2017/09/05/the_inconvenient_truth_about_obamacares_premium_spiral_110721.html
Those evil Koch Brothers are at it again!!!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/koch-brothers-will-push-congress-to-protect-dreamers
Three brothers- not always on the same page.
Bill Koch supported Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, while David Koch and Charles Koch refused to back Dumb Donald.
And like far-left activist George Soros, the Libertarian Kochs’ views on immigration coincide, as does their inclinations to support various non political charities.
And ALL THREE Koch brothers would be inclined to stick pins in their eyes rather than be subjected to reading your sprawling incoherencies day after day.
BTW – to save my eyesight, and cut down on related eye strain headaches, I now listen to your comments using my iPad Siri voice app, to read them outloud to me. And to try and make them more acceptable, I’ve switched to the Female British accented voice: I had hoped the App Store offered a more appropriate Minnie Mouse voice, but alas, that isn’t yet available. But I can increase the playback voice speed and get close to a mousey fast screech, to help get through your content ASAP.
Ad Hominemly Yours,
J
There are 4 Koch brothers not 3.
Two are not part of the family business and have not been for decades.
All are well off, but only David and Charles are uber rich.
Generally the term “Koch brothers” refers to David and Charles”
Given that some even here have argued that I am being paid by them – would that were true, I doubt they would stick pins in their eyes.
I do not go to alot of trouble to track their precise views. But from what I know they are little different from my own.
You are not obligated to read or listen to my posts at all.
Even actual free speach rights – which are not relevant to blog posts, do not have a right to be heard.
If you enjoy listening to my comments read in the voice of a british female – good for you.
In interesting debate on Free Speech/Hate Speech from Radiolab.
I am very near Justice Hugo Black – absolutist on government restriction of Free Speech.
Conversely I have little problem with private censorship.
But I was surprised at the strength of some of the arguments made by the women from the EFF regarding private censorship.
https://livestream.com/accounts/955973/events/7693769/videos/162388916
The statement is correct.
Under stalin alone deaths were 8-61M
That is more than Hitler to almost 10 times Hitler.
The great leap forward alone killed 45M and deaths under Mao probably numbered 80m
The Khmer Rouge – 2-3M that is 1/3 of the population.
Bulgaria 100000
East Germany 100000
Romaina 300000
North Korea – probably more than 3M
Vietnam – 1M
Ethiopia – 500000
Afghanistan 1.5M
I wish I could get you left wing nuts to use terms like “lie” in the same way with respect to democrats – there would not be a single one in office.
Why would I care what a Neo-con say ?
Why would you care what a Neo-Con says ?
You might as well be quoting Dick Chenney ?
I have not heard a statement By Trump or his people that I would call a “lie”.
Certainly nothing like “I did not sleep with that woman” with finger wagging.
Nor anything like this.
Trump has lied. He has not kept several campaign promises.
Though he is doing far better on that score than any president in my lifetime.
Regardless, He has not actually engaged in a trade war. He has not instituted a muslim ban, he has not backed out of the Iran deal, he has not repealed PPACA, He has not gotten us out of Afghanistan.
I can go on.
I wish he had gotten us out of Afghanistan.
I am not all that happy about the takeover of the military aspects of foreign policy by “the generals”, Trump campaigned more non-interventionist than they are.
The left likes to kick Bannon arround – but if Bannon was still in the whitehouse the US would be on its way out of Afghanistan.
That is a good thing on several levels.
One of which is the more involved in afghanistan we are the less options we have with North Korea.
Oh and which “world leader” and what “henchmen” gave us this
Seems that the North Koreans are not interested in negotiating over Nukes because they saw what happens when you do.
“I have not heard a statement By Trump or his people that I would call a “lie”.”
You’re an idiot.
Then that should be easy to demonstrate – with facts, logic, reason.
When you insult someone else and you can not or will not back up the claim – then it is your integrity and honesty that are deficient.
I repeat: you’re an idiot
Jonah Goldberg on Trump’s people lying about the Russian meeting: “On the other hand, the Trump White House lies like a randy sailor with eight hours of shore leave and not enough money for a professional “date.”
trump’s lawyer/spox Jay Sekulow lied when he said “Trump didn’t draft Trump Jr.’s statement:”
“Flying home from Germany on July 8 aboard Air Force One, Trump personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said that he and the Russian lawyer had “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children” when they met in June 2016, according to multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations. The statement, issued to the New York Times as it prepared an article, emphasized that the subject of the meeting was “not a campaign issue at the time.”
Trump Sr. lied about the purpose of the meeting. Trump Jr. lied about it numerous times (are you claiming he isn’t part of the Trump team?). Sekulow lied. And you’re lying to yourself with your weak ass rationalizations.
Jay;
No one has ever questioned that hyperbolic statements that appeal to your beleifs are treated by you as absolute truths – regardless of the fact that they are merely rhetoric not fact.
Mostly I like Goldberg. In alot of ways we agree.
But AGAIN – if you call someone a liar – you must prove it with facts, logic and reason.
If you fail – or worse do not try – it is your own integrity that suffers.
Neither Goldberg nor you have backed up you claim with facts, logic, or reason.
Contra your claim all the reported “meetings” involving Russia – have fizzzeled.
Most did not occur. There were few contacts and even fewer meetings, and none were of anything consequenctial.
You idea of lying appears to be not having reported events in precisely the way you wished.
I am not only not troubled by the russian interactions you are fixated on.
I would not be troubled by far more significant ones.
Discussions about a possible future Trump Tower in Moscow -that had fizzled before 2016 are proof of nothing, and not the same as “doing business”.
A meeting with a Lawyer purpotedly about illegal clinton campaign contributions that turns out to be about russian adoption is neither business, nor improper.
$100K in facebook adds that may or may not be tied to the russian government and are at best about issues important to some republicans – do not come anywhere close to the level you need.
Regardless, As noted you can get get to what you actually need – which is real election fraud.
We have a story that appears to indicate that in New Hampshire.
6,500 people registered to vote in New Hampshire on election day – presenting drivers licenses from other states as ID. Of those – about 1200 have subsequently gotten NH drivers licenses – which they were all required to do months ago, or registered a vehilce in NH.
There are about 5300 voter who used out of state ID to register to vote in NH, that do not appear to reside in NH.
The NH Senate election was won by a razor thin Margin. It would require only a very small majority of those 5300 votes to have been Hasan votes to tip the election.
There is a very high probability that the results are fraudulent.
It would require a larger portion to tip the election to Trump – but not an extraordinarily large one.
Regardless, NH is entirely surrounded by deep blue states. It is highly likely that nearly all those 5300 votes were for Clinton/Hasan.
Many repubicans have been asking, I have been asking, Trump has been asking for serious efforts to assure the integrity of our elections.
Let me be clear – it is necescary to prove fraud to send someone to jail.
It is not necescary to prove fraud to require our handling of elections to be far more secure and trustworthy.
There are numerous things that can be done to improve the integrity of elections.
It is more important that we beleive in the results of an election than that the elections actually are correct.
“The consent of the governed” is not our vote, but it is the confidence that the results are honest.
The left has made a huge issue of this Trump/Russian collusion nonsense.
The left is entitled to an election that they can beleive reflected the will of the people.
The only problem with the left’s attack on Trump, is that its premise is not that the votes have been measured accurately, but that some Trump voters have somehow been duped.
The view of one group of voters that another was stupid and tricked, does not undermine the consent of the governed.
It particularly does not when Tricked seems to mean – if only those voters had not been told things that were true the outcome would have been different.
That argument is absolutely correct – if we can control what information voters rceive we can control the outcome. But doing so is immoral and improper.
We have no right to protect others from information that we wish they would not hear.
We do not even have the right to protect people from falsehoods.
Regardless, If the left were to argue that our voting machines present an unacceptable risk – I would agree. But they do not seem to be arguing that.
The argument seems to fixate on the deception of stupid voters.
That is never going to sell.
The only part of your remark that I disagree with is that you call all of this a lie.
Trump appears to have been involved in Trump Jr.’s statement.
That does not bother me.
If I had to make a statement that had potential criminal repercussions I would consult lawyers and others whose advice I valued – including my father if he were alive, particularly if it involved an activity that we both had some involvement in.
Consulting notes, lawyers, and other people before making a written statement is not only not lying. it is actually expected.
I recently had to testify in court. I knew ahead that I was going to be asked in detail about my specific communications with another person.
I consulted my emails, as well as numerous other people and sources before coming to court.
Without doing so I could not have said the day, the date, the time, the content and the frequency of communcations – in more than broad terms – i.e. a few times over several months discussing this general topic.
As a result of my review of records and consultations, I was able to identify the exact dates and time and number and specific topics of each conversation.
That is not merely legal – it is expected.
This also relates to Sessions. In his original testimony to the Senate – Franken ambushed him. He did not know that his contact with Russians was to be a topic, and therefore he could not be expected to have precise recall. That is a part of why no one would ever seriously try to prosecute Sessions for perjury for minor inconsistencies.
On the occasion of Sessions second appearance, Sessions himself prepared, and prepared a statement. The standard – both public and legal by which that standard would be weighed is much more critical.
With respect to Trump Jr.’s statement – what part is a lie ?
While the meeting was absolutely sold as Natalia coming to dish Dirt on Clinton, and she spent a few minutes selling useless Clinton claims, the core of the meeting – Natalia’s intention and the time spent was primarily about Russian Adoption.
I beleive everyone has testified to that.
If you want to accuse someone of lying – you have to have an actual lie.
All I see here is that Trump Jr. did nto say what you wished he would say or speak truth using your prefered words.
Further there was not hidden secret about this meeting at the time Trump Jr. prepared his statement. The initiating emails were available – provided by Trump Jr.
I beleive Manefort and Kushner had already commented.
Trump Jr.s statement is not contradicted by any evidence.
At most you might badly claim that it spins things differently than you would prefer.
That does not constitute a lie.
AGAIN Words have meaning. The word lie has a meaning.
Lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.
To be a lie something must be both untrue – Trump Jr.s statement was true.
AND made with the intent to deceive.
In this instant that was not even possible. We already knew everything in the statement.
Trump Jr.’s statement revealed nothing we did not know, nor contradicted anything we did know.
It is not a lie.
It is just not the truth you want to hear.
And in your world, consulting with others autmoatically makes you a liar – unless you are a democrat.
Nice job – of rationalizing the reasons they had FOR lying.
WINDY misrepresentation justifications are your forte.
Again you are misusing rationalize, as well as misusing lie.
I have zero problems distinguishing where I disagree with trump as a matter of principle or politics, from where I agree, as well as where he is actually lying from merely saying things I agree or disagree with
You can not manage that. Your views on pretty much everything – but particularly Trump are purely tribal.
More recently he has acted in ways that favor your interests and in opposition to those who voted for him – and you can not grasp that.
Because you and your tribe have defined him as the enemy, the only way you have to see Trump or his actions is as evil. If he personally rescued someone from drowning, you would still find a way of painting it as evil.
All that means is your judgement has no value.
.
“If he personally rescued someone from drowning, you would still find a way of painting it as evil.”
Depends on WHY he rescued them, wouldn’t it.
Use a little creative thinking.
I bet you can come up with numerous examples why rescuing someone from drowning could be devious/evil.
(Like rescuing a contract killer, to murder your wife).
Wow!
You really conduct the entirety of your life as if you can see inside of other peoples heads.
I can not stop you from judging others based on what you think you know about what they think.
But I can state unequivocally that is a fools errand, and a ludicrously stupid basis for anything.
You really are parsing deeply and badly.
The subject of the meeting was not campaign related.
Natalia spent a few minutes providing useless crap about Clinton that no one cared about.
And then moved to adoption.
Trump Jr. was sold a different subject, but that is not the subject he got.
Subject and purpose do not mean the same thing.
Usually the purpose of a meeting and its subject are the same.
In this case they were not.
Further purposes are individual and subjective.
Subjects are reflections of what occurred.
Trump Jr’s “purpose” for meeting Natalia – was getting dirt on Clinton.
That did not occur.
The “subject” of the meeting was Adoption.
Further your claim that all of this is some “lie” is ludicrous.
Trump Jr. provided the press the email string leading to the meeting before his statement.
Just to clarify the role of the players as best I understand them
Trump: Official head of his own campaign. Official head of all or most Trump businesses, President, None of the above means he is omnicient and that he must have complete knowledge of anything done under the Trump banner or under the authority of the president.
Trump Jr.: I think we have confirmed he was part of the campaign. I am not aware that he has had any role in the Trump administration. I beleive he is currently running Trump’s businesses.
Sekulow: one of Trump’s current lawyers. Cheif Counsel for ACLJ.
Sekulow has argued 12 supreme court cases, he has only lost 3 times.
He has represented jews, christians, Hare Krishna’s and a variety of other religions in religious freedom cases and has an excellent track record.
I have not seen evidence he was involved in the Trump Campaign.
I do not know what “team Trump” is.
Is it people part of Trump’s businesses ?
His campaign ?
His administration ?
Regardless, I think that much of your misunderstanding of many issues – including what constitutes a “lie” would disappear if you would not mangle the meaning of words.
And because I am sure you will eventually reach such nonsense.
It is likely that Trump on occasion talks to Trump Jr. about govenrment.
Just as it is likely that Obama talked with Michelle – even though the first lady has no official role, nor is actually a member of government.
The president can confer with whoever he wishes.
Even an ordinary bureaucrat can confer with whoever they wish – atleast with respect to matters that are not classified.
Snore. ZZZZZZ.
None of your babble has anything to do with the concocted fabrication tRump Sr. cooked up for tRump Jr. to deceive the American people about the PRIMARY reason for attending the Russian meeting. (Which they didn’t reveal at all until it was announced in the media).
That version tRump cooked up for his son was as dishonest as him telling his wife he visited a woman advertising as a prostitute to get a foot message. And if tRump did that and it came to light, I’m sure you’d rationalize that too with facile reasoning.
Again more word mangling.
There is no secret that Trump Jr. expected something different from this meeting.
There is no secret that despite expectations the meeting was about something different.
There is no “fabrication” – no one disagrees that the Trump campaign hoped for dirt on Clinton. That is what they were promised.
That also would have been legitimate, and legal had they gotten it.
There is no “fabrication” – no one disagrees that the Trump campaign got no dirt on Clinton from the meeting, just an earful on Russian adoption.
None of this is secret. There is not disagreement on it.
It is not fabraction to state it in a way that reflects what happened rather than whatever you think was in others minds.
It is particularly disturbing that this is fixated on by you and others – because if Trump Jr. had gotten the meeting he hoped for – that would still be legitimate and legal.
All that would have been different is that Trump would have had useful dirt on Hillary and would have prevailed more strongly in the election.
The ocre of your argument appears to be that Trump and Trump supporters are not allowed to seek dirt on Clinton. It is acceptable to you for clinton to seek dirt on Trump.
Worse you make conduct Clinton actually did succeed at criminal – but only for Trump and merely for intending it.
If you meet with a prostitute and get a foot massage and you are asked the activity that occurred at that meeting – the correct answer is foot message.
You have a very bizarre idea what constitutes Truth.
You also have the timing completely screwed up.
The NYT went to Trump Jr. for comment about this meeting, before running a story.
Trump Jr. Responded by releasing all the emails about the meeting.
LATER Trump Jr. was asked for a statement, he consulted with Trump and they wrote something that is correct.
Your critique is little more than you would have spun it differently.
Again, if that is how you wish to define “lie” fine – but apply it uniformly, because they we can lock up the entire Obama administration.
Otherwise you are just engaging in ludicrous hypocracy.
facile:
1) Done or achieved with little effort or difficulty; easy. See Synonyms at easy.
2) Working, acting, or speaking with effortless ease and fluency.
rationalize: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: such as
a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of rationalize a myth
b : to attribute (one’s actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives rationalized his dislike of his brother; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for rationalize the problem
I am guessing you are going for b.
Regardless, I am not interested in peoples unconscious motives.
Yes, I am looking to explain things using facts, logic, and reason – not the supernatural, not guesses as to what other peoples thoughts or motives are, not myth’s. not wishes.
BTW rationalize is a very appropriate word for Trump/Trump Jr.s actions that you are calling lying.
I would happy to agree that Trump/Trump Jr. chose to emphasize what actually occured at the meeting over what they hoped might occur.
You can call that rationalization or spin. But you would be lying if you call it a lie – because it is clearly true.
I would further note that your entire Russian narative is devolving into:
Jay beleives that Trump would have colluded with Russia if he could.
And possibly that Trump might have tried to collude with Russia but failed.
Maybe more lame still that because Trump may have tried and failed, that we can beleive that things we do not know will prove he succeeded (BTW logic actually tells us the opposite).
Regardless, you do not have evidence of collusion.
You do have evidence of intent – but it is intent to do something legal – to get dirt on Clinton.
You do not have evidence of intent to do anything actually wrong.
And you have all these claims of lies – that if we raise to the standard of a lie – would make Obama and Clinton into treasonous criminals.
Not only do you misuse words – but you do not use them consistently.
If you are going to hold Trump to a standard – you must hold democrats and the left to the same standard.
Otherwise you are just a hypocrite.
I am fully prepared to hold Trump, Clinton, Obama, Sanders, …..all to the same uniform standards.
I am prepared to hold the entirety fo Washington to the same standard.
I am even prepared to let you define the standard.
Because if you define it sufficiently broad to ensnare Trump, you will give me the entire prior administration, as well as much of the federal govenrment.
You will empower the deconstruction of the state I am after.
“Federal law makes it a crime for any person to “solicit, accept or receive” a contribution or “anything of value” from a foreign person for a U.S. political campaign or “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.””
“But others note that the statute includes an “express or implied promise” to give something of value. So in that sense it may not matter whether the thing of value was ever actually provided.
Under the law, those who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines or imprisonment.”
It would be up to prosecutors and judges to decide if negative information about an election opponent is ‘of value’ – and I’m betting Mueller is looking into that.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-russians-legal-analysis-20170711-story.html
The federal law on this has been addressed by myriads of capable lawyers,.
Almost no one has gone where you are trying.
Nor have the courts.
Nor are they going to.
If the Trump Jr. meeting with Natalia actually violates the law, then Fusion GPS is a criminal conspiracy, and Clinton, her Aides, and Her pacs are all going to jail. In fact it would further get Comey, the FBI and the Obama administration – as well as McCain
Pretty much everyone involved with the Steele Dossier.
Then there would be Clinton and her Staff’s involvement with the Ukraine and Maneforte, and the connections to Russians their.
As a practicle matter the law is both unenforceable and unconstitutional – atleast with your broad interpretation – probably why it has never been interpretted that broadly.
But if that’s what you want – let the criminal investigations begin!!!
And of course MANY legal experts think there IS a strong case the law was broken and Junior will be charged. A few quoted here:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal
Note: since this initial news story Trump Junior has ADMITTED he went to the meeting with the Russians explicitly to get negative info from them on Hillary.
You keep spraying stuff as if it is some new revelation.
Of course Trump Jr. took the meeting with the hope of getting dirt on Clinton.
No one has ever argued otherwise.
You have argued that Trump Jr. lied by reporting the subject of the meeting as Russian adoption. That is ALSO true, and no one has ever argued otherwise.
Natalia “lied” claiming to have dirt on Clinton in order to get a meeting with Trump Jr.
After some brief discussions where it became apparent that Natalia had nothing of any value on Clinton, Natalia shifted to talking about Russian adoption and the Magnivinsky act. That took up the bulk of a short meeting. I beleive it was only about 15min total.
Trump himself has said that anyone would have taken that meeting – and he said that before Trump Jr.’s statement.
There are no lies, no deceptions no secrets.
All there is, is you trying to make the fact that Trump Jr. consulted Trump before making a statement, and that statement notes the subject of the meeting as russian adoption, and you want to pretend somehow that is a lie.
Regardless, I am not aware of anyone debating the actual facts.
As to the legal issues – the “experts” cited in your article – aren’t.
I would suggest a good place to start looking for experts would be Wapo’s Volokh conspiracy. That is an incredibly well respected constitutional law blog.
It is “federalist” in its leaning, regardless, the lawyers and law professors their have an excellent records – and have done well in the Supreme Court.
Trump’s Lawyer – Jay Sekulow also has an incredible record in the Supreme court.
Other’s you might want to pay attention to are Johnathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, Andrew McCarthy, Ken White. These are leading Civil liberties lawyers, as well as former US Attorney’s with excellent reputations. Some of these are right, some are left, some are libertarain. I am not aware of one that buys your nonsense.
The strongest constitutional lawyer on the far left would be Lawrence Tribe.
I think he has said your argument is “possible” but a significant reach.
The Preet Bharara insider trading case actually is a strong precident against you.
the 2nd Circuit determined that “something of value” pretty much had to be either money or a real asset – that information that might or might not have value does not count.
You have the further problem here that Trump Jr. received nothing of value.
You are going to have a hard time persuading the courts that an attempt to get information that was of unknown merit ahead of time, that turned out to be worthless, constituted an exchange of meaningful value.
You have an additional problem in that Natalia was accompained by the Rinat Akhmetshin
who though Russian born is a US citizen. His presence arguably eliminates your foreign transfer – atleast with respect to Trump Jr. – particularly given that the exchange did not take place.
You have the further problem that he and Natalia are tied to Fusion GPS,
Which leaves two possibilities.
Either this was a deliberate Russian effort to set up trump that Failed.
That does not help your case.
Or that Russia was concurrently trying to play Trump and Clinton.
Which does not help your case.
But the final giant spike in this case is that whether what occured was legal or not,
The Trump campaign failed, while the Clinton campaign was sucked into pretty much exactly the same ruse – even with nearly the same cutouts.
Jay,
This whole argument is stupid. If you want to beleive that there is something here – fine,
the most you get is Trump Jr.
But in order to do so, you are going to give up every single person or organization that had anything to do with the Steele Dossier. Because the Steele Dossier is not different from with Natalia offered Trump Jr.
Except Trump Jr. recognized meaningless crap when he saw it and declined.
While myriads of people handled the Steele dossier.
Including Fusion GPS, and a Clinton PAC, as well as John McCain, James Comey and the FBI.
You now have agents of the federal government accepting (false) political information from a foreign agent for the purpose of interfering with an election.
Not to mention the Clinton Campaign.
So if you win this one you lose.
You do not get Trump himself. It does not appear he was aware of the meeting.
You do not get Kushner, Maneforte and the others in the meeting – because they did not participate in the deal – they just listened. The only person who acted was Trump Jr.
Now again – if you wish to expand the law to cover passive participants – you have just sucked int he whole Clinton campaign on the Steele Dossier.
Why is it that you think the Steele Dossier is somehow different ?
I am less familiar with the details – but you also had the Clinton campaign actually tied to the Ukrainian embassy in the US during the campaign.
My view – and that of most experts, is you are never going to turn getting dirt on a political candidate from foreigners into a crime.
You are not going to get it on Clinton and you are not going to on Trump.
Aside from the fact that you have to expand the law egregiously to get there,
you have the further problem that the people as a whole are not going to buy it.
Most of them are going to say the meeting was ill advised and improper.
They are also going to say and they would have done it themselves in the same situation.
Offered dirt on a political candidate from foreigners, every politician in the country is going to hold their nose and take it. And if it is good dirt they are going to use it.
And if people find out they are going to wag their fingers, smile to themselves and understand.
Ordinary people understand the difference between “eew!” and criminal.
You don’t.
Or more accurately, you are sufficiently hypocritical that you will call identical conduct criminal when you political opponents do it, and legal when your own tribe does it.
I do not have much respect for that.
I would be inclined to place much more weight in your arguments – or anyone else ont he left bothered by this – if I had the slightest beleif you were prepared to hold everyone associated with the Steele Dossier to the same standard you want to hold Trump Jr. to.
“I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.
It is up to the prosecutor whether they will prosecute something.
It is not up to them whether it is against the law.
That depends on the language of the statue as understood by the courts.
And the rules of statutory interpretation require the narrowest rather then the prodest reading. I know lefties can not grasp that – but it is that way otherwise everything becomes illegal. A law that is over broad is defacto facially unconstitutional.
Regardless, very very few legal scholars are arguing for your broad interpretation.
I would be very surprised if there was not case law already.
Because we have had this sort of thing happen before.
I would also note that Preet Bharara was only just recently was completely bitch slapped by the 2nd circuit court of appeals for making the identical argument regarding “something of value” in a series of insider trading cases.
And again – fine use the ridiculously broad interpretation, you can impeach Trump For trying to get dirt on Clinton, and we can get Clinton and have the DNC for succeeding at getting dirt from foreign sources on Trump.
And we can go after Comey, the FBI and Obama at the same time as they have tied themselves to this can of worms.
I really do not care how broadly or narrowly you want to stretch the law.
So long as you apply that standard uniformly – to Trump, to Trump Jr.
to Clinton, to everyone.
But you will not. That makes you a hypocrit.
As the left Pummels Trump over DACA – here is Hillary speaking about the dreamers in 2014
Sort of Goes allong with the above.
IJ Is suing Mayor Hall’s city which is using code enforcement to drive old and poor people out of a neighborhood so it can destroy it and do something different there.
Only there is nothing wrong with the buildings the City is trying to punish people into leaving
We could all learn something about talking to each other from this
A DEVESTATING analysis of Dufus Trump and his enablers!
http://amp.nationalreview.com/g-file/451215/trump-debt-ceiling-daca-pivot-rachel-maddow-woodrow-wilson-dishonesty
Apparently you can not read.
Goldberg is attacking Trump because in too many ways he is a “liberal democrat”.
That should not be your idea of “devastating.
Regardless, the claim is that Trump has preserved DACA for another 6 months.
Compelled republicans in congress to bless it,
or he will re-authorize it himself.
That should be music to democrats ears.
It certainly not a basis for lefties to be calling Trump a “racist” and hater, and evil.
And that he has separately taken democrats first offer to get the debt ceiling issue temporially resolved and to avoid the difficult problem of the excessive spending of the federal government.
Essentially Golberg is accusing Trump of being Obama.
And that is pissing you off ?
Apparently you can not get past the fact that it is Goldberg criticising Trump to look at the substance.
BTW – I agree with Goldbergs Critiques.
It was a mistake to suggest that he would revist DACA himself in the future.
The president does not have the constitutional power to do so.
Regardless, suggesting that he would undercuts negotiations.
It is difficult to negotiate with a gun to your head.
Further it increases the odds the issue will get resolved by the courts – and likely badly for the Dreamers.
It was a mistake to take the democrats first offer on the debt ceiling.
The federal government has a serious spending problem.
We should never trade an opportunity to try to reign that it.
Finally the article criticised Rachel Maddow for unbeleivable historical ignorance – and again I agree.
Yes, it is. Goldberg is criticising Trump for being a Clinton democrat, and criticising Republicans for buying the idea that he might be something else.
That should make you like Trump
Dave you are right about Trump and the movement left. Trump has removed most of the right on his staff and is now being advised by his daughter and SIL that are proven left of center. He also sees his administration heading for the “worst in history” and blames that on McConnell and Ryan. He dislikes Ryan due to Ryans position on support for Trump when the secret tape came to light during the election. He has watched the democrats out manuever McConnell for years and when McConnell could not get anything passed after getting control, his suspicions about McConnell’s inept leadership was confirmed. It was leaked that Trump was not ready to deal with Shumer/Pelosi until he had the meeting with leadership, saw how incompetent McConnell is and decided he had to begin “dealing” with democrats to show any results from his election.
I find it refreshing to see someone in office that will do something for the good of the country and not go down with the ship standing on principal
“you are right about Trump and the movement left. Trump has removed most of the right on his staff and is now being advised by his daughter and SIL that are proven left of center. ”
You don’t agree with the multitude of reports that White House chief of staff, John Kelly is cleaning the White House? And tRump, with the loyalty of a Coyote for anyone other than close family, couldn’t care less who goes or stays as long as hangers on kiss his butt.
Dishonest Don has no core beliefs. Self interest & ego rule his actions. #Trumpanzees were warned of that, but ignored it. Character IS Destiny. His flawed character has already affected our national destiny – for the worse.
As I noted – Trump could veer of the left edge of the political spectrum – it will not change the views of those like Jay who hate him.
But it may cost him support from his base, which has thus far held firm.
To this point whether he has succeeded or not Trump has appeared to his based to be trying to give them what he promised.
Now he is in danger of appearing to his own supporters as just another swamp creature.
I do not know what Trump thinks or what his strategey is.
I know that starting slightly before bringing in Kelley, that Trump started to move to a different political position than that that got him elected.
I am not sure why he did and while we might all like the fact that it has made things calmer – I beleive that mostly it is a mistake.
The shift on afghanistan is wrong. That was driven by “the generals”, it is a commitment to protracted nation building. It is completely at odds with what nearly every Republican ran on – Trump included. Trump now own’s afghanistan. If he left now and it went south he could blame bush and obama. Not anymore.
Further a long term committment to afghanistan restricts Trumps options elsewhere.
Supporting sustained operations in afghanistan means reduced ability to support action elsewhere. More importantly it means other nations know we have less ability to act elsewhere. I am not explicitly sure how the resources in afghanistan diminish our ability to deal with the DPRK – but they do.
Trump absolutely should have returned DACA to congress which he did, and Congress should pass immigration reform that includes DACA.
But by suggesting that if Congress was unable to act, he would act unilaterally later, he undermined the ability to negotiate, and he endorsed Obama’s lawlessness.
To be clear – I endorse DACA – as part of broader immigration reform. But absent the elimination of other aspects of our laws that act as a honey pot for immigration at the expense of the nation, DACA should not stand alone.
Next the deal on the debt ceiling was dangerous and stupid.
The core of Trump’s support was people who want the federal government reigned in.
His move might work for him politically – in the context of making him stronger in Washington, but it casts him as part of the swamp not part of those cleaning it.
I do not care that he worked with democrats. I care that what resulted were two things that Democrats can not vote against, and that in return he got nothing of value that they ordinarily would vote against.
In other news DOJ has announced it is not going after Lehner. That is also a mistake that will piss off significant portions of Trump’s base.
Unlike this nonsense of Trump/Russian – IRSGate was real political criminal misconduct.
People need to go to jail. And if necescary the law needs changed to assure that the IRS will never target groups for political reasons.
Obama and the DOJ should have taken a very strong stance on this. The fact that they did not strongly suggests they were complicit – that Lehner was not acting alone but was implimenting administration policy. That is specifically why this must be fully investigated.
I grasp that Roby and Jay are unlikely to understand the significance to this. But I can tell you that large portions of the right that either were targeted or feel like they could be targeted in the future are very angry about this. What Lerhner was up to was worse than watergate. It is the worst form of political corruption, it is using the power of the government for blatant political advantage.
Trump can afford to piss off McConnell Ryan – though I am not sure that is really what happened. He can not afford to piss off the freedom caucus. Though he has been at odds with them since getting elected – they still most strongly reflect the promises he made during the campaign.
We shall see where all of this leads.
I do not think any of this is going to buy him anything from the left.
Jay and Roby and the rest of democrats are going to hate Trump as much today as yesterday. Trump can not buy the support of the left no matter how hard he might try.
But he can alienate his own base by trying.
My guess is that none of these moves are as of yet “fatal” to him.
The question is whether we have a change of strategy or of tactics.
There has been a pronounced change in tenor from the administration in the past month.
Those on the left such as Jay and Roby will claim they welcome it.
But it will make no consequential change in their treatment of Trump.
“I do not know what Trump thinks or what his strategey is.”
We agree, you don’t know.
Nor do I pretend as you do to know something that is not knowable. Worse to fraw conclusions from things I can not know.
I liked that cartoon, and RTed it on Twitter – with this comment:
“If either OK for school kids to wear to class-both should be OK.
BUT both messages are reason 2 have school uniforms like Japanese”
Jay ,”If either OK for school kids to wear to class-both should be OK.
BUT both messages are reason 2 have school uniforms like Japanese”
Jay, if they did uniforms in all school systems, then the left would be boo hooing about the cost and needing assistance to buy them. Just another reason to take from from one person and give to someone else.
I have a better idea. Same rule that was in before. No shirts with any writing other than manufacturers logo if present.
I do not think the issue is school uniforms.
It is the hypocracy of the left.
Issues such as school uniforms are a tangent.
I am not opposed to school uniforms.
But that is a choice that belongs to the individual school – and more specifically to the parents of the students at that school.
Every issue does not require a nationwide one size fits all answer.
There are good reasons for schools to have uniforms.
There are good reasons to have dress codes.
And there are good reasons not to.
All students are not alike. All schools are not alike, all students do not have the same needs.
Ron, I agree, no shirts with writing better than warring or distracting artwork.
The agitated conservative Right in knee jerk partisanship are posting the cartoon Dave posted here, to tweek the Left, asserting its shows evidence of unpatriotic Lefty censorship. But if the slogan had been Hillary’s and the Democrats, they’d be complaint it was cynical Democratic patriotic appropriation, same as the Dems are now.
Most schools in England also require children to wear a school uniform: an inexpensive jumper or sweater with the school logo on: that wouldn’t be anymore of a financial burden for poor people than regular clothing. And we’d have less unruly classes if teachers could smack recalcitrant brats on the back of their heads ( I know; never gonna happen)
For me and I think many others the cartoon is not about schools or uniforms.
It is about the hypocracy and stupidity of the left.
MAGA is evil and racist – Che is good.
Only people who know nothing about Che could say that.
but alot of people who know nothing about Che – none-the-less wear Che Tshirts and think they are virtue signalling.
All this left\right finger pointing is getting tiresome. Just like the Colin Kaepernick NFL crap where all the story is about his kneeling during the national anthem and is being black balled, no one has said anything other than a few hidden comments about his wearing a Fidel Castro T-shirt with the inscription ” Like Minds Think Alike” . If I owned a team, the kneeling might be overcome if I needed a quarterback. But being a commie sympathizer would make me put Tim Tebow in as my qback and not CK. Can anyone imagine the backlash if a Florida team were to sign him?
CK can do as he pleases.
And the coaches, owners and fans can respond as they please
If you are the owner – then you get to make that choice.
We have all had to decide whether to accomodate attributes of others that we find offensive.
We get to choose – do we ignore offensive remarks, throw people out of our homes for them. take it to the boxx, change jobs, ….
Regardless, we have choices.
I agree with those who say keep those kind of personal political protests off the field.
It’s divisive behavior, to teammates and paying fans and viewers who have different views.
Also, The QB in question is a marginal player.
He could still be picked up as the season progresses if enough starting QBs are injured to open up backup slots.
What matters most is what the fans want.
Successful owners make fans happy.
Successful coaches make owners happy.
Successful players make coaches happy.
Whether the political is on or off the field is up to the fans.
I would guess that Football fans are likely to lean conservative and patriotic.
But that is just my guess.
Maybe Fans come to the game to see whether he will kneel.
That is up to the fans.
I get a voice in this as a fan – but I am not much of a football fan anymore, so mine is not much of a voice.
Regardless, we can all have our own views on this.
but we do not get to impose them by force.
Nor do we need to.
We can watch games – or not.
Owners and coaches can hire players – for whatever reason, or not.
Everything works out.
Not perfectly – perfection is not possible.
Dave “Maybe Fans come to the game to see whether he will kneel.
That is up to the fans.”
And this is the problem with the liberal press. Even you bought their BS and think it is the kneeling keeping him from a job.
http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/armando-salguero/article117033883.html
This is the real issue and this would become the story when any team with him on the roster visited a Florida teams stadium.
Ron;
I know that there is far more going on here than kneeling for the national anthem.
Aside from the politics – there are some other issues.
I had a conflict with the IRS some time ago. I had to hire a lawyer.
As the conflict proceded the agent transformed from a professional attired black woman to dreadlocks and cultural garb.
My attorney informed me that this meant she was likely having trouble doing her job, and facing the prospect of termination for incompetence was building a claim of racial animus.
Similarly I was in trouble at a job several years ago. Factors inside and outside of work were destroying my productivity. I was advised by a lawyer to go to HR and highlight my age, as well as other health issues as a means of forestalling termination.
I did not do that, and one of my happiest days in the past decade was when I was eventually laid off. I felt like a great weight had lifted.
I would also note – just like Trump/Comey there were myriads of things going on. There is no one simple reason for anything – including termination.
The company I was working for started downsizing and off shoring right after it hired me.
I was the 2nd to last person in my division to be laid off.
I was not doing my job to the standards I hold for myself – and not happy, but I was doing it well enough that 3/4 of those working in my facility were laid off first.
It is my understanding that something similar is going on with Colin Kaepernick.
So what!. If his choices positively effect fans and attendance – he may hold onto his job.
If not he will lose it.
I am not following some media meme. The decisions rests indirectly with the fans – the consumers. It always does.
Jay, if you were a fan and it cost you $100+ for you and a guest plus all the other cost to attend a game, would you still buy the tickets. and spend the money knowing your owner put CK on the team, knowing he supported communist over American values?
If I was a long time fan, yes, if he kept his politics OFF the field ( that means standing politely during Natl Anthem and/or other flag ceremonies). Same way I feel about Tom Brady, an off the field tRump supporter, who I would pay to see QB-ing.
I voiced objection to mostly black NBA players recently protesting police brutality ( as they saw it) by wearing symbolic warm ups or shoes with BLM art – but have no problem with any community action that players might want to engage in, as long as it’s off the court.
The weight of your oppinion with regard to the nexis of politics and sports is reflected by your decisions to attend games or watch on TV or buy products infuenced by endorsements.
Your personal influence is small – but if it is shared by enough other fans – and that requires only a tiny fraction of the whole – enough to noticeably disrupt profits,
then your views will become decisive.
I personally weight the expressions of others based on their merit, not their celebrity, and only to a very small degree on their authority.
You should have noted that by now.
If you wish to persuade me – facts, logic, reason. That Stephen Hawkins shares some view of yours, might make me look more carefully. it will only change my mind if a second look demonstrates flaws in the facts, logic and reason. conversely if I agree with George Clooney on something – it is not because he is George Clooney – but because in this instance he is right.
Further on many many issues such as Colin Kaepernick there is not “right and wrong”.
There is just preference.
Ron
There is not a “right or wrong” answer to that question.
Jay might pay $100 to go tot he game to support CK and his political views.
That is not significantly different that going because 22 men are scrapping over trying to move a pigskin back and forth.
What they are willing to spend $100 for is up to the fans. Indirectly that means CK’s job is up to the fans.
“It is about the hypocracy and stupidity of the left.
MAGA is evil and racist – Che is good.”
Another dumb over exaggeration.
The percentage of the Left enamored with Che is way less than the percentage of the Right who are Flat Earthers.
There are 500 members of the flat earth society globally, and 60 in the US.
That is far less than the number of people Che murdered, and likely less then the number of Che T’s at Charlottesville.
BTW I thought the comic was just a comic. Aparently it is from a true story – a Teacher in TX has been fired for berating a student for wearing a MAGA shirt.
Still not conservative,
Still not on the right.
Though I do find your (and the left’s) response interesting.
Trump chose Make America Great Again as his theme.
But that is not a Republican, or conservative theme.
And again I would recommend “The Ugly American” as a really good representation of what it is that “makes america great” and what it is that does not.
It is not conservative or progressive – it is individual liberty rather than collectivist effort.
Anyway, you instantly jump on MAGA as a Conservative Right Wing thing – why ?
Why have democrats never used that as a Theme ?
There is nothing particularly right or conservative about it.
At the moment is is associated with Trump – because Trump has chosen to connect that theme to him.
But he does not own it.
I would further suggest that MAGA is not a democratic theme and not likely ever to be one,
because the left does not really care, it is not something the left values.
school uniforms would not change the fact that the left idolizes a mass murderer and is offended by a good aspiration.
It’s not the idea of the theme of making America Great again, it’s the unbelievability of tRump asserting it, like David Duke saying he could make “Showboat” great again, singing Ol’Man River better than Paul Robeson.
Yes, I know. You remain welded to this nonsense that who says or does something and what is going on in their head matters more than what is said or done.
The Republican Party is the frog and Trump is the scorpion:
You’re equating Trump with Israel, and the Republican Party with Palistinians?
Say it ain’t so, Duckie…
It ain’t. Trump as is his won’t used the Rep party to cross the abyss and now he can sink them and play the Dems.
Today’s Cartoon.. Fell must have seen your video
Maybe Despicable Don will adopt one of these:
Trump is his own favorite pet.
“I talk to myself because I like dealing with a better class of people.”
― Jackie Mason
Most noticeably apparent:
The Libertarian keeps blabbering and blabbering and blabbering and blabbering….
What is apparent is that you are compelled to respond – without bothering to know what you are responding to.
Congratulations!
You replied in less than 20 words!
There yet may be hope for Overly Wordy Libertarians!
The only value to a short response is the hope that a pithier reply might find its way past your mental blocks. Unfortunately that is unlikely.
I do not need or want your hope. My life is my own and I am happy with it.
Well at least we are no where close to the elite left or radical right. Freedoms as opposed to imposing views on others they do not support.
I linked an article from the spectator, that I thought was excellent – albeit very long.
That article used “the ruling class” rather than “the left” which I liked.
The fundimental problem is not left/right. it is that we are ever expanding the power of the few to dictate more and more of the lives of the rest of us.
It does not matter much what the few are dictating – whether it is left or right.
Quite often we find those on the right complicit with those on the left or visa versa, this is no accident. The objective is not “the greater good” it is the expansion of the power of the ruling class.
I was elsewhere reminded recently that Hayek’s road to serfdom did not predict that when socialism inevitably failed it would be replaced with facism.
Hayek predicted that the rule of the initelligent elite would be replaced rule by the brutal elite. Whether socialism was replaced by facism or fascism was replaced by socialism is just a detail.
You and I fight over details of regulation – but the real issue is much much bigger.
The scale of control the govenrment is trying to excercise in our lives today must fail.
The state is ever growing – and faster than everything else.
In the past the locusts of the state consumed our surplus. We produced ever more, and the locusts took much of that more.
Low growth has the consumption of the locusts eating into our sustanace.
We can quible over how much smaller government ought to be.
We can not allow it to continue to grow – not even for purposes you are persuaded are good.
I used ” left and right” since I believe those considered centrist are much less interested in legislation that pmoses regulation on individual actions. I believe centrist are much more interested in economic issues such as fixing our deficits thrkugh programs like Simpson / Bowles than taking guns out of the hands of citizens or controlling what a woman does with her body.
Several things I have been reading more recently are pushing me to look for a different expression than Left/Right.
While the big problem and the big failure evidenced by the last election is with the left.
The the primary problem is not left, right, but liberty vs. authority.
Hayek did not demonstrate that socialism lead to fascism.
Fascism can just as easily lead to socialism.
What he showed was that the failure of central planning leads to even more authoritarian central planning.
We fight over who was worse – Nazi’s the USSR, Mao, Perone, Franco, Che.
It does not matter. Nor does it matter whether Nazi’s are socialists or on the left.
All those who say give me power and I will take care of everything for you are the same.
Modern socialism – particularly modern european socialism is more the tyranny of the intellectually elite. That is probably not going to fail as rapidly.
As I look at the US right now, I am not sure we are not in greater danger of failure than the EU. Conditions in the EU are bad and they are unlikely to get better, but they are relatively stable.
The US is still mostly in better shape we have a higher standard of living, we still mostly have greater freedom. But we are less stable and our “ruling class” is more blatantly power hungry and less intellectually elite.
Regardless, all forms of central planning – regardless of ideology grow – until they fail.
Worse when they fail, some other form of central planning – probably offered by a different ideology truimphs by persuading people they can “save the day”.
I do not see Trump as a good or great person.
I do see him as possibly our last hope to wind down government, to drain the swamp.
I am well aware that trusting him to do that is incredibly stupid.
But the alternative is zero chance.
If we were to repeat in Clinton another “obama cycle” – and BTW – I consider Obama mostly an extension of Bush, we might as a nation be ready to turn over the country to real fascists – or real communists. It does not matter which.
You and I are not that far apart – and at the same time – we are miles apart.
Whether I agree or disagree on specifics, we either are already or are rapidly approaching an inability to solve problems with small fixes.
That is a very dangerous place to be. While on the one hand it makes the kinds of changes I would like to see possible, and plausible. It makes ALL extreme solutions more plausible.
Antifa is not the existential threat to our country – but the increasing willingness of the left as a whole to resort to force – either directly or through government is.
White Supremacists are not the existential threat to our country – and at this time the rest of the right is not weak tea white racial collectivists. But if things continue to go to hell – they could be.
In the end does it matter whether we shift towards Hitler or Stalin ?
It is not the extremists on the left or the right that are the cause of our problem.
They are just false solutions.
The problem is the failure of big government. The anger today is because of the failure of government.
Antifa is just one bad solution, and Nazi’s are just another.
The core problem is not at the extremes – they are a response, not the driver.
The driver is ever growing government, ever shrinking freedom, the stagnation of our standard of living.
The driver is too great an acceptance of growing government by those NOT at the extremes.
Disasters, altruism, self interest and economics
http://russroberts.info/article/profits-vs-love/
So is this your idea of good govenrment ?
http://ij.org/berkeley-police-confiscate-cash-hot-dog-vendor/
Predictors for support of redistribution:
Compassion, envy, greed.
Things that do not predict
fairness.
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/31/8420.abstract
And who can rationalize this gem of self interest? Dave, are you there?
I beleive that we should elect people of good character.
I beleive as Ross Perot – that a man who can not be trusted by her husband can not be trusted by the country.
But we gave up any pretense that character matter, when we elected and failed to remove Bill Clinton.
Trump did not run as our moral leader. He has not climbed onto the moral soapbox.
He is not a person whose wife should trust him.
He made no secret of his character.
And we elected him anyway.
So do you have an argument about the actual job Trump has done as president.
Not his character, not his style, not his intents or motives,
but his actions.
It is those – that for good or evil are the only important parts of his presidency.
Pretty long article, still a pretty good picture of what is going on.
https://spectator.org/39326_americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution/
I dont care what your politics are, nowthis is funny!!!
https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16602837_581236288732698_5199019155229902091_n.jpg?oh=82ffd3d2955544bff010e3421ed91fe1&oe=5A5ECDFB
ROFL
All of us are watching events around us terrified of what may be coming.
We can disagree on almost everything, but I think we are in near universal agreement that things can not continue as they are.
That the tears in our social fabric are deepening, and we are slowly moving towards violence.
The left would be less angry if Trump had lost, or was impeached, If Clinton or Sanders or whoever was President continued progress could be made on the ever expanding list of societal transformations that the left seeks to accomplish yesterday.
I am trying to write this with as little antipathy particularly towards the left as possible, but that is very hard.
Regardless, my point is that if the left miraculously got everything that it wanted that was possible, the stresses and threat of violence would be worse than they are now.
Whatever else you might say of the past 8 years (and the 8 before that, and ) they have not healed the country, they have not brought us together. 8 more years of the same will make this worse not better.
In 2008 public anger mostly at republicans left republicans nearly extinct.
Within a year the same public anger slowly was redirected at democrats.
Whatever else may be said about 2018, we can expect a very angry electorate.
Confidence in government is the lowest ever recorded.
“Moderates” pretend that all can be resolved by compromise.
Sorry, but that has been tired in the past, it is not an answer.
We are angry because we feel the state has failed us. Marching more slowly to a larger state is not going to quell that anger.
It does not matter whether we have a big intrusive republican state or a big intrusive democratic state or any other flavor big state we can come up with.
The core problem is not ideological – even though I beleive that one ideology is more closely linked to the problem than the other.
The fundimental problem is with the very concept of the big state.
A government that make 51%, 70%, 90% of us happy on some issue, inherently makes they rest unhappy – and some of those VERY unhappy. The more the state does, the more issues will have a very unhappy minority. Absent every issue having exactly the same people fall into the happy and unhappy group, the larger government becomes the more unhappy people will be with it.
It does not matter whether this big government is progressive, social conservative or neocon.
The more government does, the more people there will be who are very angry with government.
Compromising on slightly larger government only brings us to a tipping point more slowly.
From appearances we are very close already.
It does not matter what new wonderous things you think you can accomplish through government. It does not matter if you are fortunate enough to be right and for once actually deliver, every further expansion of government will generate more anger and more opposition.
There is only one way out of this, aside from violence likely followed by some form of tryanny – left, right, it does not matter.
That is to reduce what government does that makes some people angry.
We can debate what should go. But we are not going to bring our levels of stress and conflict down until we do less.
Dave, you need to check out a website of your own to post comments such as these and the many others you post on a daily basis. Given the right naming of the website, you may end up with a sizable following and could possibly lead to monetizing your thoughts and positions. They are not expensive and would allow you to reach out to a larger group of readers than what may presently be here. And you could post as many comments as you wish each day, Just a thought!
Agree, RP, as long as he doesn’t also post here. I would even kick in $20 to get him started- financially.
I do not want your money.
Why is there a value to you to not here someone else’s oppinion.
Dave, “Why is there a value to you to not here someone else’s oppinion.”
It is not that readers do not value someone else’s opinion, it is the shear volumn of comments that fill ones email when wordpress is set to notify those who want to see what others are saying. Yes, we can set it up where there is not notification, but then after 25-50 comments, it is difficult to follow comments being made. And after 750 or so messages, it takes time for the messages to load on some provider systems.
And with a dedicated website, your comments could be identified by title and further comments segregated for easier following by readers.
And last, others would not have additional messages filling email from those just making personal attacks offering nothing to the discussion. We cant tell if the messages are just a pissing contest or constructive comments concerning Ricks posts.
What I do is my business. What you do is yours.
The Site is Risk’s he gets to make the rules – just as I could if I brought up my web site.
One persons speach does not obligate another to listen.
If your inbox is filled with things you do not wish to read – delete them.
Nearly every email client has the ability to apply rules to your inbox.
You can move all your TNM emails to a separate folder to review later,
or you can delete those for my comments.
or you can ask wordpress not to send email notifications to you.
or anything else you wish
I live in a “rural disadvantaged zone” – that means I have two internet providers – both crap.
My and my families lives and business are heavily over the internet.
I would be shocked if your access to TNM was slower than mine.
Browsers cache pages and partial pages, I have no problem bring up TNM.
Finally, why do you think bringing up a web site would change posts here ?
Ron;
WordPress works as it works – that is not my problem.
I am not entitled to a world as I wish it was – neither are you.
If you want wordpress to work differently – contact them.
While I appreciate your suggestion – my life and my choices remain my own.
I try very hard here not to tell the rest of you how to run your lives.
That is not my business. If I have failed occasionally – I apologize.
What I do with my life will be to solve my problems or for my benefit.
You are seeking to get me to change my life to suit you.
That is not a compelling argument.
It is also a reflection of the bigger problem. far too many of us seem to think we are free to dictate how others run their life.
It is bad enough when it is suggestions.
It is worse when we do it through govenrment and it becomes force.
If my posts appear to be some kind of “pissing contest” – please note that.
There is far too much ad hominem and to little actual argument here,
and too often I carp back at ad hominem,
but TNM is still far better than the norm, and I am not the source of fallacy and ad hominem.
Nor am I the source of taking things off topic – though I am not so sure how important that is. I will discuss any topic anyone wants to introduce.
As much as I disgree with many here, and as much as they are wrong, I do not for the most part doubt that they are looking towards a better country.
I have thought of that, and I may do so. I already have a domain – thebrokenwindow.net.
I had wordpress on it a while ago.
I have a separate set of web pages with several hundred economics and other papers.
Shorten the name – to BROKEN-WIND…
If you want more polite discourse the way to get to it is not snark and ad hominem.
I apologize if I have ever attacked you as a person – rather than your arguments or ideas.
and I try to direct my arguments at your ideas and arguments.
Are you willing to do the same ?
Dave asks “Why is there a value to you to not here someone else’s oppinion.”
You really don’t understand? One of your favorite little phrases is Why would I care what a ….. says?
Such as:
“Why would I care what a Neo-con say ?
Why would you care what a Neo-Con says ?
You might as well be quoting Dick Chenney ?
I have not heard a statement By Trump or his people that I would call a “lie”.”
Not caring what someone says if they are not agreeing with you is one of the things you do best.
The statement about not hearing any statements by trump that you would call a lie just makes you completely dense. It takes spectacular dishonesty to keep up that kind of willful oblivion. Which brings up the question of “Why should anyone here want to hear for the thousandth time what a redundant, repetitive, intellectually bankrupt, lying, insulting, hypocrite blabbermouth says, especially since all here have heard the broken record over and over? I
Not hearing your idiot opinion again and again would be the best thing that could happen to TNM.
And then there is the issue of ad hominems in which you belive you are innocent.
“There is far too much ad hominem and to little actual argument here,
… I am not the source of fallacy and ad hominem.
Right, so these excerpts below, ad hominems all, were written by someone else who had access to your account and not you?
“Catastrophic Global Warming is for me today a litmus test of whether you are retarded or not.”
“Regardless, what is it about you left wing nuts that leads you to beleive that you have insight into the intentions, motives, thoughts and emotions or others.”
“I wish I could get you left wing nuts to use terms like “lie” in the same way with respect to democrats…”
Dave, you have no respect for opinions that differ from yours, none at all, and you never have. You are not here to listen, to discuss, to learn from anyone. You are here to find people that you can give a pompous lecture to and use your favorite magic phrases on: No! You are clueless. Not that rot again. Haven’t I already covered this already many times? etc.
You do not have your own website because you might meet people there who agree with you. Your goal is obnoxious and intellectually dishonest disagreement and your pleasure in that never wears out. You are a curse on TNM.
Roby;
Not hearing anything you do not wish to hear is fully inside your own power.
Silencing those you do not wish to hear is not within your power.
The core of our disagreement is that you demand the power to dictate to others.
That is not your right.
If you do not wish to read my posts – don’t.
No, I do not particularly care what assorted Neo-Con’s say about Trump or anyone else.
Do you really ?
Of course you are free to.
But the fact is you are only citing Max Boot because he is a republican attacking Trump.
There is likely almost nothing else that Boot could possibly say that you would agree with.
Why should I value the perspective of someone you really do not either ?
But even more importantly I really do not care much about the non-arguments that others make.
Boot hates Trump – so what. That is not an argument.
Boot hates Trump because Trump is not going to invade half the rest of the planet – for me that is a reason to support Trump and not Boot.
We can go on and on. I am not interested in appeals to authority.
Facts, logic, reason – these are the elements of argument.
These are the things that persuade me.
If you are persuaded by appeals to authority, by ad hominem, by appeals to emotion,
then I am not going to persuade you. Further if that is your approach, you are not going to persuade me.
With respect to “Trump lies” – if I am so dense – good examples should be easy to come up with.
Jay has wasted myriads of posts trying to prove that Trump Jr. not reporting the meeting with Natalia in precisely the words he would prefer is a lie.
Every effort to express the truth in a fashion different from your preference is not a lie.
Regardless, unless you use that standard for everyone else you are just a hypocrite.
Trump is absolutely beautiful at revealing the hypocrisy of others.
While I have not see any “Trump lies” that truly disturb me.
And frankly I care far more about actions than words,
equally importantly the standard used to label Trump’s remarks “lies” would have the entire Obama administration in jail.
Until you are prepared to hold your own and yourself to the standards you hold your enemies to – I am not particularly interested in what you have to say.
If Trump’s spin is a lie – then why isn’t Obama’s or Clinton’s ?
I have lots of problems with Trump. I would be happy to honestly discuss those.
But you are fixated on holding Trump uniquely accountable for things you let others – particularly those on the left get away with.
Not interested. Not listening. Not an argument.
You want to elevate the standards – fine elevate them for EVERYONE.
“Why should anyone here want to hear for the thousandth time what a redundant, repetitive, intellectually bankrupt, lying, insulting, hypocrite blabbermouth says, especially since all here have heard the broken record over and over? ”
You are not obligated to “hear” anything.
Redundant and repetitive – absolutely. Maybe on the thousandth repetition you might grasp the truth.
Lying ? Again if you are going to call someone else a liar, you bet your integrity against theirs. Absent actual proof – not this “we all know” crap.
Make your case – facts, logic, reason. Otherwise, it is your integrity that diminishes.
Hypocrite – possibly. I try not to be. I try very hard to overcome personal biases, to hold everyone to the same standards regardless of whether I like their views or not.
I have no evidence that you try.
Blabbermouth, broken record – again arguing that I am repetitious is not evidence of error.
Insulting ? Please! Go back and read your own posts – starting with this one.
Sorry Roby, really tired of it.
You do not want insulted – do not insult others.
If I take the last ten posts of yours – can I find more than 1 or two that are not insults ?
No, I do not respect “opinions”.
Facts, logic, reason.
I do not care about naked assertions, about your feelings, about your divining the thoughts and motives of others. I do not care about fallacies.
I do not care about hyperbole.
I do not care about assertions that are only valid when words are misused.
Regardless, it is quite evident that I listen.
My responses typically address almost everything that you say.
You are demanding something more than “listening”, you are demanding that I agree.
That is pretty easy to accomplish – post something that is not wrong.
Support it with facts, logic, reason.
There are myriads of subjects we could agree one.
We tend not to agree here – because we are discussing politics – and your views are purely tribal, without any foundation in facts, logic and reason.
Mine are not. On most of the issues we debate – my positions are not based on what Trump or republicans or conservatives are saying today – but centuries of classical liberalism.
As to learning – while I do learn some things here – are you claiming that TNM is the font of all wisdom ? I am reading myriads of things from a variety of sources all the time.
I am reading Paine, and Locke, and Mills, and Thoreaux and Voltaire, and Friedman, and Barro, and Lucas, and ……
Are you saying that you are more credible ?
Frankly, Roby – you do not make actual arguments, so how is it anyone is supposed to learn from you ?
You are not “teaching”, you are emoting loudly,
“Haven’t you covered X a million times ?” No, you have yet to make a valid argument about anything. You have repeated, insults, ad hominem, on rarer occasions you have made appeals to emotion, or authority, or a small assortment of other fallacies.
But you have not actually made a valid argument in so long I can not recall.
Back to those arguments from omniscience – why is it that you think you know why I or anyone else does what they do ?
And know you seem to beleive you know what I feel too ?
Most of the criticisms I make of you are trivially avoidable.
Do not make appeals to emotion.
Do not claim to know the feelings, thoughts, intents, or motives of others.
Use words consistently. That is incredibly important.
We communicate in words. We think in words.
Further not only does misusing a word make a false argument – it also makes the true one impossible.
When you pretend force exists where it does not – you make noting force where it does exist impossible or confusing.
Just as pretending force does not exist where it does – makes the actual discussion of force impossible or confusing.
And again back to telling me what my goals are – and you would know ? How ?
Thought that was not my intent, you and Jay make the perfect demonstration for why Clinton lost and what is wrong with government today, and why compromise will fail.
Your entire mode of argument is insult.
Apparently you beleive that if you insult someone enough they will go away.
Or do you beleive that I will change my beleifs to avoid being insulted ?
When your arguments are nothing more than insults, the only thing you accomplish is making those you disagree with angry with you.
I am deeply concerned because as a country we are moving towards violence.
I suspect that it is the right that will end that violence – by force, and possibly at the expense of us all. But the left will be the cause.
Nazi’s marching are not going to overthrow the country.
Nor is antifa beating Nazi’s and police and calling everyone to the right of Bernie sanders a Nazi – apparently Ben Shapiro – an orthodox Jew and a vigorous critic of the alt-right is a white supremist and anti-semite.
But the response to an ever more violent and histrionic left could easily result in a more authoritarian state.
Hitler, and Mousolini grew from the same kind of political disruption we are seeing today.
We have the lowest rates of violent crime in human history – and people are more afraid of violent crime than ever in human history.
“Society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government…
So far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the abolition of any
formal government is the dissolution of society, that it acts by a contrary
impulse, and brings the latter the closer together. All that part of its organisation
which it had committed to its government, devolves again upon itself, and acts
through its medium. When men, as well from natural instinct as from reciprocal
benefits, have habituated themselves to social and civilised life, there is always
enough of its principles in practice to carry them through any changes they may
find necessary or convenient to make in their government. In short, man is so
naturally a creature of society that it is almost impossible to put him out of it…
The more perfect civilisation is, the less occasion has it for government, because
the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself; but so contrary is the
practice of old governments to the reason of the case, that the expenses of them
increase in the proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that
civilised life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that whether they
are enforced by the forms of government or not, the effect will be nearly the
same. If we consider what the principles are that first condense men into society,
and what are the motives that regulate their mutual intercourse afterwards, we
shall find, by the time we arrive at what is called government, that nearly the
whole of the business is performed by the natural operation of the parts upon
each other.”
—Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man 1792
What RonP said. Only I would have said it more coarsely.
J, that is the the best: “broken wind” LMAO.
To dhii. Please spend time on your web site, among those that appreciate style. You have some good opinions, but your volume is WAY too high.
Of course you would like it.
Is having said something more coarsely really something you wish to be openly proud of ?
Is the objective at TNM to seriously consider a better approach to politics ?
Or is it to make fun of others ?
to silence or drive out views you do not like ?
Is an argument invalid if you do not like its style ?
What is the definition of “way too high a volume” ?
How does the number of posts of one or others alter your freedom to read or not as you please ?
You are demonstrating exactly what is wrong.
You desparately want control of things that never were yours to control.
You asked me to bring up my own site – so that you do not have to listen.
Bring up your own. The argument is perfectly reveresable.
There are plenty of places you can bring up your own site – if you do you can censor whoever you wish – legitimately.
If you do not wish to hear voices at odds with yours – you have that within your own power to accomplish.
Control of this site belongs to Rick.
No one has control of public forumns.
The remedy to speach you do not like is more speach – not enforced silence
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis Whitney v. California1927,
Oh, my.
Russian political influence in 2016 better expressed than I have
http://reason.com/archives/2017/09/13/if-democracy-is-doomed-dont-blame-the-ru
The Emperor summons before him Bodhidharma and asks: “Master, I have been tolerant of innumerable gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, transgender people, and Jews. How many Virtue Points have I earned for my meritorious deeds?”
Bodhidharma answers: “None at all”.
The Emperor, somewhat put out, demands to know why.
Bodhidharma asks: “Well, what do you think of gay people?”
The Emperor answers: “What do you think I am, some kind of homophobic bigot? Of course I have nothing against gay people!”
And Bodhidharma answers: “Thus do you gain no merit by tolerating them!”
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Here is an example of actual anarcho-capitalism that survived for more than a century in the middle of Hong Kong.
A portion of Hong Kong was specifically excluded from the British mandate.
It remained technically ruled by China – but given circumstances that meant is was not ruled at all. The British left it completely alone and lawless for over a century.
And yet it thrived. Before its deliberate destruction by the British in 1990 it was the most densely populated urban space on the planet.
It was also highly productive, and safe.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-12/fascinating-city-within-hong-kong-was-lawless-decades
Dave wrote: “Lying ? Again if you are going to call someone else a liar, you bet your integrity against theirs. Absent actual proof – not this “we all know” crap.”
Useless Evasion and Fallacy. Own up! You have proven yourself over the years to be entirely intellectually dishonest, thousands of times. Here are two clear cut recent examples: You claimed flat out that ad hominems do not come from you, I cut and pasted your own words to show that they clearly DO come from you, copiously. Your statement was a lie. Period. It has nothing to do with comparison to some other person, simply, you lie whenever you feel like it, you lie when its utterly obvious that you are lying, and then won’t ever fess up. “I have not heard a statement By Trump or his people that I would call a “lie”” is a lie unless you are actually deaf and are being dishonestly literal. It may or may not be that only 5% of trump’s statements are true, but a huge number of his statements have been undeniably shown to be lies.
“PolitiFact checked 77 Trump statements and found that 76 percent of them were Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.
In other words, for every four statements Donald Trump makes, only one of them is true, according to the site.
“Clearly a lot of voters still care about the truth,” Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told PolitiFact. “What we don’t know at this point is what share that is.”
No it does not matter that its politifact that said it, that is not an way out for an honest man, you can read the trump statements that they analyzed themselves and it will be clear that trump continually lies.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/fact-checking-website-donald-trump-lies-76-percent-of-the-time
The issue cannot be avoided by deflection to Bill Clinton’s or Obama’s lies, the issue is the narrow question in your own statement that you made freely of your own volition, that you have not heard trump or his people lie. In fact, he does lie, actually, most of the time, and your claim that you have not heard it is itself an unbelievable lie, unless you are claiming, to use your own phrase, to be “retarded.” Why should anyone respect the thoughts or point of view of a person who has no intellectual integrity? I do not respect your point of view at all for this reason. You want to teach everyone here something, but you are the wrong person to do it because you are not an intellectually honest man.
You say that I am trying to control you? Bullshit. Show me where I tried to control you. You can’t, I didn’t. You are going to continue your idiotic routine, we all fatalistically expect it. Stop Dave from being a hyperactive dishonest blithering idiot? That task would elude a dream team of psychiatrists, which I’m sure has been tried several times in your life and failed totally. I’m not trying to control you, I am venting. You are as large and tiresome a bag of shit as I have ever encountered and for some reason its satisfying to say that.
Now, carry on, type till your fingers bleed. Here and there people will make their various frustrated attempts to explain to you that your routine is ineffective, obnoxious, and makes problems for others using this site, but if anyone expects that kind of argument to alter your pattern, they must believe in the tooth fairy too. You don’t care what anyone thinks. Dave is all about Dave and Dave’s rights. Someday this site will just consist only of Dave talking to Dave, and you still won’t get it.
Healthy people outgrow your type of me, me, me outlook somewhere between 3 and 18 if their parents are any good. Apparently, your extreme libertarian philosophy is your simply your intellectually faulty attempt to justify being a lifelong giant blathering childish Id. You are an ugly example of the fatal flaws of your extreme philosophy.
Yup… agree totally with your analysis, but as you warned me previously, it won’t deflect future floods of interminable pathological rationalization from him.
There is only one answer to an internet loon of the Dave type: Abandon TNM to him completely and let him talk to himself for several months until he gets tired and finds some other site to plague. But that is hard to pull off.
There is some nutjob like Dave haunting nearly every discussion on any topic. I used to really be hyped up about pro tennis, male and female. Every website where people discussed tennis, from the WTA website to Yahoo had a collection of fanatical haters, mostly racists who hated the Williams sisters and delighted in calling them Gorillas or nuts who had it totally in for some particular player. The WTA simply shut down their discussion site, they could not successfully remove their Dave’s, they just came back over and over under new names when banned, and they could not permit them to use the WTA site as a platform for their obsessive hatreds., Yahoo hid their tennis site so well that its nearly impossible to find so that at least no one will see the comments of the haters without making a huge effort. Fanatical Internet loons have it in their power to ruin discussions for regular folks, no one knows how to solve that any more than anyone knows how to solve NK. Some problems have no answer.
Yep, same with NASCAR sites, Danika haters, Junior lovers and Toyota haters (even though Ford and Chevy NASCAR models are produced in Mexico and Australia and Toyota is in Kentucky) . They dominate any comments, so they are about the only ones commenting these days.
Roby;
You are the one doing the name calling, spewing hatred, spraying ad hominem.
You are what you claim to be upset by.
“it won’t deflect future floods of interminable pathological rationalization from him.”
More hyperbole, ad hominem, and fallacy.
Do you know anything else!
Roby,
Over the years you have almost NEVER made an argument that is not fallacious.
You have almost NEVER even attempted to demonstrate that anything I said was wrong.
You have just resorted to ad hominem.
Your “proof over the years” is nothing more than thousands of accusations of being a liar.
What you call “evasion” is direct confrontation. I force you to strip all the hyperbole from your assertions and confront what the words you say really mean.
When you ask govenrment to do something – you are imposing your wishes on others by force. That is just a fact. It is one you want to hide from.
Worse still when you give government the power to impose your will on others by force.
You also give it the power to impose things you do not agree by force.
You do not understand that when you empower government, you are not only morally culpable for the things government does by force that you wish to see done, but to a lessor extent those you do not. When government fines kids for lemonade stands or prevents black people from hair braiding or kills people for selling loose cigarettes, or bans 64 oz soda’s – EVERYONE left or right that allowed government to have more power is culpable.
Just as Dr. Frankenstein was responsible for the acts of the monster he created.
You are on the left. You love to pummel others for their purported heartlessness – you are on the left – you care, you wear your heart on your sleeve.
You do not like that I do to you – exactly what you do to others. Except that I can manage to stand on the moral soap box without getting it kicked out from under me – because I am not being a hypocrite.
There is absolutely zero merit to using government to take money from one person to give it to another. It is still stealing, it is still morally wrong.
You are also particularly angry with me – because you know I am right about this.
I am directly challenging your image of yourself as a good person.
I am exposing the sophistry that you can somehow be good by supporting government doing good things for others.
NO! There is no moral philosophy or religion in the world that sees merit without personal sacrifice.
“Over the years you have almost NEVER made an argument that is not fallacious.
You have almost NEVER even attempted to demonstrate that anything I said was wrong.
You have just resorted to ad hominem.”
Quite funny! I needed a good laugh. You are a humorist of the first water! Your entire output has been a sort of a very long very dry joke no one understood. Now I get it: you have been making a parody of a fuddled libertarian for years and years.
“Quite funny! I needed a good laugh. You are a humorist of the first water! Your entire output has been a sort of a very long very dry joke no one understood. Now I get it: you have been making a parody of a fuddled libertarian for years and years.”
And again – is there an argument in there ?
Is there anything but ad hominem and fallacy ?
You say you have cut and pasted “ad hominems” from me.
I am sure – given all that I have written over the years – that on occasion I have resorted to ad hominem. But not that commonly.
Regardless, I do not recall your “cutting and pasting” examples.
Further you really do not grasp what ad hominem is.
Saying “you are stupid” as a response to a debate over some fact or assertion, is ad hominem.
Saying “your idea is stupid” – is a hyperbole. It is not ad hominem. It may or may not be true.
Saying “you are a liar” may be ad hominem. It is also defamation.
It requires proof.
I have made some negative assertions about you – their truth or falsity is self evident to all here. Regardless, I have backed them up. Frankly, you have backed them up.
Pomposity – thy name is dhlii dave
pom·pous (pŏm′pəs) adj. 1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious: pompous officials who enjoy giving orders.
I am not the one claiming authority I do not have, or giving orders to others.
With respect to you claim regarding Trump’s lie’s.
Do I need to couch every post here in 5 pages of disclaimers.
The statements that are most typically represented here (and elsewhere) as consequential lies by Trump – are neither lies, nor consequential.
I am sure I can go through everything Trump has ever said and find something that he has said that is objectively false. I am not sure I can find something that is consequential.
I do not like Trump. I do not like defending him. But I am much more offended by those attacking him.
When you bandy about “lie” trivially – then YOU become the liar.
You do not seem to grasp that.
If you wish to come up with an actual assertion by Trump that is actually a lie – I will be happy to acknowledge that.
Then we can discuss whether it was consequential.
Regardless, my point is not actually about Trump. It is about you.
It has taken some time to try to get a handle on your post, to dig out of the weeds, what might be what you are really saying.
AS best as I can tell, you seem to think that demonstrating that you feel that something I have said is wrong is the equivalent to proving that I am lying.
That is 3 levels removed from the truth.
That you FEEL I am wrong about something is proof of nothing, but your feelings.
Even if I was actually wrong – error and lies are completely different.
I would further note that you only use this standard in one direction.
Clinton lied about her email, she tried to cover it up. She destroyed evidence.
All these are facts.
Yet, you conclude that Clinton was somehow innocently wrong.
While Trump says something whose spin you do not like – and it is a lie.
Having different standards for different people for the same conduct is called hypocrisy.
If you wish to call me a liar,
then you need more than your feelings
You need more than to assert that I am wrong – you must prove it to a high standard.
Saying “everyone beleives otherwise” even if true is not sufficient.
Further you need to prove more than that I am wrong but that I am knowingly wrong.
Thus far you have not gotten past you feelings.
I can not compel you to do these things. But you have claimed that I have lied.
If you do not prove that, it is at the cost to your integrity.
I do not recall ever having called anyone here a liar.
But this is again the problem you get into when you misuse words.
“I feel that you are wrong” does not entitle you to call someone a liar.
Politifact has litterally said that the same statement when made by Trump was false, but True when made by Obama.
They have no credibility.
Read their own explanations regarding why they beleive something is false or true – unless your head is thoroughly up the ass of progressive ideology, usually their proof that something is true effectively demonstrates it is false or visa versa.
Why is it that you beleive because an organization calls itself non-partisan, or objective that it is ?
And once again – you confuse false with lie.
Trump constantly talks about immigration or trade in many ways that are atleast partly false. That does not make them lies. Obama talks about myriads of issues including health care and the economy in ways that are blatantly false – that does nto make them lies.
A false promise is a lie, a knowingly false statement is a lie.
But all statements that are false are not lies.
and all statements that you feel are false are especially not lies.
Again word mangling that screws up your communications and thought.
Worse still you do not do it consistently.
You grasp that just because Obama or Clinton is in error does not make them an evil liar.
But you do not judge those who disagree with you the same.
Were back to this “making problems for this site” nonsense again.
This is important – because it is more evidence that you are willing to use force if allowed against those whose views or opinions you do not like.
I can not harm you through this site, and you can not harm me.
Just more evidence you feel you have the right to silence views you do not wish to listen to.
I make attempts to persuade you, educate you, get you to grasp facts and reality.
These all prove ineffective – I am not harmed. You are not harmed.
There is nothing I can think of more obnoxious that calling others liars – particularly without proving it.
There is little that is more obnoxious than hypocrisy.
Wrapping yourself in a shroud of moral selfrighteousnous when your idea of personal moral merit is stealing from one to give to another, is obnoxious.
No bad and false arguments are not going to alter my behavior.
I do not recall speaking of “Dave’s rights”.
There is no “Dave’s rights”, whatever rights I have are exactly the same ones that you have. You are the only one arguing for special rights.
You want the right to speak as you please without anyone countering.
You can do that in your shower.
You can do that in your home.
You can not do that elsewhere.
You continue to try to demonstrate your merit as a person by making claims about my health.
Why do you presume to know anything about that ?
Why do you have any right to ?
I do not think it is my “philosophy” that bothers you the most.
But the fact that I do not allow you to spray nonsense as you wish.
I do not laud you as a good person because you claim to have intentions, or because you want good outcomes arrived at magically.
You want credit for being good – actually do good.
I think you are angry with me, because I make clear that virtue signaling is not virtue.
That you are not good because you label others as evil and then hate them.
Did anyone see the interview the Charlie Rose conducted with Steve Bannon. Now before making any personal remarks about Bannon and Trump, I am not posting this to get into a continuing BS throwing contest about these individual on their personal basis. But I am looking at how he found the Achilles heel of the Democrats and used it to make up a 15 point deficit and lead Trump to victory. It was the three populist items. Trade, Jobs and immigration. Excellent interview and Rose kept his personal animosity toward Bannon and Trump to a minimum. You can find the complete interview on you tube.
Now we see Bernie Sanders driving the Democrats even further left with his “Medicare for all” insurance plan. Just when the Democrats need to move back to the sensible center and promote ideas that the working class Americans need to hear, Sanders is putting vulnerable senators and house members between a rock and hard place. Vote for the bill and get caught in the tax and spend, elitist liberal cloak. Vote against the bill and get primaried by a further leftist candidate that the minority of voters (majority in the primary)will choose, but will most likely lose when the general election comes around.
Roby, Jay and anyone else can continue to waste their time commenting about Trump’s lies, about how he talks, about him personally. Unless the Russian probe turns up something that congress impeaches him on and removes him from office, those things will not count if the Democrats continue their march further left. People in the south, midwest and some northern states with working class voters do not want a party led by Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. The only way that this wing of the party might pull off a victory is to run a black like Cory Booker that would invigorate the “gimme vote” and return a victory due to turnout.
I wish a house would fall out of the sky and land on Hillary Clinton. Like in the wizard of Oz. And another would land on Elizabeth Warren. That about sums up how I feel about the Dem party. The two parties, dumb and dumber. What will happen in future elections is beyond the understanding of any mortal man. Including Roby tapping on his little phone.
“BlatherMan” will figure it out and tell us in ten-thousand words.
Clinton’s continued re-emergences are harming Democrats.
Warren actually taught my Wife at Penn Law and was a good professor.
I actually read her paper on health insurance and bankruptcy – it was quite good.
How it was presented int he media was quite different from what it actually said.
I would not vote for Warren, but i do not want a house to fall on her.
I think it is a mistake for democrats to go with her – but it is Their mistake to make.
No I didn’t see it.
Your analysis of the ’15 point’ swing only partially works for me, for a couple of reasons.
1-initial large leads or trails seem to always tighten up in presidential races. A major factor for that is built-in partisianship: no matter how much a party candidate is disliked during and soon after the primaries, those voters align with the candidate.
This was certainly true last election:
“Partisan identification strongly predicted how white, working-class people would vote. Self-described Republicans were 11 times more likely than their non-Republican peers to choose Trump. Researchers found that partisanship is most pronounced among the young: Among white working-class Americans under 30, 57 percent identified as Republican or Republican-leaning, compared to 29 percent who identified as Democratic or Democratic-leaning. By comparison, only slightly more than half of seniors 65 and over were Republicans or Republican-leaning, compared to over one-third who were Democrats or Democratic-leaning.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/white-working-class-trump-cultural-anxiety/525771/
2-you left out the DEEP built-in Hillary-Hatred that was roiled up to fever pitch by Trump, Republicans in general, and of course the massive Russian Anti-Hillary social media propaganda that flooded the US during the campaign to exacerbate those negative feelings.
I agree that immigration played a part in solidifying tRump’s support; but the Atlantic article goes on to statethat it wasn’t immigration alone, but anxiety over cultural change accompanying it:
“Controlling for other demographic variables, three factors stood out as strong independent predictors of how white working-class people would vote. The first was anxiety about cultural change. Sixty-eight percent of white working-class voters said the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence. And nearly half agreed with the statement, “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.” Together, these variables were strong indictors of support for Trump: 79 percent of white working-class voters who had these anxieties chose Trump, while only 43 percent of white working-class voters who did not share one or both of these fears cast their vote the same.”
And as to your single payer observation, a positive consensus in favor of it seems to be growing.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-support-for-single-payer-health-coverage-grows-driven-by-democrats/
If you polled the IRS giving everyone a 10,000 tax rebate, that would also poll highly.
SP does nto and can not work and everyone knows it.
Vermont could not pull it off, California can not.
There is not an extra 2-3T/year to pay for it.
Ask people if they support SP and a 50% tax increase ?
Why democrats think selling unicorns is a root to victory.
I can not see you placing much weight in something from a Ron Paul site,
But I am trying something new. Where possible to let other links, cartoons etc. make my arguments for me.
You should recognize the arguments made in this article.
But lest you think they are those of some looney libertarain,
they are arguments from Locke, Paine, Franklin, sometimes Jefferson, Mill, Bastiat, Thoreaux, Freidman, Buchanon, Lucas, Olstrom, …….. and many many others.
The arguments seem somewhat “canned” because they are more than two centuries old.
They get used over and over – because they have never been logically rebutted.
Socialism has on the other hand failed every time it has been tried.
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/popularity-and-majorities-dont-create-rights
The rest of the world does not have single payer.
https://fee.org/articles/the-rest-of-the-world-doesnt-use-single-payer/
“If we expanded Medicaid [to] everybody. Give everybody a Medicaid card – we would be spending such an astronomical sum of money that, you know, we would bankrupt the nation.”
Bernie Sanders 1987
The cost as estimated today – $32T/decade.
https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending
“And as to your single payer observation, a positive consensus in favor of it seems to be growing.”
I posit that its a mirage. People in Vermont wanted single payer, until they were about to actually get it and the actual costs were solidified and explained. Then it dies very immediately. Personally I would love to live under single payer so I might also in theory answer in the affirmative to it in a poll. But that is only in theory, because in fact I would not accept the costs and societal trauma.
I highly, highly doubt there is any way to get there from here in the US. Even if 75% of the population was completely sure they wanted it, which may happen someday, the transition from here to there would be very hard to engineer without crashing the economy. As of today, if you present people with an actual plan that has actual costs and not nearly enough people will want it to make it politically feasible. The Bernie-Warren camp is leading the dem party into a desert. They think that the “rich” will pay for it. They are bad at both math and economics.
It is possible that dems will win in 2020 and try to do it. I think that they would get about as far as trump has with his agenda.
Why do you think anything is in theory good when you know it is far more expensive than any alternate ?
I would further note that if we adopted SP tomorow, and the comensurate enormous increase in costs, we would still have no more doctors, hospitals, nurses, ….
SP costs far more – but it does so without altering the available resources.
The most it accomplishes – at great cost, is redistributing health care.
For most of us, that means more cost, and worse service.
This is funidimentally the same problem as ObamaCare on steroids.
SP is a unicorn. It is a mythical beast with magical properties.
It does not and can not work in the real world.
It is not merely SP that democrats are pushing, t is also a $15 MW.
Nothing would be better for Republicans than for Democrats to succeed in SP and $15MW.
The economic destruction of ObamaCare would pale compared to SP and a $15MW.
Republicans have managed to take over most of the country almost entirely the consequence of the mess than democrats made in the 10 months that they had unconstested power.
I have speculated her before that the 2010 victory by Republicans was a mistake.
Had the House remained in democratic hands another 2 years. the public anger at democrats would have been much larger.
Obama would not have been re-elected in 2012. Republicans probably would have offered a better candidate than Romney.
Republicans succeed BECAUSE of democratic failures.
I agree with much of your analysis.
It does not change that Trump pulled from 15 points behind on Bannon’s message of economic populism.
Ultimately this elections was decided in the rust belt.
Trump spoke to those traditionally democratic voters from the begining.
He won them and thus the election.
It is the last part of your analysis that was critical.
I do not like Bannon.
He is wrong that “economic nationalism” is good policy.
But he appears to be right that it is a route to political victory.
I wish that good policy and winning policy were the same. But they are not.
I do not think Bannon’s economic nationalism is any better than progressives march towards socialism as a matter of policy or potential for harm.
But Bannon proved right about which was more politically appealing.
I expect Mueller to come up with something – to pick off some minor party for “lying to the FBI” or find some technical problem in some deal.
He is not going home empty handed.
Absent buying into one of the ludicrously stupid claims of illegality that would put Clinton, Obama and atleast half of congress in the hooscow, Mueller will come up with nothing more.
There can be nothing more.
There is nothing that Either Trump or Russia have done that has actually altered the ballots cast.
Actual Trump voters are not ever going to be convinced that but for some facebook add, or the DNC leak they would have voted differently.
In fact given what we have subsequently learned there are MORE reasons to not vote for Hillary.
Trying to figure out the electorate right now is difficult.
Brexist, and Trump’s election have demonstrated that polls are not good at giving binar answers to complex questions.
Democrats and republicans – particularly the freedom Causcus factions have been at war since 2009. Poll after poll shows we do not like that. That we want congress to get along, some show the blame being heaped on republicans.
Yet, through that period and against all odds Republicans, and particularly freedom caucus republicans have steadily been gaining ground and power.
What is occuring in washington is chaotic and near certain to produce a an agressive response in 2018. But I think that trying to read the tea leaves as to how that will play out is hubris.
With few exceptions democrats are heading strongly in the wrong direction as fast as they can go.
Best laugh of the day…
Yes, really good laugh.
I do not care if Ted Watches Porn.
Though why he is “liking” it on his twitter feed ?
I do care that given the chance Ted would absolutely deprive all of the rest of us the opportunity to see Porn.
http://econewsmedia.com/2017/09/08/government-just-stripped-medical-marijuana-states-protection-dea/#comment-774
How did we get from the tenth amendment that states ” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. ”
This federal take over of peoples luve is getting harder to except as each day goes by. Where the hell are people that wants personal rights and freedoms that are the foundation of the constitution?
House Rules Committee:
9 Republicans
4 Democrats
A packed strong-arm of the majority party, doing the executive’s bidding.
Jay, so you are telling me that the congress was given the power to override the will of the people just in the last 9 months? Which legislative action passed that did this? I am surprised since I didnt think they have passed anything important and repealing of the 10th amendment seem important to me.
Egregious and stupid drug legislation and militarized policing have been bipartisan.
One of the most distrubing things reading Radley Balko’s book on the warrier cop,
Is that democrats – in particularly Joe Biden have been absolutely instrumental in militarizing the police and specifically amping up the drug war.
If you wish to piss all over republicans for this – fine.
But democrats have been a big part of the problem.
Most of the racially disparate drug sentencing was driven by BLACK democrats, like Charlie Wrangle who thought getting tough on drugs would clean up minority enclaves int he cities.
BTW the marijuana amendment is still in the budget deal that ends in december.
There is no federal general police power.
There should be no DEA, FDA, USDA, or any other govenrment agency or law not explicitly noted as a federal power in the constitution.
To the extent there is an FBI it should be restricted to federal crimes, and federal crimes should be only those in areas where the constitution gives power to the federal govenrment.
The federal government can deal with drugs crossing our national and state borders.
It should have no power over such activities fully within the state.
But the answer to your question as to how we got here starts with Wickard Vs. Filburn.
How does Wickard Vs. Filburn. relate to marijuana. WvF pertained to interstate commerce. Marijuana sales and production is regulated by state laws. And transporting from one state through another is illegal in the states where it was not sold. One can only hope one of the states legalizing this product will take it to the SC as too many people have pain and seizure under control where prior treatments did not work.
r
You should look up WvF.
Essentially it redefined Interstate commerce as anything vaguely related to any kind of commerce at all.
Post WvF the Feds had power over everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Filburn was growing wheat on his own farm to feed to his own chickens.
The court decided that because Filburns production of his own wheat would mean that he did not need to buy wheat elsewhere than might be involved in interstate commerce that Filburn’s non-purchase of regulated market wheat allowed him to be subject to federal regulation.
I keep trying to tell you that regulation is virtually never nearly so good as you think.
You can go to the CFR and pull a regulation at random and it is near certain to be something both of us would agree is stupid – atleast if we could understand it.
Regardless, WvF allows the fed’s to regulate MJ in any form inside a state even if the state objects, even if the MJ is locally grown, and legal according to state law.
And if you reverse WvF – almost the entire federal regulatory framework will collapse with it.
We have discussed this earlier. Looks like the old is becoming the new.
We are entering a period of tremendous educational turbulence.
I am not sure what the outcome will be.
Between a slowly growing body of students and massive government subsidized loans colleges have been booming for 4 decades.
Well that enrollment bubble has peaked.
Top Schools are still inundated with applicants, but with each tier down the ladder educational institutions are under massive financial pressure.
There are colleges that are running several percent under capacity – and that problem is going to get worse.
Further online education has been maturing for a couple of decades.
It is different, it is disruptive, it has advantages and disadvantage.
It is not the same as traditional education.
There are teachers in South Korea who are millionaires – because they are teaching online classes and have a track record of substantially boosting their students performance.
DeVos and the public discussion of Charters is slowly percolating to the surface.
There is alot wrong with Charter schools – my kids attended cyber charters and I can rant for hours about their problems.
BUT, overall – though not in EVERY way, they are superior to traditional public schools.
And they are building the track record to prove it.
While my kids were unusual – they floated at the top of their cyber schools.
A substantial portion of their peers were poor minority students from bad public schools.
These kids did poorly in cyber charters. BUT they did much better then they had in public schools.
If I was a poor single minority mother in a major US city with shitty public schools, I would have my kids in cyber charters.
Plus there is a further benefit. The left argues that cyber charters deprive students of the socialization of public schools. They are correct, you have to get that other ways.
But for many of my kids peers the socialization of their public schools was their PROBLEM. That is where these kids were subject to peer presures to join gangs, do drugs, sell drugs, drop out. That is less likely to happen to a kid who is at home with a computer on the internet. The left does nto often grasp that what they think is not good about alternatives, is often far better than the real choices of real students.
If I could have I would have home schooled my kids. But that is outside my wifes and my skill sets. But the data on the success rates of home schooled kids is amazing.
Regardless, at all levels education is changing very rapidly.
At the same time there is massive pushback, and some of those changes are going to successfully be foreclosed.
But there is too much happening, disruptive change in education is inevitable.
You can not hold back the tide.
Attenpt #3 We have discussed this earlier. Looks like the old is becoming the new.
These showed up at GWU recently.
There were posted by a LEFT group in an effort to get a conservative group in trouble.
But again those on the left fail the political turing test. They are unable to portray conservatives sufficiently accurately to be beleived.
Only those on the left could understand 1984 as a message FAVORING big government, experts and leaders.
Like the Kowloon Walled City much of the US west functioned absent government from about 1830-1900.
And it functioned pretty well.
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/market-protection-property-rights?utm_content=60254081&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
“much of the US west functioned absent government from about 1830-1900.”
Ho hum. Assuming that’s true, why did it ‘function’ there and then?
I know the answer.
Let’s see if you’re bright enough to come up with correct answer.
Did you actually read the article ?
Regardless, unless your answer is government – which is false, then whatever you think the answer is, is irrelevant.
As with Kowloon Walled City I have provided an example of large groups of people living together without government, successfully for very long periods.
Further the “west” is not homogenous. Things worked in California, in the prairie, in the rockies, in the north. They worked despite very different conditions and problems.
“Assuming that’s true, why did it ‘function’ there and then?
I know the answer.”
If you are not sure something is true, then you can not know the answer to why it functioned.
Logic eludes you.
Yup it is just about confederate statues! Right.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/09/13/not-confederates-vandals-behead-statue-of-catholic-priest-deface-francis-scott-key-memorial/
About Berkeley and Shapiro and sanity and a bit of what is wrong with the left.
This relates to the conflict here between Roby/Jay and I.
As Rubin notes, the expression of ideas that the left does not like is treated as violence.
Jay and Roby are obviously distraught. And their response is much like that of Berkeley to Shapiro – they fear their safety is threatened, libertarains are more of a threat to them than actual Nazi’s.
Watch out or those evil libertarians might protect you from Jeff Sessions.
Another Malthusian myth bites the dust.
Actual Nazi’s marching in Sweden
https://twitter.com/conservmillen/status/908327155469373440
Wry satire on tRump the great (Ha Ha Ha) negotiator.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/in-stunning-new-deal-with-democrats-trump-agrees-to-be-impeached/amp
Jay is it not time to give up trying to convince the few left reading Ricks blog that Trump is the wrong person to be president for any number of reasons. Those that do not like him will never like him. Those left liking him will always like him. And those that know politics and know parties will not do anything to a current sitting president because they don’t want it done to their elected official will not go so far as to remove him from office and understand that will not change.
Or do you keep posting anti-tRump propaganda justto pull Dave’s chains so he spends half the day posting opposition data.
Jay confuses the Anti-Trump propoganda with not merely fact, but with how things must be.
That because others shares his views of Trump – I share SOME of his views of Trump, that is sufficient and Trump should magically no longer be president, or he should resign.
Criticise Trump, use every legitimate tool available to thwart Trump.
That is how the system is supposed to work.
But the left today seems to think that because they do not like the outcome of the election, they are entitled to a different result.
This is not about whether Trump is a good person. We have had lots of bad person’s as president and politician.
It is not about whether he is a bad president – we have had more of those than not.
Much of the country would prefer a different president.
But Trump is the one we elected.
And nothing has changed since the election.
Hillary is not a better or more appealing person.
We have not found the magical russian mind ray that created an irresistable impulse in lots of young blue collar white males resulting in their voting for Trump.
We have not found hacked voting machines. Thus far the only possible evidence of fraud would have tilted the election even further towards Trump.
Nor do I think this is all about Trump.
Trump’s election shows that the claim that the nation was inexhorably headed left is false.
Democrats should have seen that with Scott Brown, they should have seen that in 2010, and 2014.
They are still awaiting the magic moment when someone will show that the backlash against the left and its policies since 2009 is all just a dream.
That it did not happen.
So what do we have ?
We have a democratic party that is doubling down on left.
There is a huge push for single payer, which once upon a time even Sanders grasped was completely unaffordable – apparently 36T/decade – that is nearly doubling the size of the federal govenrment.
We have people like Jay and Robbie who are unable to see what should be obvious – there is not and can not be anything in the story that this election was stolen.
While what the left beleives is implausible, more critical even if True it means nothing.
Clinton spent $1.2B trying to persuade people to vote for her. Trump was outspent nearly 2:1, so what if Russia bought $100K have issue adds ?
Had Putin publicly come out for one candidate or the other – there is nothing that we could do about it. Had he poured a billion into advertising for one or the other – there would still be nothing we could do. Further, it likely would have changed nothing.
Beleiving the Russia meme requires beleiving that voters are trivially duped, and untrustworthy.
Maybe that is true – but if true, the choices are still to respect their choice, or to dispense with elections entirely.
Hillary is now arguing that the media was against her.
Yet, the evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite.
The press was only brought kicking and screaming into the Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting. which looks worse the more we find out.
One of the big themes of the 2016 election was the tremendous reluctance of the press to cover negative stories about Clinton.
She lost inspite of the overwhelming assistance of the Press.
Yes, James Comey’s late gambit might have had an effect.
But more and more the question is not why did he make public that more emails were found on anthony wieners laptop – but why wasn’t Clinton indicted a year earlier.
The left does nto seem to grasp there is not a right to win elections, there is not a right to have everything break your way.
Absent the access hollywood video – Trump probably would have won in a landslide.
All kinds of things could have gone differently.
That is always true
Those on the left are avoiding the important discussions.
What do democrats need to do to quit losing elections ?
They spent the past 8 years accusing republicans of attacking Obama viciously and personally – when with very few exceptions, Obama was fought over issues of policy.
Now they are attacking Trump viciously and personally, and eschewing any real debate or discussion of policies – where there is potentially real common ground.
I would be happy to have a reasoned discussion regarding how we fix many of the problems we have.
There are a long list that I will be opposite Trump.
But the left does not want discussion.
They want their will by force, even after having failed to persuade.
“Or do you keep posting anti-tRump propaganda justto pull Dave’s chains so he spends half the day posting opposition data.”
Guilty! 😎
You seem to think I like Trump ?
I do not.
That does not mean that I think that stupid criticism or mis-statements are useful.
Regardless, you also seem to think that if enough bad tings are said about Trump, that unicorns will sprout up and carry him away.
He is not my choice of president. But he is the president. Just as Obama was not my choice.
You and I have the same power with respect to Trump as we did with respect to Obama.
Hope where possible he does well and oppose to the extent the law allows where not.
I hope that Trump is an object lesson for you – that we must disempower government, because inevitably the power of government is not going to be wielded by those we like.
Trump should be a good reason for those of you on the left to accept limited government.
Delightful must-read:
Those that need to be worried are not the Republicans, its the Democrats. First, before I go on with that one, why should anyone be surprised this is what he is doing. His top advisers are his family, specifically his daughter and son-in-law. Both life long democrats. And his top economic adviser (Treasury Secretary) is a Democrat.Trump himself changed parties 5 times since the late 80’s, the last one in 2012 when he returned to the GOP. And as I have said umpteen times here, the GOP establishment brought this on themselves because they all had bloated egos thinking they could get the nomination. When someone has a small piece of the pie and the rest is divided between multiple people, their pieces are smaller than the first even though in total they are a large percent of the pie. Had most all of them dropped out and one or two ran head to head with him, one of them could have overcome the small hands, little Marco, low energy, etc,etc and might have captured the nomination.
But now if the democrats begin making deals and the Trump administration looks like it is effective with issues like DACA, tax reform that does not give the rich tax relief and an abandonment of repealing Obamacare, these issues fit with the centrist voter in both parties. And he could win with a larger majority due to showing that two different parties can work together and get good stuff done that the people want done.
And if he makes a deal and then the democrats can not deliver their caucus on that deal, then he can go to the voters and say “I worked with the democrats, we had deals, they could not deliver, so now give me a congress that will deliver what we need done”. I support Mr/Ms X in this district/state and they will help me get your work done. Their opponents are part of the swamp and will only give you the do nothing congress we have had for years” And rest assured, even if this does not happen to the democrats, it surely will happen with the republicans coming up for reelection because they have already demonstrated they do not support Trump and what he wants to do. They are most likely developing plans to primary Trump (if he seeks reelection) and get back to an establishment candidate. He could also end up running as an independent, giving the democrats the presidency in 2020.
But tRump isn’t going to follow a moderate track; that was the conclusion of The NY Times article:
“But Trump’s move toward the Democrats on DACA — just as his earlier move toward them on the debt ceiling — isn’t about pragmatism. It’s not even about the plasticity of his convictions.
It’s about his addiction to betrayal, his contempt for those who bend their knee to him, his disdain for “losers” (especially when they’re on his side) and his desperate need to be admired by those who despise him most simply because they have the wit to see through him. This is a presidency whose defining feature isn’t ideology, much less policy. It’s neurosis.”
He’s a screw-up Supreme.
No matter what he ‘ fixes’ he’ll screw up multiples worse.
That’s why he has to be removed – because the potential for disaster with him as president increases exponentially with each passing day.
A Trumpenstein Sea Shanty:
What will we do with a dumbass President?
Early in the morning..
Toss him in a padded cell and throw away his mobile
Like him in a closet and take away his Twitter
Early in th morning…
I have zero problems with Trump working with democrats.
I am surprised given the malice of some key republicans towards him that he had not done so sooner.
But he needs to be carefull about where and how he does, or he will lose his base.
And then he actually is toast.
He will not lose them for working with Democrats.
But he may lose them if he gives too much of what they want and gets nothing in return, and he seems to be doing that.
As to your comments – do they make sense to you ?
If you screw those who support you – you do not get to be a millionare, much less president.
“he desparately need to be admired by those who despise him most ” – really ?
That is why he spent the first 9 months of his presidency trashing the people who despise him the most ?
I know, I am going to get the same crap that comes from the police as justifications for drugs stops:
“They were driving a van headed north – that fits the drug profile, that is why we stopped them”
“They were driving a sports car headed south – that fits the drug profile, because they were deliberately trying to not fit the drug profile”
There is no, some of us get to remove the president because we think “He’s a screw-up Supreme.” provision in the constitution.
The humour is interesting – well actually mostly it is poor, but I have no problem with lampooning presidents. We have pretty much not be allowed to for the past 8 years or we would be called racists, of course we were anyway.
But the really big problem is far too many of you do not understand it is just humour.
Only the left would question the morality of charity.
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/09/13/542261863/cash-aid-changed-this-family-s-life-so-why-is-their-government-skeptical?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social
Yeah, and excess does not get your vomit on all of our shoes.
Courtesy of Monty Python: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhbHTjMLN5c
Berkeley students: you’re calling a Jew a Nazi while simultaneously protesting free speech.
Do you realize how utterly stupid you sound?
Trump’s voter commision members should not be using private email accounts for government business.
It is against the law – and we do not need “experts” to tell us that.
Just as it was illegal for Hillary and her staff to be conducting government business using private email accounts.
https://www.propublica.org/article/experts-say-the-use-of-private-email-by-trumps-voter-fraud-commission-isnt-legal?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1505514750
The DNC’s and DWS’s growing Imran awan problem.
It is looking increasingly like Awan may have been directly or indirectly the source for WikiLeaks.
https://www.circa.com/story/2017/09/14/national-security/the-awan-breach-on-capital-hill-gets-murkier-and-leads-to-more-questions
http://humanprogress.org/blog/the-most-important-graph-in-the-world?utm_content=buffer33b8c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Government can’t give us anything they don’t take from us first. What the politicians give back to us is just a fraction of what they take.
Theft does not inspire us to create more. The entire purpose of government was to protect us from those who would use force to steal from us.
Too often the only difference between government and anarchism is the degree to which theft is organized and institutionalized.
“The entire purpose of government was to protect us from those who would use force to steal from us.”
If Ignorance is Bliss, you must be one happy guy.
The purpose of our Federal Government, as found in the Preamble of the Constitution, is to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
I don’t notice any focus there on protecting us from forced theft, do you?
Take two aspirins, put a pillow over your head, and play Rip Van Winkle foe a decade or two, OK?
Nope, not the purpose of government, just the aspirations of those who wrote the constitution.
The constitution is the blueprint for government – it tells us little or nothing about its moral or philosophical underpinnings. It is like the assembly instructions in a peice of furniture from IKEA. It tells you how to make a table – not why.
“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”
The declaration is the moral and philosophical foundation of government.
IT had to be. The justification for revolution required proving that the established govenrment was immoral.
But beyond the declaration and the constitution is the real world.
IF you have formed a government for the purpose of bullying your neighbors over your aspirations for the common good – then you are a thug, and immoral.
The purpose of govenrment is to use force to secure our rights.
If it fails to secure them, or if the force of government infringes on those rights, then that government is illegitimate, and immoral.
That is what te declaration of independence says. But it is not true because the declaration says that.
The declaration is true – because what it writes is true.
“I don’t notice any focus there on protecting us from forced theft, do you?”
Yes, in every clause.
Justice – the principle of moral rightness. Protecting us from theft by force is justice.
Domestic tranquility – that would be protecting us from the use of force – whether for theft or other purposes.
Common defense – against what ? FORCE
General Welfare – i.e. not roving bands of theives using force to get their way.
Liberty – what is liberty if it is not freedom from force ?
“Take two aspirins, put a pillow over your head, and play Rip Van Winkle foe a decade or two, OK?”
Typical wingnut response – give orders, threaten force.
Today’s best remark on Immature Donnie’s latest idiotic retweet
No – Trump thinks a cartoon produced by someone else in which Hillary Clinton gets knocked down by a golf ball that he hit is funny.
I think it is pretty dull.
But the “fake” outrage is hilarious.
Are you upset because Trump retweeting a fake boxing gif in which he pummels CNN ?
What is it that you and King are saying ?
That the president should not retweet memes ? Maybe, but that ship has sailed.
There is a long list of things I think presidents should not do.
Have sex with interns in the oval office.
Issue unconstitutional executive orders.
Make up the law as they go along.
Lie to the american people.
Lie under oath.
retweeting is just not at the top of my outrage list.
Anoying ? Yes. Newsworthy ? No.
How is golf more offensive to you than boxing ?
Or is it ok to meme pummelling hostile media, but not knocking down a political opponent ?
Or are you saying as you did when Obama was president – that certain people are off limits for criticism because of their race and gender ?
Hillary has loudly publicly stated that she doesn’t forgive white women for failing to vote for her. Women should not forgive Hillary for running and proving that women can be atleast as corrupt as men.
Another obtuse Dave observation.
The fact that tRump thinks the edited video showing Hillary knocked down by a golf ball HE HIT is funny, and appropriate for the President of the U.S. to retweet, is what’s fucked up.
That you don’t appreciate how inappropriately boorish that is speaks volumes of your own deadened sense of propriety.
On this, I’m with Stephen King’s observation about tRump, which I’m sure he’d extend to you and your observation, if he was a reader of this blog.
Nothing obtuse.
Perfectly clear.
Not really interested in hyperbolic outrage from those who can not raise their voices over things that are actually offense.
Anyone who was not screaming about the inappropriateness of BJ’s in the oval, has no ground to stand on to fake moral outrage over a retweet.
I am more concerned about acts – particularly unconstitutional ones, than I am tweets.
Or their decorum.
Though I am still trying to figure why you take particular offense at.
Particularly since this is less offensive than the CNN boxing meme.
In the prior meme TRUMP pummeled CNN.
In this one he hits Hillary.
Of source in the real world this is just video of her stumbling, no one actually hit her.
In the prior meme Trump targeted CNN
In this meme Trump targets Clinton.
I would have thought that boxing would be more offensive than golf.
I would have thought targeting CNN would be more offensive than Hillary.
Or are we pushing this identity nonsense again ?
Why does the one offend you more than the other ?
Regardless,
I think that if Clinton goes home and shuts up – Trump should leave her alone.
The contest is over, she lost. It is really for the Democrats to figure out what went wrong on how to fix it. I think Clinton is now on her 2nd what went wrong book tour.
By remaining in the lime light, she makes herself a legitimate target.
Mostly I feel the Same about Obama – so long as he follows the unwritten presidential code and does not speak ill of his successor, he is entitled to the same respect from Trump.
Trump is failing at that – but Obama is not especially able to shut up either.
BTW The Bush Obama transition was by far the best ever, which did not stop Obama from Trashing Bush. Though Bush quietly took it.
Regardless, everyone knows you do not think Trump should be president.
Presumably you expressed that with your vote.
Absent a serious change in the views of the people who actually did vote for him.
your views on Trump’s tweets are not meaningful.
Jay, you have made numerious comments concerning Trump and his poor behaviour . In this day and age, people really dont give a damn how our leaders act. Clinton turned the table with his sexual issues in the oval office. Social media provides people a way to make offensive comments without consequences. And as time passes, this only gets worse. So when Trump makes comments or jokes on social media like a group of men might act when drinking at a bar, no one really cares any more. And add to the breakdown of acceptable social interaction by the internet the fact that most people have a very low perception of politicians because so many of them are nothing but shills for large corporate interest, what the president does has very few people like you that find his actions unacceptable. Sad to say it will get worse, with or without Trump.
The “meme” is of himself assaulting his political rival, a woman, and knocking her down from behind, sniper like.
So you’re partially right – it isn’t funny.
It is not funny – but alot of what is on twitter that pretends to be funny isn’t.
It is unlikely Trump is going to be impeached for the high crime and misdemeanor of unfunny retweets.
Hillary insists on making herself the focus of public attention.
This is the natural result of that.
Neither the public good, nor that of the democratic party are served by her endless efforts to blame someone else.
I am very annoyed that Obama is making noises about actively involving himself in politics. But he has a far more legitimate basis for doing so than Clinton.
Democrats have to figure out what they are doing in 2018 and 2020 and what they stand for and Hillary is a serious distraction.
I thought so.
You have special rules for women and minorities.
The assorted name calling of Trump is acceptable because he is a white male.
We heare orange orangatang, dufus, Trumpanzee all the time.
There were some very obscure people making Obama monkey references and these were roundly condemned.
But aparently those things are acceptable to you if the target is
white
male
republican
Let go of the indentity politics and maybe somebody will listen to you.
And maybe you will be able to win an election.
Though probably not, because the democratic party has nothing to offer except identity politics.
Regardless, if female candidates for president require special protections, then they are not qualified for president.
Political equality means exactly that – it means being called names and abused and targeted by offensive memes.
If that is not OK, then women are not equal by choice.
Generally bottom up systems are more robust than top down ones.
Whatever the errors in a bottom up system, no matter how frequent they are, they not merely tend to be small errors, but are driven towards small errors, often counterbalancing errors.
While top down systems often have much fewer small errors but work like oscillations in a bath tub – the errors reinforcing each other rather that counteracting each other, and the efforts to avoid or postpone the error or minimize its cost acting to increase its magnitude.
Centrally planned economies tend to fail catastrophically – the USSR. Venezeulla – if they can manage to succeed at all. Even the 2008 financial crisis caused by the 2006 housing bubble bursting, are the errors of central planning – water oscilating in a tub until it spills over.
All regulation works toward getting everyone to do the same things in the same way – rather than making us safer these often make us less safe,
How interesting- as government involvement in people’s lives has INCREASED world wide, the number of people NOT living in absolute poverty has increased dramatically!
More Government = Less Poverty
Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure. This chart does not prove anything. There are way too many variables in the numbers hidden behind the chart to come to any conclusion.
Ron;
The problem is not with that chart – or myriads of others that tell the same story – and tell it accross myriads of variables and measures.
Jay’s problem is that his premise – that all these things have corresponded to growing governments – is FALSE.
Neither the growth of government, nor economic growth have been consistent – either within a country or accross the world.
Contra Jay as an example the global scope of government has been DECLINING relatively speaking. In most of Asia, eastern and western europe, russia, and south america, government has declined – as a portion of the population and as a portion of the economy.
Universally including in the US, growth in government has corresponded to slower growth in everything else.
You do know that socialism (the largest and most pervasism form of government) FAILED ?
It failed pretty much everywhere it has been tried.
It failed to the extent it has been tried.
Your idea of the global scale of government seems to be based solely on what you have seen in the US.
And even in the US you are under the mistaken understanding that growth in government and economic growth have trended lock step – instead of reality where they have trended inverse.
You do know that pure capatilism has never succeeded, that there are no purely capitalistic nations, that successful nations combine the two. Or are you too dense an absolutist to understand that!
Dave, I’m curious to know: do dogs growl at you?
Do you have any pets!
I’d so, are they neurotic?
Bzzt, wrong.
The US in the 19th century was very near a pure capitalist system – as was the UK.
The rate of growth was double that of the 20th century and more than tripple that today.
I further noted the Kowloon Walled City and the US West as more than a century long successful examples of more radical Anarcho-capitalism – not the libertarian minarchy I have advocated.
Further the governance of the world has been anarcho-capitalistic for milenia.
There is no central planning no world state, just nations acting in their own interests and cooperating voluntarily.
Finally, I am not striving for perfection – Utopia is your dream not mine.
I am just after the best that we know we can do.
And that is libertarian minarchy – and we know that – or to the extent we might not know that, it would be because maybe actual anarcho-capitalism is superior.
WE know – absolutely, without exception that for every single nation with a government size of 20% of GDP or greater – that growth is greater the smaller the portion of GDP that govenrment consumes.
We not only know that in comparing nations to each other, we know it in comparing nations to themselves. For every single nation in the world with government larger than 20% of GDP, its growth in standard of living has been highest as government size has been smaller.
Our data for government below 20% of GDP is poor. In the 20th and 21st centuries that is mostly 2rd world nations – nations that are barely beyond tribal governance.
But we do have data from developed nations in the 18th and 19th centuries and that strongly suggests that the optimal size of government is closer to 3% of GDP than 20%.
But for now, I would settle for moving towards 20%, when we get there I think it will be obvious we should continue to shrink further.
I would also suggest Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s
“Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder”
Contra the left, catastrophic systemic failure is found almost exclusively in top down central planned systems.
The housing bubble and the financial crisis should be global object lessons in the dangers of single minded systemic focus on narrow goals.
I have had pets all my life. Mostly dogs.
I am highly allergic to cats – but cats love me.
Most animals do. I have had two and sometimes 3 dogs most of my life.
None of them growl at me.
Even neurotic dogs tend to quickly become comfortable with me, roll onto their bellies and demand to be petted.
Only my daughter has better pet karma than I do.
So, I have been traveling around northern Italy for the last couple of weeks. The Italians are a laid back bunch, but I was surprised to see quite a number of signs advocating Italian secession from the EU. “Italexit”, I guess you might call it. Unfortunately, the EU has no interest in controlling, or even monitoring, the migrant surge that is destabilizing southern Italy, and quickly threatening the north. Many of the migrants that enter the EU through Italy are there only temporarily, primarily interested in the wealthier welfare states like Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and Denmark, but more and more are choosing to stay, as Italy has a need for low-skilled labor and a declining native population. Many educated Italians emigrate to the US and Canada for better job opportunities, and even retirees often leave for other EU countries, often Poland and Hungary, that they perceive as safer, and that have lower costs of living.
So, anyway, I had a few interesting conversations with Italian locals, mostly in Tuscany, about Donald Trump. Most of them were curious to know why I voted for him, and, not having been subjected to the daily barrage of Trump-hate that we get here, they were open to the idea that he was elected to do something about the economy, as well as because of real concerns that uncontrolled illegal immigration was negatively impacting the US in the same way that they are seeing it in their own country.
It was far easier to have an issues-based discussion about American politics in Italy than I’ve found it to be here at home. Even Italians who were pre-disposed to dislike or to fear Trump, based on what they have read or heard, were open to another viewpoint…
Ron, a friend with whom I was traveling suffered a bad fall, and ended up at a hospital in Milan for stitches. The hospital did not appear clean, my friend was given no anesthetic of any kind before receiving 19 stitches in her knee. and the dressing that was put on the wound fell off later that same day. Not a great endorsement of the Italian national healthcare system.
Jay, we ordered a few cases of Tuscan wines…very good, although the Italians are quite dismissive of Napa Valley wines, which I found irritating.
Ha, m misplaced modifier appears to suggest that Ron suffered a bad fall in Milan.. I meant to address Ron, not to indicate that he suffered a bad fall!!
You can not have significant immigration and a welfare state.
Europes immigration issues today are just starting to approach what the US experienced off and on over the past 150 years.
For all their purported tolerance, Europe on the whole is NOT very diverse – or atleast was not until recently.
Real tolerance and real diversity have until recently been found only in the anglo nations.
According to WHO Italy’s health care ranks 2nd in the world, and the US ranks 37th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000
Yikes. Suffice it to say, that if I need surgery, or merely a bunch of stitches in my knee, I will opt for #37 over #2.
Those were the ranks in 2000. I suspect the US has risen since then – since WHO would have given bonus points for PPACA regardless of whether it works or what it costs.
There are myriads of problems with doing comparisions between nations.
Some measures are workable accross countries – GFP and GDP/per capita as an example.
While other measures such as health care comparisons are far more subjective and difficult.
Things like happiness indexes or health care comparisons.
Even things like life expectancy – the US measures live births by totally different standards than the rest of the world, and that has a large effect on life expectance.
The US has the safest highways in the world – but we also travel more than double the distances of europeans and as a result have higher highway fatalities.
Jay thought you might be interested in this since you have made comments about the hurricanes, global warming and climate deniers.
Like I said, I think the climate is warming, but not everything is due to fossil fuel and “human activity” as defined by the liberal left. This indicates that deforestation is one of the leading causes of climate change.. If so, why is fossil fuel the only thing getting attacked.
Liberals hating the rich oil barons maybe?
Maybe the liberals could get more buy in on this subject if they presented the case showing all causes of warming and offered solutions to each one, and not just fossil fuels changes.
http://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html
Whatever it takes to adjust the rising temps should be considered.
I don’t see that approach as liberal or conservative.
Jay” Whatever it takes to adjust the rising temps should be considered.
I don’t see that approach as liberal or conservative.”
Just watch all the comments on the main stream media as well as CNN, and MSNBC. See how many discuss issues other than fossil fuels. I agree all should be discussed. But are all the issues discussed and are all the countries being involved in any responsible changes ?
I do NOT agree.
There is no role for govenrment in energy AT ALL.
The only outcome of government involvement will be negative.
Nor do I agree that some “adjustment” of temperatures is needed.
In the unlikely event that the earth actually gets significantly warmer – that will be on NET positive, not negative.
Regardless, government is clueless and incapable of addressing warming/cooling … managing the plants temperature.
There is absolutely nothing else even a fraction of that scale that govenrment does well enough to be trusted.
I do not beleive there is some need to replace fossil fuels.
At the same time I do beleive that we will inevitably do so.
And we will do so better and faster the farther out of this we keep government.
The evolutionary trend in energy use has been towards ever finer ability to control energy.
Even when that has been inefficient and costly.
We can heat and light our homes and cities with gas.
We do so with electricity because that gives us far greater control.
Dave”There is no role for govenrment in energy AT ALL. ”
Sorry but your jumping to conclusions. Neither Jay nor I mentioned government involvement.
My belief is if the scientific community can find a way to work with private enterprise a do things they believe may be of benefit, then that is good. When government gets involved or anyone associated with government, automatically you have 30% to 45% adamantly opposed regardless of documented proof .
Like most things, balance is crucial.
That includes balance between business and govt.
You can’t have one without the other.
Neither can be trusted to do what’s best for citizens.
Both have agendas and if left to their own impulses are deterimental to our interests.
It is of course an imperfect system, but if not kept in equilibrium, WE will suffer the consequences.
That goes double for climate.
We can’t rely on either to address the problem
Both need their feet held to the fire ( so to speak);
Jay, “That includes balance between business and govt.
You can’t have one without the other.
Neither can be trusted to do what’s best for citizens.”
While I agree that neither can be trusted to do whats best for the citizens, I have much less belief in government than I do with business. Government is made up of people with an agenda and have no one to answer to if something goes wrong. They have lifetime membership in running the government under the civil service rules. One only has to look to the veterans administration to see how lifers screw something up and then do not answer for their screw ups. The vets end up as the victims. Also, when one looks to government, one should expect that financial security of people should be considered high on the list of responsible action. Looking at the debt, deficits, social security and the unending pension problems that are developing in government service, one can see that government has no interest in maintaining a sound financial condition of the country for the future generations. And that doesn’t even take into account the growing cost of Obamacare/Medicaid and Medicare,
Business, on the other hand, has some responsibility to the owners (stockholders). When they screw up, the stockholders are liable in the way of reduced value of their stock. Senior management can go to jail.
So while Trump is reconsidering his decision to drop out of the Paris Climate agreement, one should keep an eye on things other than fossil fuel getting the short end of the stick. I doubt that will happen. But he is now part of government and with his changing positions on immigration, Paris Agreement, Iran Nuclear treaty and many other things he ran on, he is now the poster child of how government screws over people just to get elected. He is no better than the other 536 individuals in elected positions in Washington now.
I would prefer if Donald Trump stuck to the comittments he mad to get elected – within the confines of the law and constitution.
I think paris is both stupid and a mistake – but if we are going to participate – it is a treaty and must go before congress.
I think the principles behind DACA are good, and with tweaking are what should be our law. But they are not, and DACA was illegal and unconstitutional.
I think Trump should enforce the provisions of PPACA in the law – even if that creates failure. If the law is broken, it is not the role of the president to unilaterally fix it as he please.
I think Trumps tack to the left more recently is a political mistake.
The left is not going to give him anything because he has tried to work with them.
Jay and Roby are no more likely to vote for him in 2020, but people who did vote for him might not.
He ran on a platform of win and get out, and if we can not win get out, and he has abandon that.
You are incapable of thinking of the world in any otherway but collectivist.
The individual is the only meaningful reality.
All morality flows from individuals.
All rights are those of individuals.
We voluntarily self organize in various groups – for our own self interest.
We do not get a job to advance the common good, we do so to benefit ourselves.
We do not start businesses, for some collective goal – but for our own self-interest.
the “common good” which is nothing more than the utilitarian concept of the greatest individual good for the largest number, is the benefit we must provide in return for the advance of our own self interest.
There is economic work as old as the 1950’s demonstrating that sbsent the ability to use force, even businesses that deliberately set out to engage in preditory behavior will quickly shift away from that – because it is not in their self interests.
Restrain individuals and groups from the initiation of force, require them to honor commitments and repair actual harm they cause and no other regulation of individuals or voluntary groups is necescary.
But there is no effective means to restrain government.
Andrew McCarthy in NRO penned a recent peice praising Sessions (and Trump) for returning to the rule of law – which I agree with. The administration and DOJ should enforce the laws we have as written, not as they wish them to be.
They should do so vigorously and without discretion.
What McCarthy gets wrong, is that just because I beleive we must enforce the law as it is, does not mean that I think that the law is good or that law enforcement is not corrupt.
Police conduct that shocked the conscious in 1960 and was barred by the 4th amendment and only done by crooked cops is now SOP.
If we are stupid enough to pass bad laws, one of the most effective ways to get rid of them is to enforce them without discretion.
Trump was right to enforce our immigration laws as they are written. Even those laws I disagree with. If we are upset about “dreamers” if we want immigration law to be different, we must change the law.
Trump should do the same regarding PPACA – enforce the law as written, even if that causes PPACA to fail.
I find it odd that the left argues that Trump is a totalitarian, when more so than any prior president most of his actions that are causing outrage and offense are to enforce the actual law, to return the responsibility for law making to congress.
Just to be clear – I do not think Trump does that as a matter of principle. I do not think he is a highly principled person. But I do not care much why he does it – so long as he does it.
I want the rule of law restored. I want our govenrment governing strictly according to the law, without discretion. Even the laws I think are wrong.
It is the vigorous enforcement of the law as written that will result in either congress purging bad laws, or the courts actually finding our rights in the constitution and enforcing them.
History teaches that only evil comes when science serves politics or religion.
The half life of CO2 in the atmosphere is greater than 7 and less than 15 years.
That means (again at odds with warmists) that changes in human production of CO2 would have rapid consequence in the environment (presuming that Human CO2 has a strong effect).
BTW that CO2 half life is well established and strongly refutes CAGW theory on its own.
I think that Trump is making a serious mistake hinting at not backing away from Paris.
The issue is primarily political. Paris has almost zero impact on global temps – even with the warmists were right.
The entire CAGW charade is not about global warming, it is about government taking control of global energy.
My guess is Trump is becoming politically inclined to support Paris – because Kushner and his children buy into CAGW, and because some of the stupid left insults would stop – I doubt it.
Alone among developed countries the US has actually reduced CO2 emissions – as a result of fracking. Trump may be tempted to buy into Paris in the mistaken beleif it will not cost anything – because the rest of the anti-fracking world is not meeting CO2 targets.
Paris becomes a free deal for him – it has only aparent upside.
But the downside is ceding control of our future to bureacrats.
Because if you control energy you control everything.
Your response presumes that government must act.
That presumption is false.
Hominids are atleast 5m years old – that means they have survived more than a dozen global ice ages in which most of the earth was covered by glaciers.
Homo Sapiens is atleast 150,000 years old – that means we have survived atleast one global ice age, and in fact we have thrived and replaced other hominids as the earth warmed. Human recorded history begins with the end of a lessor ice age 10,000 years ago. during that period of recorded history the planet was likely warmer than today atleast once every 2000 years. probably as much as once every thousand.
Climate change is the norm for earth. A stable climate would be the aberation.
Of all the future changes in climate we should fear – warming is what we should fear the least. There are few negative effects to warming, and numerous positive ones.
Regardless, there is absolutely no need for globally organized forced human cooperation to thwart change that is outside of the power of humans to control and mostly to our benefit.
There is a political not scientific reason that the land use (deforestation) argument for global warming was rejected decades ago. Because changes do to land use are self limiting. The developed countries int eh world are in the midst of reforestation.
Even in the unlikely event the great forests of the undeveloped world are destroyed warming would progress little further.
CO2 because the culpret for warmists, because all other choices are obviously self limiting and to the extent modern developed nations have impacted world climate, that impact has ended even reversed.
I could care less if you wish to buy a prius to make yourself feel virtuous, just as I could care less about myriads of other choices you might personally make daily to embrace gaia as your religion.
But you may not force your religion on others by force.
Most of the transformations in energy use that warmists want are inevitable for reasons having nothing to do with climate.
We did not cease to use animals for power – because we ran out of animals.
We did not convert from peat and dung and wood to coal because of a shortage of shit.
We did not convert from coal to oil, and gas because we ran out of coal or because oil and gas were cheaper.
We have not switched to electricity because it is cheaper.
Every change in energy use has been driven by greater value and the increased standard of living enabling us to afford that value.
We will likely shift away from the direct burning of fossil fuels for energy as we are better able to store electricity, because in area after area storage cost, efficiency and density are the primary obstacles to myriads of shifts in energy use. The electric car is superior to the combustion engine in inumerable ways – but for energy storage. Energy storage makes the use of solar energy far more cost effective.
The major impediment to our future is as always – our government.
There is not a single disruptive change in human existance that ever came to use through govenrment.
“Hominids are atleast 5m years old – that means they have survived more than a dozen global ice ages in which most of the earth was covered by glaciers.”
How many didn’t survive?
Your advice: do nothing, and sacrifice millions, because some other humans will continue to live?
We’ve heard similar STUPIDITIES in the past. Notably for the developements of disease preventing serums and vaccines to lower childhood mortality rates: that researchu and testing brought the same kind of response you offer: it’s God’s Will that 45% of children don’t reach the age of 5, but 55% do survive. Take comfort from that all you humans who saw your infants and children stop breathing.
Your attitude mirrors that same mind set: it’s Nature’s Will to wreck havoc, but new coast lines will replace the old. And those who lost their lives and livihood in Houston should take comfort that they’re part of the natural order.
And you wonder why I think you’re a Bozo?
Sorry if this is second posting. When this gets over 1000 comments, my PC/browser takes forever to post something and then some do and some don’t.
Jay “Houston should take comfort that they’re part of the natural order.
And you wonder why I think you’re a Bozo?”
Jay, in some respects, I agree with you on some of Dave’s positions. however, be careful what examples you use to call another a Bozo. Maybe one needs to look at the areas that are impacted by hurricanes and question exactly who are the Bozo’s. Hurricane Harvey was nothing unusual for this time of year. It was not an excessively strong hurricane. What happened was the high level winds between two high pressure systems that usually guide low pressure systems was very weak, so the storm sat over Houston and dumped all its water onto one area. We see that all the time with storms over the Atlantic. They move very slowly or they do loops because the upper winds are not strong enough to move.them. But who are the Bozo’s? Could it be the people that want to live near the water (coastal areas and rivers) that see their homes disappear due to the winds or flooded since water does rise. could it be the developers that buy land in flood plains and build tracts of homes. could it be the government that fixes one part of the river and chokes off that part from flooding that causes backups in others that flood areas that were never flooded. could it be development in huge areas that cause rain that would normally soak into the soil to run off into the river and cause excessive flooding? Or could it be a combination of all of these? And going further, is anyone surprised that all the houses in the Keys were damaged or destroyed? was that area really meant for development? And then the smartest move of all. New Orleans and Katrina. Who the hell was the idiot that came up with the idea to put half a city in areas below sea level that is right on the coast line. I don’t know new Orleans that well, but in other areas such as this, that would be swamp land or wetlands that the environmentalist would be have a s^&% hemorrhage over if someone wanted to build. Wow, build dykes to keep the water out. What a wonderful idea!
So the title of Bozo can be spread to many and it is not just those that do not have a favorable view of government. Remember, government in Houston allowed for excessive building. Government in new Orleans allowed for building in swampland. Government in florida allowed for building on the keys. And government is building dykes and other means to hold rivers back that end up flooding properties upstream. How many people would not have died in New Orleans had the swamp been kept a swamp?
A couple of quick comments, Ron.
First, you’re not suggesting nothing should be done to combat rising temps, and resultant rising sea levels, and increases of catastrophic weather, are you? Or worse, having government do less, as evidenced by tRumps cancellation of FEMA initiatives?
Second, the flooding in Houston and elsewhere wasn’t limited to coastal areas, you know that, Right? In fact Inland flooding from hurricanes is generally the deadliest part, more than wind and surge. That was also evident from the Houston flooding, where inland rivers also flooded surrounding areas, and from the more than tens of thousands 911 calls, the majority not from coastal towns.
Third, government didn’t OK those coastal projects in a vacuum – developers pushed for that, publically and behind the scene… you need to cast a wider net of blame for that.
Temps have been rising for 250 years.
Are you saying our founders failed us ?
BTW yes, I am absolutely saying that we should do nothing about CAGW.
First because our predictions of future temparatures are so incredibly statiscally poor that no one in their right mind would use them to spend money.
In the past 20 years the earth has dropped 2.5 std dev’s BELOW the IPCC model predicted temps.
If current trends continue – which we have no reason to know one way or the other
we will get .7C of additional warming at most by 2100.
That is about the same as the 20th century.
It is entirely possible that faster warming could occur.
It is equally possible that we could start cooling.
We do not know why the planet cooled in the 1700’s, why it warmed subsequently, why warming stalled for the past 20 years, and whether it will resume warming or start cooling.
Anyone claiming to know that for certain is a FOOL.
So yes, government absolutely should do nothing about things that we can not even accurately guess at the odds.
FEMA has absolutely never proved effective at anything.
I live in the area that was struck by Agnes back in the 80’s.
I am well aware of the effect of inland huricanes.
Regardless if you dump 1T gal of water into a bowl – the bowl is going to fill.
There is absolutely nothing you can do about that.
Better flood control in Houston might have helped with something much much smaller.
We do not have the wealth to build the systems to remove 1T gal or water from a bowl in a few days in a huricane like Harvey.
In my area – which is NOT a bowl, Agnes still dumped massive amounts of water. There are a few things we could have done to mitigate damages – but ultimately absent the ability to clear massive amounts of water in a short time flooding is going to occur.
Closer to me is a town that though much smaller is similar to houston. Every huricane or period of heavy rain overwhelms its storm water system.
Making water flow up hill requires massive amounts of POWER.
The cost of the cure is far higher than the damage.
With respect to coastal projects – there should be no government involvement in them.
Build where you want. Get insurance at the market rate for that area, or go without insurance.
I have zero problems building in coastal areas. I have major problems paying because others did.
Your argument that developers pushed – makes my point.
AGAIN whatever power you give government someone will buy. ALWAYS.
You are spitting into the wind trying to do something about that.
I would not get so detailed with respect to Jay.
One of the biggest problems with the arguments of warmists – is that we do not know so much and they are so full of hubris.
The claims of warmists regarding violent weather are pure crap.
To the extent there is any relationship at all between violent weather and warming it is an inverse relationship.
We can look at huricanes, tornadoes and all forms of violent weather and find very very few patterns. And to the extent those exist at all – they correlate to SOLAR activity only – not CO2, not warming.
Even earthquakes and volcanoes have some correlation to solar activity.
We are surprised by the current huricane season – because it has been the first normal one in more than a decade.
We are in the middle of a protracted period of very low solar activity.
That has definitely impacted violent weather. There is zero doubt about that.
While claimed connections to CAGW are absolutely without proof.
You can get graphs of huricane frequency, energy, size or any other criteria you want.
The only correlations we have are to solar cycles. Something we have known for atleast 100 years – probably longer.
Further whether a year has alot of huricanes or a few, has nothing to do with its impact on us.
Katrina was unique in only ONE way – in all other ways it was pretty ordinary.
What was unique about Katrina was that it struck New Orleans nearly squarely and NO’s levees were insufficient for a direct strike by a huricane.
Harvey is much the same. Houston has always been highly vulnerable to flooding.
Had Harvey picked a different root and not camped over Houston the damage would have been far less.
Regardless, we have had huricane seasons with 20+ huricanes – and not one striking the US. There would be very little hype over a hurican season that devastated mexico, and the caribean. But hit someplace int he US that is unprepared and the media goes nuts.
I have yet to hear the real damage assessment from Irma. My understanding is the predicted storm surge did not happen. Certaining many homes were destroyed.
Further it does nto make sense to build the nation for 100% survival of 100 or 500 year events.
This is similar to the argument against Paris and other climate “accords”.
The actual cost of an unlikely event may be far lower than the cost of preparing for or preventing it.
As we become more affluent we can afford to build to survive even more rare events.
But that is a choice, and one we can make because we are wealthy.
Which is why all hazzard insurance should be private.
If you wish to build in an area with high risks – what you pay for insurance, and how you build to reduce risks should be between you and your insurance company.
The left has used Harvey to attack Houstons very light government interferance in building.
But most of those attacks are false.
The density and distribution in Houston is LESS than in similar cities with tighter codes.
This BTW is normal and is simply economically predictable.
Houston has one particularly unique problem that is that it is geographically prone to flooding. That is not a correctable problem. And had no impact on Harvey.
Flood control systems require gravity to operate. Absent a place downhill to route 1T gallons of water, Houston was going to flood – no matter how good a flood control system it had. Until we can provide rock solid reliable power during a huricane and the ability to pump 1T gallons of water in a few days, we do not have the ability to protect Houston from Harvey.
New Orleans has a similar problem – much of the city is below sea level.
Harvey would have effected it the same as Katrina.
But Katrina’s primary effect was not the volume of rain but that the storm surge breached the levees. That is atleast fixable – though expensive.
Regardless, bad things are going to happen.
As we become ever more afluent will will be increasing capable of mittigating those.
It is outside of our ability today to protect either New Orleans or Houston from a Huricane like Harvey. But someday that will be possible, as well as affordable. .
“How many didn’t survive? all of them. ”
in fact every human ever born will die.
“Your advice: do nothing, and sacrifice millions, because some other humans will continue to live?”
No my advice is abandon the hubris that humans are all powerful and control everything.
There is no “sacrifice” – you are presuming that we have the power to perfect the world.
That you even no what perfect is.
People die every day. they are killed by cancer, lightning strikes, huricanes, floods, old age.
Which of these have we “sacrificed” ?
You are the one presuming that some kind of sophies choice even exists – it does not.
The very actions that you intend to “save” people have dubious evidence of any actual benefit, and absolute certainty of harm.
Whenever you say that something has a “cost” that means it comes at the expense of other things. The cost of the warmist nonsense is greater poverty worldwide, and greater poverty means greater death.
I have no problem with what people freely choose.
If you wish to buy a prius – do so.
If you wish to give your child an MMR vaccine – do so.
If you wish to bar unvacinated kids from your home or school – do so.
It is you that see the world as binary – live as cave men or as slaves to the will of the group.
All human improvement has come as a consequence of the free choice of individuals.
Life is not perfect, and nature is unpredictable and often unfriendly.
We do not have the power to stop earthquakes, volcanoes, asteroids, huricanes, tornado’s, …
Maybe someday we will. In the meantime spending trillions to attempt what is outside of our power is hubris.
My empathy for those flooded in Houston does not justify doing real harm in the false and hubristic hope that maybe I could change a future houston.
BTW, when in the planets history were there no huricanes ? Earthquakes ? ….
What makes you beleive we have the slightest control of their power, frequency, size or location ?
You are engaged in imposing the pretense of knowledge by force.
You are no different from Myan’s sacrificing virgins to appease the god’s
You are practicing a religion. and imposing it on others by force.
“You don’t know which way the wind blows
So how can you plan tomorrow”
Absent the involvement of government in things that are not its jobs we would not even have this rot.
There is a great demand for enginering, mathematics, biology, geology, myriads of forms of science that actually improve the lives of humans.
There is no demand outside of government for this malthusian rot.
You have successfully been terrorized into demanding that government worry for you and fund inquiry into myriads of forms of nonsense that neither are, nor were ever going to happen.
We waste time debating nonsense – because government funds this nonsense.
None of this malthusian rot has ever occured in the past.
It makes as less sense to worry about the world coming to an end as a consequence of these memes that are a leftist corruption of pseudo science as that to worry about the erruption of a super volcano or the earth getting struck by a life killing asteroid.
Homo Sapiens has had 150,000 years to figure out how to entirely obliterate the planet.
There are 7B of us now – we have failed to self exterminate, and there is no credible evidence that we are going to do so.
The absolute worst things humans have managed – killing themselves – or killing off nature have all been done by socialists, nothing else even comes close.
Even trying to call the Nazi’s right rather than left – they still are “socialists”, leaves you with the problem that Hilter’s carnage was atleast doubled by Stalin, and doubled again by Mao.
More professors self identify today as marxists than conservatives, by a factor of nearly 4,
Almost 20% of college professors today self identify as marxists.
Anyone who identifies as a marxist is either ignorant of history beyond comprehension or malevolent on an unprecidented scale.
We wasted a century testing marxism and that experiment cost the lives of over 100 million people. Worse still the ideology that claims to represent the downtrodden mostly sought to elevate the downtrodden by exterminating them.
There is no historical equivalent to this carnage – ever. There is no other ideology that has so predictably resulted in mass extermination.
These very same people – or their close apologists on the left are the ones that bring us all this intellectual pseudo scientific nonsense.
Real scientists, engineers, mathematicians, biologists, etc. our out in the world building and creating, not engaged in pseudo scientific flights of fancy, fantasizing about the end of the world.
The government spends a great deal of money funding science – very little of it results in useful results.
And of course climate scientists must scare the shit out of everyone – because otherwise we would not continue to fund anything so intellectually worthless.
The left’s response is that there is some war on science.
No there is a war on ideology masquerading as science.
Nobel wining physicists are skeptics.
How much more scientific can you get than that ?
Those opposed to this government funded malthusian nonsense, are not anti-science, they are anti-pseudo science.
Have conservatives and skeptics challenged newton’s laws ?
Have they rejected mathematics, statistics, biology, chemistry ?
Frankly I am hard pressed to think of a warmist paper that engaged in actual science rather than foundationless speculation that was not statistically bankrupt.
Warmist scientists are generally those who could not manage the quite difficult work of real science
I’m with you, Ron (and Dave, I presume) in trusting business over government. While business, especially “big” business is increasingly demonized, the truth is that , as Mitt Romney famously said, corporations are people. Government is people, too. There are good people and bad people, and the job of the government is to make laws for people and ensure that those people follow the laws.
The problem that we have is that, increasingly, big business exerts undue and excessive influence over government, because our government leaders appear more interested in becoming rich than they are in making and enforcing good laws.
The Obama administration was extremely successful in growing this kind of corporatism. I remember, years ago, during Obama’s first term, having a discussion of whether or not Obama was a socialist. I thought then, and I still think, that Obama is not a socialist, but a corporatist ~ a crony capitalist, who favors big business and monopolies tied to the government, over small and medium businesses that provide jobs and opportunity for people, but don’t have the mega-billions to buy influence and power. Obamacare was a great example of this – since the ACA was passed, there has been a huge consolidation of hospitals into huge hospital “systems,” and the same is true of insurers.
The Trump administration has begun the process of unraveling this anti-business, pro- big corporation culture by freezing and/or eliminating hundreds of regulations and mandates. But, that’s not going to be enough. Monopolies have to be broken up, the “revolving door” of lobbyists and legislators has to be closed, etc.
The Paris Accords are supported by big, global corporations. They are generally opposed by American small businesses that cannot compete under the stifling regulations imposed on them, and are more concerned with their local economies.
Trump has always faced major headwinds in turning back the regulatory, crony capitalist state….perhaps he has stalled, perhaps he’s given up. But, I think that it’s too early to tell.
IT is only possible to “influence” government, to the extent government has power.
I fully expect that big business, the rich, and anyone else that see’s personal advantage in manipulating the power of government – will do so. That is just how it is.
No matter how many laws are passed, no matter what you do, government will be corruptable, and corrupted to the extent that it has power.
Communism fails – among other reasons because it NEVER gets “the right leaders”.
Any system that depends on the best in power will fail.
Any system that can not survive the worst in power – will fail.
Libertarianism is the only system that does not depend on unicorns. That does not presume some form of perfection. That accepts that the people are flawed, and works despite those flaws.
I do not especially Trust Trump. But unlike those on the left, and possibly the right, I am judging him by what he does rather than what he says – though that includes doing what he said he would do, and following the law – even where I think the law is wrong.
I fully expect lots of corruption and corporatism in the Trump administration.
There is a great deal of difference between hoping that Trump will on net be good, and blind faith in Trump.
“All morality flows from individuals.”
Nonsense. All morality flows from the consensus of the group.
Nonsense, groups are no different than the corporations you loath.
They are merely individuals acting voluntarily together.
The group itself has no existance. There is no group consciousness.
Eliminate the individuals and there is no group.
The original US constitution reflected a group concensus that Slavery was good.
Are you saying that concensus made slavery moral ?
Regardless, the “group concensus” put Hitler and most every other despot in existance in power. Your thesis makes their actions moral.
What is troubling is that you might actually beleive this “concensus” rot.
Truth, morality,. rights, the laws of nature, are not determined by concensus.
These are all intrinsic to the world we live in. We discover them. We do not create them.
Morality rests on the individual. An immoral act is that of one individual that violates the natural rights of another.
Murder is not moral or immoral because of some concensus. It is immoral because it is a violation by one individual of the rights of another.
There is no group morality. If twenty people force one person to do something that helps another, there is no moral merit that accrues to the group, no to the individual who was compelled to do good.
Morality is rooted in freedom – free will. We are free to act. We can act for our own good and that of others, or we can act for their harm.
“All morality flows from the consensus of the group.”
So, you believe that if the group is satanist, believes in human sacrifice, rape, and plunder, that is moral?
If communism is ascendant, the theft of private property is moral?
There is no right and wrong, only consensus?
I could not disagree more.
“So, you believe that if the group is satanist, believes in human sacrifice, rape, and plunder, that is moral?”
Well no, I don’t believe it, but my moral beliefs and yours are learned from the beliefs held by the society in which we’re brought up- the overriding morality taught us. Morality – is a ‘learned’ particular system of values and principles of conduct, held by a specified society, and passed on to its members.
What one society may believe is moral, another does not; and what one society believes is moral alters over time.
I call your attention to the history of witchcraft in Christianity, where the torturing and killing of witches was certainly considered moral and righteous throughout Europe, and for a time here in the US – taught thusly by the church, and incorporated into law.
From our modern perspective, we find prosecuting and killing witches immoral; as we do the sacrificing of infants by the Aztecs, who believed those sacrifices moral and noble. If you were a member of that society, you would have espoused the same moral perspective. You would think it proper that a dozen infants were offered to the Gods to plead for a future harvest to feed thousands.
Even the basic moral tenet of the Judeo-Christian religions – thou shalt not kill – has more exceptions to the rule than a Donald tRump Marrage Contract. We see the duel morality of this daily in police armed confrontations, in US bombing attacks that kill innocent bystanders.
Your comment about property rights and communism and theft has the same flaw of definition in regard to morality. Is it immoral for Hawaiians to disregard property trespass laws to gather fruit growing on that land, when their culture teaches it’s ‘immoral’ to fence communal lands and prevent them from eating the bounty of their Islands? By your definition, they’re engaging in theft, an immoral behavior; but their moral beliefs teach them they’re acting properly.
There is research strongly suggesting that fundimental moral principles are innate and shared with some other animals.
That the “learning” you refer to is more polishing re-inforcing, maybe some logically extending.
Regardless, learned or innate all moral schemes are not equal – otherwise you again run afoul of the problem that genocide or slavery can be inherently moral – it that is the taught values of that society.
Some values are more true than others – discovering that is what epistemology is about.
Regardless, Humans are born with free will. Something most other animals lack.
This is not some “religious” concept. You do not have to have a religion to have human free will.
And free will is the foundation of morality.
Respecting the free will of others is the core principle to morality.
Whether you arrive at that innately, pragmatically, philosophically or religiously matters little. It is the same core principle – morality dos not exist without it.
You do not need to grasp that consciously – it is still true.
We do not get to create our own morality however we please – and you would not want that. That something is considered moral – clearly does nto make it so.
As best as I can tell you agree with that.
Or are you saying that should we drift back into slavery genocide, and torturing witched, that would be OK with you ?
The core moral principle – is not “thou shalt not kill”.
It is you may not INITIATE violence against another.
There are other ways of phrasing that, many libertarains call it the “non-agression principle” – though you will find that same core principle in other ideologies, and philosophies – though sometimes expressed slightly different
As an example you are free to do as you please – respecting the equal freedom of others, is the same or nearly the same.
Kant’s categorical imperative – “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” is another permutation.
“Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another.”
Epicurius
In Hayy ibn Yaqzan the Islamic philosopher discussed the life story of a baby living alone without prior knowledge who discovered natural law, and natural rights, which obliged man not to coerce against another’s life or property
“Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
Locke
let no one injure another.
“The birthright of man … is such a degree of liberty, civil and religious, as is compatible with the liberty of every other individual with whom he is united in a social compact, and the continued existence of that compact.”
Mary Wollstonecraft
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” and “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”
Thomas Jefferson
“Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.”
Herbert Spensor
“the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”.
John Stuart Mill
“The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. … In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.”
Ayn Rand
“No one may threaten or commit violence (‘aggress’) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.”
Rothbard
“It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.”
Walter Block.
It is also found in Aquinas.
With respect to your cultural argument and specifically Hawaiins – Yes, they are wrong.
Just as those torturing Witches or engaged in genocide or owning slaves.
Even Marx ultimately had to incorporate property rights into socialism – because society functions abysmally without them.
You are free to try to reconstruct 150,000 years of human efforts to understand human nature and moraltiy and such things as property rights – again even animals respect property rights, but you are not free to do a half assed job of it and impose that on the rest of us by force.
Is there anyone here who believes that there are circumstances under which one individual can initiate force against another ?
If so – please provide an example of when that would be legitimate.
Well, for one thing, Jay, you’re conflating morality and legality, which are not necessarily the same. But, essentially, you’re arguing that morality is merely subjective, and can “change over time.”
According to you, there is no objective right or wrong, no such thing as absolute truth…only the cultural standards that any given society has at any given time?
Does human life have value? Is slavery wrong? Should parents care for their children? Under sharia law, it’s acceptable to kill someone who is gay ~ does that make it morally right? If I say that the Nazis were evil, I’m not merely saying that the Nazis had divergent conventions from ours, I’m saying that their ideology and actions were immoral. Genocide is wrong. Objectively. So is rape. So is theft.
We can disagree on what is moral and what is not ~the abortion debate is an example of a moral disagreement. Each side of the debate has an argument that’s grounded in morality, not in social consensus. A woman’s right to control her body, vs. the right of an unborn infant to live.
But we both, individually, believe in right and wrong.
Morality is like gravity. It has always been there. In it innately part of the universe we exist in. But we are free to believe differently – just as we are free to not believe in gravity.
But our lack of belief does not change morality.
Legality – in the sense of legitimate law under the social contract – abiding by the actual rule of law, is that law necescary to enforce that subset of morality necescary for the functioning of the social contract. ‘
The social contract is the contract between men that authorizes govenrment to secure our natural rights. Government and law are constrained to the enforcement of the social contract.
Nearly every tradition imposes positive moral obligations on us. All positive moral obligations are outside the scope of the social contract, government and law.
You can not use force to compel another to do good. They must choose to do so, or not on their own.
I do not beleive that the abortion issue is an actual moral disagreement.
The dispute over abortion – between the left and the right is primarily over whether a fetus is a human life. That is a question of fact – though one that we are not yet able to arrive at an answer that is universally agreed on.
But I would go further and say that whether a fetus is a human life does not matter.
The problem with the abortion debate today is it is framed as a conflict of rights – when it is not.
All humans have the absolute right to do with their own bodies as they please.
A woman has the absolute right to not host another creature in her body.
Even if that creature is human and dependant on her for life.
A woman has an absolute right to have that fetus removed from her body – at any moment up to birth. Even if that removal may result in the death of the fetus – even it the fetus is human.
But if we presume the fetus is human – we can not “aggress” against it.
We can remove it – even if that results in death. But we can not actively kill it.
That is what the court should have decided in Rowe.
States would then be permitted to make laws that required the removal of the fetus to be done in a fashion that it had the best chance of living – as long as that did not alter the risk to the woman. Presuming that said fetus lived – there would be other legal questions such as who is responsible for it – but we already have law on that – as any father.
If you conceive a child, you are responsible for it.
Yes, you’re right, gravity exists throughout the universe – but through mostly in negligible amounts – Far away from any object in space gravity can get so weak, that theres close to zero gravity. Not perfectly zero, but 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 or less, which is getting pretty close to zero.
But there’s no evidence that morality as you define/understand it exists anywhere else in the universe but here, on this planet, nor that it can be adduced to exist among other life forms on the planet – if morality is as ever present as you say, shouldn’t we see signs of it in mosquitoes and microbes?
Yes, humans generally protect their young, as do most other creatures who birth helpless offspring- that’s how they/we survived as species. But other social interactions we define as moral have evolved as learned behaviors to also improve our survival rates by attempting to control other base human instincts.
“Morality” is a human-made construct, like religion, and as subjective culture to culture
Can you read ?
Gravity only effects particals that have mass.
Morality is limited to living things that have free will.
Mosquito’s do not have free will.
I would further note that most creates that do not have free will – do not act in ways we would consider immoral.
I am not aware of mosquito’s killing each other or stealing from each other.
We know almost nothing about gravity in those portions of space that are far far far away from other things.
Everything we know about gravity is from observation of behavior of this that we can measure.
We know about the effects of gravity on stars and objects light years away – because they are measurable, even from this distance.
We know absolutely nothing about those things that we can not measure from here throughout the universe.
We do not know that there is life elsewhere. If there is how developed it is, whether it has free will.
If we postulate life with free will hundreds of light years away we are more likely to be right in assuming it has the same morality as we do than not.
Regardless, if we know something is true here. The probability is greater that it is true everywhere than is similar, than that is false.
Our absence of knowledge of life that may not exist hundreds of lightyears away does nto falsify anything we know.
There other creatures besides humans who to lessor extents demonstrate some evidence of free will. And we DO see the same morality in those creatures.
Albeit less well developed because they have less free will and because they do not have the abiltiy to think and express their morality.
Most monkey’s display much the same morality as humans, but at the crude level of cave men.
You made the analogy between gravity and morality, did you forget?
I am not backing away from the analogy.
Just noting that you do not have the data necescary to claim that gravity and morality work differently 100 light years away.
We do not know how gravity works where there is nothing. Because gravity only effects objects with mass. Where there is no mass, there is no meaning to gravity.
Where there is no free will, there is no meaning to morality.
Ants are neither moral nor immoral.
At higher levels I have said over and over that there is absolutely no merit associated with the good a slave does at the orders of his master.
The slave without free will can not act morally or immorally.
The master can not act morally by violating the free will of the slave – no matter what benefit might accrue.
Gravity requires mass.
Morality requires free will.
I would further note that inextricably links morality to freedom.
Morality is not cultural. It is a direct consequence of the fact that humans have free will.
Further the rules of morality can be explicity discovered because morality can not exist without free will.
That explicitly means that moral conduct is that which respects the equal freedom of others.
The lockean social contract, the foundation of legitimate govenrment, is by definition the rules negative morality. i.e. the rules regarding what you can NOT do.
Positive morality – the rules regarding what you SHOULD do are outside the scope of govenrment.
You may not initiate force against another. Negative morality, the role of govenrment
You should help you neighbor in need. Postitive morality – unenforceable by government.
Between you and your conscience, your church, your god.
““Morality” is a human-made construct, like religion, and as subjective culture to culture”
This is trivially wrong.
If it is so – then the KKK is moral, Jim Crow is moral, Nazi’s are moral, genocide is moral.
IF that is so then there is absolutely no moral difference between the extreme left and right or anything in between.
IF that is so there is no moral argument for anything.
While we are free to attempt to construct the world the left desires – we are equally free to pick a different one.
If that is true – then I reject all arguments you make against discrimination, or slavery or racism or sexism – because morality is subjective and we can choose what morality we want.
If that is true then the whim of 80% of the country – which is far closer to Trump than the left is our morality.
Your argument is total complete brain dead nonsense and you know it.
We aspire to be different than we are. That aspiration is absolute evidence that we know there is a truth beyond our wants and desires and culture and whims of the moment.
Regardless, there is an enormous amount of evidence that fundimental moral values are not learned and not unique to humans – albeit better expressed in humans and better understood after we are educated enough to express them.
Data on deforestation is highly unreliable – particularly outside the US and EU – where forests have been GAINING for nearly a century.
I beleive that recent scientific studies have increased the global forest area by over 6% as a result of discovering serious problems with the past means forests are being measured.
Richard Pielke Sr. has been arguing for several decades – that land use, including deforestation is the sole or atleast primary cause of 19th and 20th century warming.
Pielke’s models work far better than the CO2 model – as they better explain warming prior
1975 which is about he earliest human CO2 could have been a factor.
There is almost no one who beleives that earth has not been warming for about 250 years.
There is almost no one that beleives that CO2 is not ONE of many factors in global temperatures.
Most including myself believe that human CO2 likely was a significant factor in the temperature rise from 1980-1998.
There is still a huge amount to disagree about – and the facts and actual science, as opposed to the hyperbole of warmists, does not support:
Significant or net positive feedbacks.
CO2 sensitivities above 1.6C/doubling (personally I think the correct value is close to .25C/doubling)
Absent BOTH positive feedbacks and higher climate sensitivity to CO2,
the rate of warming from Man Made CO2 almost certainly peaked in 1998, and additional warming due to CO2 will be less and less with time.
This presumes that the rate of CO2 release will continue to increase linearly as it has done since 1950. It is unlikely to increase – which is what the models require, and it appears to be preparing to decrease.
The purpose of attacking fossil fuels is no secret. The left has been overt about it.
Control energy and you control everything.
The objective is first to empower government, but 2nd to empower global government.
The left’s objective is to expand the power of global institutions of governance such as the UN to the ultimate end of a growing form of world governance.
The left really and truly beleive the elite can and should rule to world.
I doubt that is Jay’s objective – but Jay is not actually listening to what the CAGW priests are actually after.
A demonstration of the idiocy of the left and of government and why the “experts” are pretty damn stupid.
vaping/ecigarettes eliminate 95% of the risk of cigarettes.
Even the unregulated vaping market with people producing products in mom & pop shops in their garage resulted in a product that replavces cigarettes with something far safer.
Yet our government has declared regulatory war on vaping.
No ecigatte or vape producer can advertise in anyway that their product is safer than cigarettes – even though it is 20 times safer.
Vape products producers are being dragged into cigarette laws with the express purpose of putting them out of business and protecting the entrenched cigarette industry.
The left bitch about cronyism in govenrment – and yet that is exactly what we get from left programs.
That and stupid rules that even an 89 year old would grasp will fail.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/corruption-public-health-15323.html
According to brookings a surprising percent of college students beleive that violence is an acceptable response to undesireable speach
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/
Here’s the link to the study, with a lot more interesting results:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-chilling-study-shows-how-hostile-college-students-are-toward-free-speech/2017/09/18/cbb1a234-9ca8-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.1c505d60b0d7
I linked to an actual study in a different post.
Regardless, what is it about lefties that makes you think rights are negotiable ?
Rights are by definition what you have even if the majority thinks otherwise.
so much for your nonsense about consensus.
That something is constitutional is merely a supporting argument.
John Stuart Mill laid out the case for free speach in his essay on liberty nearly 200 years ago.
But lets presume that rights are fungible – subject to concensus.
Then Hilter’s genocide was legitimate, and slavery was moral.
As was Jim crow in the south.
Whether you like it or not the foundations for morality, for rights, for government must originate outside concensus and outside government, or they do not exist and you legitimize most of the evil that has ever been done in the world.
I keep trying to get through to you that the left is one giant logical self contradiction.
There are some excellent youtube video’s by Jordan peterson on the roots of morality, as well as the ideological development and failure of modern left philosophy.
I am not sure that Peterson is right – I think he gives the left credit for having an organized ideology. For the most part I think the modern left is like conservatives – picking and chosing values that “feel” right, rather than striving for a logically consistent philosophy or ideology.
Regardless, Peterson’s insights are interesting. I particularly like the argument that the modern left thoroughly marxist. It has just replaced Marx’s class struggle with that of identity – race, gender, ….
This has zero effect on the underlying fundimental flaws in marxism.
If people are sufficiently untrustworthy to act in the common good on their own,
government is likely to make that worse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/18/libertarianism-selfishness-and-public-goods/?utm_term=.ad0962185850
“If people are sufficiently untrustworthy to act in the common good on their own,”. …
and government does NOTHING … chaos reigns, the unprincipled strong devour the weak, and corruption rules.
Yeah.
The choice is not between anarchy and totalitarianism.
But if it is, Anarchy works better.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/351347-trumps-pick-for-ambassador-to-russia-says-no-question-moscow-interfered?amp
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R), President Trump’s choice to serve as U.S. ambassador to Russia, said Tuesday that there is “no question” that the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
Huntsman made the declaration during his opening statement when testifying before Congress at his confirmation hearing.
“There is no question that the Russian government interfered in the U.S. election last year,” Huntsman said, adding, “Moscow continues to meddle in the democratic processes of our friends and allies.”
I don’t think that anyone has ever disputed that, Jay Russia has been meddling in our elections since the 1950’s, and in recent years they have ratcheted up the ante considerably. The controversial accusation has been that Trump and his campaign colluded with this effort. Huntsman said no such thing.
“I don’t think that anyone has ever disputed that, ”
Huh? tRump has disputed it happened in the 2016 election numerous times.
And hasn’t Dubious Dave disputed it too?
And you too?
And it’s not just that tRump colluded that’s at issue – it’s that the Russians undermined Clinton, but not tRump. Do you still doubt that?
There are several things that are disputed – and the answers to most of those are either obvious or at worst in such a narrow range as to be inconsequential.
What is disputed is the scale of Russian interference.
Outside of the media and left wing nuts, there is no one claiming any interferance that had any consequential effect.
That assertion is back by every one of Obama’s intelligence heads.
What is disputed is whether there is “collusion” – and also what constitutes collusion.
Does attempting to get OPO research from Russians constitute collusion ?
If so, we can lock up a few Trump surrogates – as well as John McCain, James Comey, all of Fusion GPS, and many people in Clinton’s campaign.
Fundimentally to get collusion you need one of three things:
Cooperating between the Trump campaign and Russian (or frankly anyone) to mess with the actual votes – that would be tampering with voting machines, or paper ballots, or bussing in voters, or …
No one may engage in voter fraud, either directly or through proxies.
Thus far there is no evidence that the russians were successful in hacking voting machines. Though they apparently tried and we really badly need to do something about that.
Thus far there is absolutely zero evidence of any contact between Trump or surrogates for the purpose of actual voter fraud. To they extent we have evidence of successful voter fraud most of that implicates democrats.
There is alot of evidence of ineligable voters voting, some evidence of voters voting twice, in different states and some evidence of people voting in a state they do not live in.
This is something that we badly need to address. Except possibly in new hampshire it is highly unlikely this altered the results of the presidential election.
But it looks highly likely that it alter the results of the senate election in New Hamshire, and it near certainly had effects on down ballot races throughout the country.
The next possible area of collusion regards the DNC hacking.
That story is coming completely unglued.
The very fact of the Trump Jr. Natalia meeting pretty much means that the Trump campaign had no conduit into Russia prior to that meeting – or they never would have met Natalia. And that makes it impossible for Trump to have been involved in the DNC hacking which occurred earlier.
Further it is becoming near certain that the DNC emails were a leak, not a hack.
So in that we have no Trump, and probably no Russia.
That leaves the Russia posted adds supporting Trump.
It does nto matter whether it is facebook or RT or …
Russia clearly ran some political adds targeting the US.
The facebook adds were issue adds, The rest seem to be standard clickbait.
It is debatable what Russia was trying to accomplish.
Regardless, there is no basis for a claim that Russia altered the outcome.
You just can not claim that voters should be deprived of some form of advertising – because you do not like its source.
Further even if it actually changed votes – which is unlikely.
It did so legitimately – through speach and persuasion.
But you still MIGHT get something if you prove that Trump coordinated with Russia to run these adds.
Thus far there is zero evidence that is the case.
What will NOT get you there is finding meetings between Trump surogates and Russians.
While overall these seem smaller than those of the Clinton Campaign, it does not matter,
the Trump people can meet with whoever they please.
Many Trump surrogates never had to fill out an SF-86 – an application for a security clearance. Trump Jr. as an example. It is not “lying” to not tell some of us what we demand to know. Errors on a SF-86 at the very worst result in the loss of your security clearance. They do not constitute perjury.
Inaccurate statements to congress and investigators MIGHT be crimes, IF the speaker knows or should know what the questions will be, or makes a knowingly false statement.
It is inconceveiable that Bill Clinton could have had sex with Monica Lewinsky and not know it. It is particularly inconceiveable given that he knew questions about his sexual history were going to be asked.
Jeff Sessions did not expect to be asked about contact with Russians – particularly inconsequential contact during the campaign and after the election.
His answer to Franken would never be perjury.
However his subsequent testimony where he read a prepared statement and castigated the senate for impugning him had better be very accurate.
The burden of precision on a prepared statement falls on the one offering the statement.
Thus far most of the “big” contacts with Russia are fizzling.
Much of the Steele Dossier is turning to complete crap.
But there is a flip side to all of this.
It is now well established that the Obama administration was spying on the Trump campaign.
Manaforte was wiretapped, Trump tower was wiretapped. possibly other wiretaps were done. You can not wiretap a US person without a warrant, and that requires probable cause.
We also have the unmasking. Susan Rice has changed her story for a third time.
Now the claim is that her inquiries were really to find out why a mideastern ruler visited the US without informing the administration.
Sounds innoccous – but it is not. Rice is a consumer of intelligence not a producer.
She is not provided with identifying information on US persons – deliberately.
She can spy on Saudi princes – but not on US persons they meet with – without a warrant.
There was no reason Rice needed to know that mideastern rulers were meeting with Trump. If there was a compelling reason – she should have asked for a warrant.
That is how that works.
It is called political spying and it is criminal and immoral.
Poor, poor Hillary. Kept from her destiny by Vladimir Putin, who caused her to not campaign in Wisconsin.
But if Putin didn’t interfere, and the massive amount of Ressian meddling to undermine Clinton to effect her campaign negatively hadn’t occurred – not campaigning in Wisconsin wouldn’t have lost her the election: the SUM of the negatives probably wouldn’t have been enough to tip the election to DunderHeadDonnie.
But she lost, and now we have President Schlump demeaning America.
Agreeing that Russia interfered is NOT the same as agreeing to MASSIVE interferance.
The Obama IC called the interferance small consistent with the past, ineffectual and not obviously partisan.
The scale of the Facebook Adds was miniscule – 100K total, and issue oriented rather than candidate oriented.
While technically you can impeach Trump because congress got up on the wrong side of the bed, you are not going to sell impeachment on the argument that if a dozen things had gone differently Clinton might have won.
Natural disasters could alter the outcome of an election – we do not impeach presidents because they might(or might not) have benefited from them.
To get anywhere, you must find an actual conspiracy to do something that the overwhelming majority of americans think is wrong – not merely confirmation biased leftists.
As an example proving that Russians hacked voting machines, and actually tipped the election to Trump – would demand congressional action. But absent actual involvement by the Trump campaign even blatant interference by Russia is not enough.
Though hopefully it would cause us to fix our voting machines and validate voting.
The argument that if we just had the right different combination of factors – the outcome would be different – even if true, does not matter.
Trump can just as easily claim that if the AccessHollywood tape did nto come out he would have had a landslide, or if the Obama administration political spying had come out or the wiretapping of US citizens, or if North Korea had launched earlier, or if the Clinton emails that have only been disclosed since the election were available, or if the press had subject Clinton to real scrutiny, or if Comey had recomended prosecution as he should have, or if the public was made aware of the influence Lynch was excerting on Comey or if …..
There are lots of things to investigate, and those involved should be punished,
and if necescary the laws should be changed to make certain misconduct harder
Of course if a different re-arrangement of events occured on election day the results might have been different. But there are infinite permutations of that.
If you want to impeach you must find serious election related criminal conduct on the part of Trump personally.
It does not matter whether that conduct would or would not have changed the outcome.
Just that the conduct is by Trump and criminal and a legitimate subject for this investigation.
But separately – I do not think that Clinton campaigning in Wisconsin would have changed anything.
Trump had two roads to victory – through the rust belt, and through NV, NH.
If Clinton had attempted to thwart one – Trump would have shifted to the other.
One of the problems with all the what-ifs, is that they presume that nothing else changes.
I am seriously disturbed by some of Trump’s recent shifts – even ones I disagree with.
I have more trust in him when he continues to strive for things I do not like, and fails,
than when he backs away from important campaign promises.
That said – sorry Trump has not “demeaned america” – quite the opposite.
What he has done is abandoned the multilateralism that started with Bush I,
He has told the world that the US looks after US interests.
He is following the very advice that George Washington gave in his fairwell address.
Frankly he has done better in the foreign arena in 9 months than Obama did in 8 years.
And he has done so facing threats that Obama either did not or ignored.
Of course they did, and they have for decades.
Just as we have “interfered” in their elections and those of other nations.
This is not new.
It is also not preventable – unless you wish to start a nuclear war with Russia over facebook adds
I keep trying to point out to you that rights are natural – they do not flow from government, or from the constitution.
Russia or any nations has a right to express their views in our elections.
or anyone else’s – and we have the right to do the same.
Just as we have the right to condemn conduct we do not like by other people and nations.
But beyond the natural right involved, is the practical matter that you can not stop another nation engaging in free speach unless you are prepared to go to war.
Technology has made this more obvious. We could prevent the distribution of foreign news when I was a child. We can not today.
The internet is not the US’s private walled garden.
Saying “russia interfered” repeats what everyone has known.
BTW the very same inteligence leaders that asserted Russian interferance also asserted it was not unusual.
Sorry, i couldn’t but think of one of our commenters here.
Those vile and loathesome snipes!!!
Is obtuse ad hominem superior to other forms ?
Ad hominem always reflects badly on you, not identifying your target leaves you alone covered in grease and disposable wipes.
The predominant demographic group in london’s east end is bangeleschi’s.
BTW I own an apartment building. Disposable wipes and grease are a common sewer problem. People tend not to flush those in homes they own.
They have the “freedom” to do it, just as you preach.
Yes, they do.
I do not know how water and sewer are handled in east london.
But I pay a water company for water and sewer services.
If the sewer lines outside the building are clogged – that company must clear them.
If they clog inside my building – I must – my tenants pay rent so they do not have to take care of things like clogged drains. Of course if there are too many clogged drains – the rent goes up.
I have found that grease clogs seem to be cultural. I go years with no problems and then a new family moves in and the sewer line from their kitchen gets clogged in 6 months.
The good news is there are things that do an excellent job on grease – but you have to use them BEFORE the drain is completely blocked – because they take a week or so to completely clear a drain.
Freedom: Is being you without anyone’s permission.
Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Aparently times square is channeling me.
http://heavy.com/news/2017/09/david-meade-september-23-end-of-world-apocalypse-rapture-planet-x-nibiru-bio/
Why is the media reporting this nonsense ?
Why are you elevating it ?
The “shaggy” look alike who claims to have cofounded antifa look on Tucker a few nights ago spewing identitarian marxism and violence has many times the following.
Sorry about this dduck:
http://www.nature.com/news/sexual-competition-among-ducks-wreaks-havoc-on-penis-size-1.22648
Thanks, H. Who knew ducks were so complicated. But, they are much cuter and less bloated than hogs.
“Patricia Brennan, an evolutionary biologist at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts, compared the penises of ducks kept in male–female pairs to those housed with multiple males per female. The findings are published in a study on 20 September in The Auk: Ornithological Advances1.”
Now, we need to have lunch with Patricia, and find out if she’s ‘extending’ her studies to other male species. 😏
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/why-it-feels-weird-when-you-poke-your-belly-button?utm_term=.nsjzQpVD8#.qmXOD5RW8
Dave – did you attend the conference by any chance???
I am not a member of the libertarian party.
There are libertarians I think are crazy or wrong – and republicans, and democrats.
So ?
Libertarians do not make public decisions based on emotions.
So what they feel is unimportant.
BTW Rothbard is an anarcho-capitalist.
Is your argument that Thomas Jefferson, or Adam Smith, or John Stuart Mill, or Thoreau, or Friedman, or Barro or ….
Are tin foil heads ?
Libertarians are not selling Utopia.
They are selling something that works. They are selling something that works a little – if you try it a little, and works alot if you try it alot.
Libertarianism is not about utopia,. it is about what actually works in the real world.
https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/908703739363647488/UaRLDDsa?format=jpg&name=600×314
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/theresa-may-puts-headphones-hear-english-translati-56975
https://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam
I have been arguing this too you for years.
You can not trust something because it is published.
You have to look at the actual work, and go beyond your own confirmation biases,
You have to look at whether the paper provides data to support its hypothesis, and whether that data does support the hypothesis and whether that support is statistically significant.
And that is why this is the most damning graph regarding Global Warming.
It tells you one and only one thing. But it tells is irrefutably.
The climate models are wrong. PERIOD!. No further debate.
Any scientist who is still arguing them is not a scientist, but a priest in a religion.
Protesting Vermont style: United States Border Patrol agent Robert Rocheleau and Alburgh, Vermont, resident Mark Johnson, 53, exchanged tense words on Aug. 3 when Johnson climbed down from his tractor and demanded to know why Rocheleau wasn’t doing more to apprehend illegal immigrants. Johnson said people working in the U.S. illegally were damaging his livelihood. (Alburgh is just south of the border with Canada.) After the exchange, Johnson got back in his tractor and, as Rocheleau reported, “While passing by my vehicle Mr. Johnson … engaged the PTO shaft to his trailer and covered my vehicle in cow manure.” Mr. Johnson pleaded not guilty in Vermont Superior Court in North Hero, saying he didn’t know the car was nearby when he turned on his manure spreader. [ABC News, 8/17/2017]
Ha, Just using my Constitutional right to post whatever weird shit I think is funny on TNM. Bet I can hit 100 posts easy daily and bury Dave’s output. 3000 posts here we come! The site will never load but so what, I have my rights!
“Yes you do” as DH will say. But please remember: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”.
Not posting whatever weird shit I fancy – though the manure spreader post was interesting.
I am just looking to make my arguments using things OTHERS have said, or using graphs and data – since you all seem tired of listening to me, and since you seem to what I am saying is some aberation, rather than rooted in real world data or 2+ centuries of economics, or thought and experience.
Animal-Human marriage in the real world[edit]
Although it is uncertain if there is a legal basis for marrying an animal, several individuals claim to have done so. The Sudanese goat marriage incident made big headlines in 2006 when a man was forced to marry a goat after being caught in a sexual interaction with the goat.[6] Other reports of marriage include animals such as dogs, cats, frogs and a dolphin.[7][8][9][10][11][12] Other incidents of human animal relations took place in 2010, when 18-year-old Balinese man Ngurah Alit was found having sexual intercourse with a cow, who he claimed flirted with him.[13] As part of a Pecaruan ritual, the man was forced to marry the animal.[13] The ceremony was thought to cleanse the village of the immoral act of bestiality.[13] The cow was drowned in the ocean, while Alit was symbolically drowned as well.[13]
This one Really cracked me up! http://www.salon.com/2013/12/28/why_i_fled_libertarianism_and_became_a_liberal/
The night before the 2008 Nevada Republican convention, the Ron Paul delegates all met at a Reno high school. Although I’d called myself a libertarian for almost my entire adult life, it was my first exposure to the wider movement.
And boy, was it a circus. Many members of the group were obsessed with the gold standard, the Kennedy assassination and the Fed. Although Libertarians believe government is incompetent, many of them subscribe to the most fringe conspiracy theories imaginable. Airplanes are poisoning America with chemicals (chemtrails) or the moon landings were faked. Nothing was too far out. A great many of them really think that 9-11 was an inside job. Even while basking in the electoral mainstream, the movement was overflowing with obvious hokum.
During the meeting, a Ron Paul staffer, a smart and charismatic young woman, gave a tip to the group for the upcoming convention.
“Dress normal,” she said. “Wear suits, and don’t bring signs or flags. Don’t talk about conspiracy theories. Just fit in.” Her advice was the kind you might hear given to an insane uncle at Thanksgiving.
Then next day, I ran into that same operative at the convention, and I complimented her because Ron Paul delegates were being accepted into the crowd. I added, “We‘re going to win this thing.”
“Bring in the clowns,” she said, and smiled before I lost her in the mass of people.
I will never forget that moment: Bring in the clowns. At the time, I considered myself a thoughtful person, yet I could hardly claim to be one if you judged me by the company I kept. The young lady knew something I had not yet learned: most of our supporters were totally fucking nuts.”
Ha, I know at least one Libertarian who qualifies!
While anything is possible, my guess is that the author of your post is trolling.
You can go to youtube and find some of the most extreme libertarains arround – and you will not find any of the stuff your author is exerting.
There are alot of liberarians that are very big on the gold standard.
They are right that we need to take control of money from the hands of govenrment,
They are right that gold makes a very good standard for money – and you can find a growing number of economists that are now arguing that – including people like Alan Blinder who a few decades ago called people favoring gold standards cranks.
The federal reserve as well as all central banks have proven a failure.
You can do the statistical comparison using whatever your prefered measure t countries and times before central banks and after.
The fundimental differences – inflation. The federal reserve has accomplished nothing except foster inflation. A bit more than a decade after it came into being the US Fed caused a global depression. That is precisely what it was created to avoid.
IF you do not like “caused” – you atleast must accept that it failed to prevent.
Regardless, there is no evidence that we are better off with the Fed than without it.
So why to you think it is nuts to want to elimate something that has inarguably provided no benefit ?
I have never met a single libertarain who has a fixation on the Kennedy assassination.
I have never heard a libertarian arguing that airplanes were poisoning passengers – that would be an anticapitalist conspiracy theory.
I have never heard a libertarian arguing the moon landings were faked.
I have never heard a libertarian arguing that 9/11 was an inside job.
In fact for pretty much every one of those theories – it is libertarians arguing AGAINST them.
Absolutely
“Libertarains just want to have fun!”
Exemplified by the streaker at the 2016 Libertarain convention, as well as lots of comical attire.
So what is wrong with having fun ?
Aren’t you the one ranting about dour utopians ?
Regardless, it is not libertarians that are “totally f’ing nuts”.
I is the rest of you – you beleive absolute nonsense that is trivially rebutable, often by your own eyes or personal life experience.
Yet you absolutely dogmatically beleive.
How can you possibly be accusing libertarians of being nuts when after the experience of socialism in the 20th century, 18% of college professors are marxists – not socialists, but actual marxists ?
And these are the people writing the scientific papers saying everything is going to hell.
You think libertarians are crazy because someone streaked at the libertarain political convention – but democrats are pushing socialism ?
Which are you more affraid of ? Someone running through a convention naked ?
Or someone selling a political system that has resulted in mass murder and genocide nearly every time it has been tried ?
For god’s sakes, even if you were born in the 21st century – democrats are trying to sell socialsim as Venezeula collapses ?
And we are nuts ?
Look at the political candidates from each party in 2016.
Primaries, included
Bill Weld and Gary Johnson are far from perfect.
But compared to Donald and Hillary ? And you are calling libertarains nuts ?
Really ?
Austin Peterson was the runner up – he is running for senate in Missouri as a republican.
The democrats alternative to Hillary was Sanders ? And you can call Libertarians nuts ?
And you want to talk about conspiracy theories ?
One would have thought the sanders crowd was wearing Tinfoil hats – except, it turned out to be True – the DNC and the media WERE sabotaging Sanders.
But Sanders wears alot more tinfoil than that.
And then we have Cliton’s constant return to “a vast right wing conspiracy”
Given that she kissed and made up with Richard Schaffe – who is running that vast right wing conspiracy our to get her ?
Oh its all Putin with 100K in dog whistle facebook adds or RT clickbait with potatoes that look like Clinton.
That’s what tipped the election !!! – and you want to talk about conspiracy theories.
Ron, Don’t get sore, you are not my Libertarian target! And yeah, I know that the “Serious” Dem-GOP choice between clinton and trump was at a unique level of bad, but all the same here is a blast from the not so ancient past: Libertarians Let It All Hang Out in Florida
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436011/libertarians-convention-florida-crazy-fun-unserious
At their convention, they proved themselves wildly entertaining and terminally unserious. Orlando, Fla. — It’s a big weekend for the Libertarian party, supposedly. The two major American political parties have nominated as their candidates for president a crook and a clown, a chunk of each party is in revolt, and there’s never been a better opportunity for America’s third-largest party to create a competitive electoral coalition. In recent weeks, three polls have found Gary Johnson, businessman, two-term New Mexico governor, and the Libertarian nominee in 2012, polling at 10 percent against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and so just about everyone here at the Libertarian Convention (hashtag: #LegalizeFreedom) is feeling a Chris Matthews–style tingle. “This is our year to break through.” “We have the opportunity to reach millions and millions of people.” “We can achieve major-party status.” More than 250 reporters applied for press credentials. Heading into the convention, Johnson was the clear favorite, but he faced an upstart challenge from 35-year-old Austin Petersen, former Fox News producer, former staffer with FreedomWorks — per his (brief) bio a sort of Libertarian jack-of-all-trades. Petersen, who is anti-abortion, is pulling support from at least a few disillusioned Republicans: I talked to a Rubio supporter who, after Trump stitched up the GOP nomination, settled on Petersen (style-wise, there are similarities between Petersen and the Florida senator). But at the beginning of the weekend there were actually 16 candidates officially recognized by the party, which by Saturday afternoon were narrowed down to six. You’ll be able to speculate about the candidates who didn’t make it by knowing something about the six who did. Besides Johnson and Petersen, there’s John McAfee, of McAfee computer-security fame, who has purchase here in part because, as he announced during Saturday evening’s presidential debate, he has ingested “as many drugs as his body can handle.” There’s anesthesiologist Marc Allan Feldman, known in Libertarian circles for rapping his closing statement at Florida’s Libertarian-party presidential debate in 2016. There’s Darryl Perry, “advocate & activist for peace and liberty” who announced at one point that he believes government has no legitimate function, period. And there’s Kevin McCormick, who said he decided to run because of his “emotions.
And as if the candidates were not colorful enough, McAfee is introduced by “Starchild,” an “erotic service provider” from California who is currently wearing a leopard-print leotard and carrying a matching umbrella. So, yes. It’s that kind of event. The Libertarian party is a reminder that no one truly grows out of Dungeons and Dragons. Around the Rosen Centre, there are lots of suits-with-sneakers and punk-rock hairstyles and impromptu chants of “Taxation is theft!” Organization-wise, it’s the political equivalent of the cantina scene from Star Wars. Since its founding in 1971, the Libertarian party has been a catchall for political misfits. “We’re weirdos,” says a Georgia delegate who has been in the party since 1972. “We’ve always been weirdos.” No offense, but no kidding. (And in a display of pure, untrammeled, glorious cosmic irony — enough to make me revise my disbelief in Fate — MegaCon, an annual gathering of 80,000 comic book fans, sci-fi cosplayers, fantasy-lovers, and gamers, is taking place over the same 48 hours, and at the very same Orlando hotel.) Gary Johnson on the convention floor (Kevin Kolczynski)
None of this is a knock. This is the “you do you” party, and it’s wildly entertaining. But while everyone claims to feel the Spirit of History moving through the room, no one seems keen on doing the legwork necessary to ride it. Consider Saturday evening’s debate, during which the five candidates (McCormick missed the cut) opined on such pressing issues as whether the United States was justified in intervening in World Wars I and II, and whether they would have supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It’s almost as if the debate organizers wrote the questions with the express purpose of disqualifying the candidate from national consideration. The audience doesn’t help: When Gary Johnson suggested that perhaps the government should be able to deny blind people drivers’ licenses, boos were audible. Likewise when Petersen suggested that maybe, just maybe, there should be laws against selling heroin to five-year-olds. And the candidates themselves offered up some good ol’-fashioned bat-guano crazy: Perry said that, “contra the fear-mongering,” Iran is actually just pursuing nuclear energy. Petersen peddled Howard Zinn–style history to explain why “the rest of the world hates us.” And, sure enough, Feldman rapped his closing statement. Vermin Supreme, a beloved party regular who wears a rubber boot on his head and who received 18 votes toward the nomination, spent the debate handing out toast. In other words, the problem with the Libertarian party is . . . that it’s the Libertarian party.
The basic theory goes like this: To be a viable alternative in November’s election, the Libertarians need to claim a non-negligible slice of Democrats who cannot stomach voting for Hillary Clinton, as well as Republicans who refuse to pull the lever for Trump. That will require some moderation, something like: “We want to marijuana legalize nationally, but we’ll give way on bath salts, because there’s strong evidence that they cause people to eat each other’s faces off.” That would strike most Americans as a reasonable compromise.
But this is a crowd for whom “compromise” is a scurrilous notion. The result is that the Libertarian wish list, instead of providing common ground on which to erect a “big tent,” is likely to alienate just about everyone who isn’t a capital-L Libertarian. Bernie Sanders’s democratic socialists won’t mind the laissez-faire approach to abortion and marriage, but they’re not going to dig the end of all welfare programs on the tenuous rationale that, in Darryl Perry’s words, “nobody will abandon Grandma.” And while Never Trump conservatives will find much to like in Libertarians’ devotion to free trade and lower taxes and their machete-swinging approach to the federal bureaucracy, they’re unlikely to be enthused about open borders, polygamy, and on-demand crystal meth. It’s not that Libertarians can’t please all the people all the time. It’s that they can’t please any of the people any of the time. Such is the Libertarian curse. It’s tough for people who think politics is a fundamentally illegitimate enterprise to build durable political bridges. This Herculean task the delegates decided to give to to Johnson and his running mate, Bill Weld, the two-term Republican governor of Massachusetts (who joined the Libertarian party two weeks ago, but who assures everyone that he’s “read the platform”). As elected officials, they’re likely to be willing to bend a bit more than the average convention delegate. But it’s hard to imagine the next five months of outreach going well. In fact, Johnson has already managed to alienate a number of conservatives by saying that Jewish bakers should have to bake cakes for Nazis (so much for Libertarians’ “freedom of association” plank). As seen on C-Span (via Twitter) That’s not to say they can’t build momentum. It’s a topsy-turvy year, to put it mildly. But Johnson is a pro-choice, anti-interventionist candidate running to win Marco Rubio voters; an anti-Medicaid, anti–income tax candidate running to win Bernie Sanders voters; and he hedged on whether the U.S. was justified in going to war against Nazi Germany. “Bold alternative” is not the description that comes to mind. And he’s running as a Libertarian, with all of the party’s attendant baggage. For example: On Sunday afternoon, shortly before the votes were tallied, giving Weld the vice-presidential nomination, a convention speaker — a gentleman of the huskier variety — took to the stage and proceeded to remove his suit coat, suspenders, and pants, and parade around the stage in a thong, before finally announcing that “it was a dare” and exiting. The whole thing aired on C-Span. Just when millions of Americans were looking for a serious alternative, the Libertarians proved themselves, once again, a tragically unserious party. And lots of Americans will have to keep looking. Anyone know what Deez Nuts is up to these days?
Roby;
Not looking to go point by point through your NRO critique of the LP convention,
In the end Libertarians nominated Johnson/Weld, Republicans went with Trump and Democrats went with Clinton.
That alone should end discussion as to which party is the craziest.
I disagree with Both Johnson and Weld, and think they were weak candidates.
But by every measure that you consider important they were far superior to Trump and Clinton.
Regardless, poke fun at the libertarian party all you want – they are by far the most fun political party. Go look at some of John MacAffee’s campaign sports on youtube – they are hillarious and irreverant.
But I am not a member of the libertarian party, and libertarians are not winning elections anytime soon.
The hope for 2016 was to qualify for matching funds and to get into the debates.
Johnson/Weld did better than any libertarain ever – but not even close to what was needed. He got my vote – not because he would be a good president – but because the other choices were so much worse.
We have 2020 coming up and the democrats are offering Joe “the police need bazooka’s” Biden and Fauxchantas/Queen of ExIm warren, and Bernie the Socialsist Sanders.
If the LP went with the streaker – that would be a better choice.
Regardless, the LP is a bit crazy – though your trolled article attributes the wrong crazy to libertarians.
Streakers – yup.
Crazy Costumes – yup.
Not big on compromise – yup.
Not big on government – yup.
Though I would note, you do not need conspiracy theories to see plenty of government failure. Who cares about the moon landing – look at the VA.
If you want one of the most conspiratorial libertarian web site – go to lewrockwell.com.
At the same time note, Lew is NOT selling the conspiracies you are attributing to libertarians. Which is a big part of how it is obvious to any real libertarian your article on why I left the libertarian party is a troll peice. Because it was written by somebody who does not know which conspiracies appeal to libertarians and which do not.
Just as even though I have been perfectly consistent on my views here for a decade,
You still do not actually know them. You could not impersonate a libertarian very long,
because you still do not know what libertarian means – even though I have pounded on it for eons.
Take almost any subject that has not been discussed here – I can probably accurately guess your views on that subject.
Not because I am omniscient – but because I have listened to you and tried to understand you.
But I would be shocked if you could guess my views.
In fact I would be shocked if you could accurately repeat my views on subjects we have discussed.
And you think McAuliffe was a good choice ?
Ha, you should seriously watch this one, priceless!
Roby, if this one post (second try) i will be very surprised, but just thought I would say that I am forgoing any more comments until Rick provides another article. It takes about a minute for the comments to come up now and forever to look like a comment I make posted. Then when I look for the comment, it is not posted, but when I try to repost it, it says I already said that. So somewhere along the way it is getting stopped in the process. I don’t feel like typing the comment again, so I just shut down.
As for the Libertarian party, I agree the party itself is made up of a bunch of squirrels. Their position, for the most part, are not nuts, but the people delivering the message leave a lot to be desired. Where as the democrats and republicans have much more acceptable messenger’s (depending on your political persuasion), there positions are nuts these days.
So if this post I will close with this.
Debt 2016—–$20.2 trillion
Deficit 2017—$ 750 B Interest as part of this deficit $300B
2018———-$600B
2019———-$700B
2020———-$750B
2021———-$880B
2022———-$1.025Trillion
2023———-$1.050 T
2024———-$1.100T
2025———-$1.300T
2026———-$1.300T
2027———-$1.400T
Debt in 2027————–31TRILLION And guess what, interest at 4% is $1.2 Billion. So in just over ten years, we have more deficits in just the interest payment than we have in all of the budget now. WHAT A COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ron, I’m not knocking someone like you or your much more realistic libertarian values. I’d call you a conservative leaning independent with libertarian tendencies.
Dave is the real deal, he would be right at home at the Libertarian kook convention.
There are some perfectly sane basic issues behind the libertarian concept, IF they are not taken to an absurd extreme. Dave is our poster boy for taking Libertarian ideas to the point of absurdity, his latest pronouncement that I saw and found nutty was on the question of environmental laws and regs: No environmental regs whatsoever, in fact environmentalists are evil and immoral because they use force to infringe on someone’s freedom! That same kind of extremism was very evident in the people at their convention, no need for a driver’s license, etc. This presents a very easy target and after 700 or so posts of daves kooky brainwashing campaign its good venting and fun to puncture the nonsense of that extreme target.
Once again completely misrepresenting and misunderstanding my position.
You seem to think that being opposed to apriori regulation is the same as supporting bad behavior.
I am opposed to regulation ALL regulation, because it is immoral and does nto work.
Murdering people is wrong. Cutting off everyone’s arms to prevent them from committing murder is also wrong.
The fact that you have some laudable goal does nto make the means by which you persue it moral.
More simply – the ends do not justify the means.
IF someone initiates actual violence to another – govenrment must step in.
If someone fails to keep a voluntary commitment – government must arbitrate.
If someone actually harms another – government may enforce redress.
I have absolutely NEVER argued that people are free to harm others willy nilly without consequence.
But you seem to beleive that merely because you think there is harm that you can jump straight to causing real harm to prevent hypothetical harm.
If you have a store and you do not clean spills and someone slips and hurts themselves – you are responsible.
Today we probably have regulations to that effect – but they have never been needed.
several hundred years of tort law requires you to make whole those you actually harm – whether through malice or negligence.
IF a driver clips the porch off your house – you do not scour the law looking for a regulation that says drivers on your read headed south can not clip off your porch.
The driver damaged you or your property, they are already legally responsible.
It is called torts. And it has worked reasonably well for hundreds of years.
Further – lets say you think there is something wrong with how torts has worked,
lets say that evil businesses have paid off the courts to avoid having to pay plantifs.
That is bad.
So you want to pass another law ?
Get a clue – if you can not get the law that exists enforced, how are you going to get the new law enforced ?
We have had a very great difficulty getting people prosecuted for battering their spouses.
Police have been very reluctant to enforce those laws, and victims tend not to prosecute.
More and more laws have not helped.
We have had similar issues with child support.
Now if you are a deadbeat dad, you can have your professional license revoked, your automobile license suspended, your car registration suspended, and on and on and on.
None of these has made deadbeat dad’s pay up. Many have made it harder for them to do so. But the courts have always been able to enter judgements, garnish wages, ….
Techniquest that are imperfect, but better than all the added regulations.
The fact that most of our environmental regulations are built on CRAP science is just an additional argument.
So lets directly address pollution.
If I dump toxic chemicals that poison the aquifer and cause harm to you.
Existing torts law will allow you to stop that and seek damages.
In many instances where things are clear enough – you can likely get an injunction BEFORE there is actual harm as long as you can demonstrate there will be.
Without a single regulation the very same legal system we had in 1787 is perfectly capable of dealing with people who do things that actually harm others – without a single regulation.
The bad outcome you are certain we need to punish is punished already by the legal system as it was 250 years ago.
Not a single regulation in sight.
So when you try to spew this nonsense that I am pro-pollution or want people to die or whatever you are just LYING.
But that is a common problem when you stupidly decide you know what others think.
So we already have a remedy for absolutely anything that actually harms others.
That leads us to YOUR side. Regulation seeks to restrict liberty – that is inarguable.
It either seeks to make ilegal what is already illegal – harming others, or it seeks to make illegal what is not – conduct that does NOT harm others (or both) The first is unnecescary and the 2nd immoral.
In the pragmatic sphere – in the real world, there are several other issues.
None of these are issues of law. They are just recognitions of reality.
The planet is not safe – 300 people were just killed by an earthquake in mexico.
Golf Huricanes have killed unusual numbers this year.
Ultimately one way or another nature will kill all of us.
No laws will prevent that, though our increased standard of living will lengthen our lives.
The hostility of nature to human life is reduced SOLELY by increased human prosperity.
The effect of gulf huricanes is far worse on poor countries than more wealthy ones.
Our safety and longer life are all acheived through our prosperity – nothing else.
No amount of law can make the water safe if we are not wealthy enough to remove or avoid pollution.
Everything you want is accomplished by the very thing you are trying to destroy.
Free Markets are the engine by which we increase our prosperity.
No one has ever found anything that works better.
You are free to try something else on your own or with others participating voluntarily.
But it is immoral to use force to constrain what we know works to favor something you hope works.
Increasing prosperity is the way we climb Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
All of the above is fact, and well known, and fundimental to aspects of human behavior. no one disagrees with.
Whenever we have a surplus of wealth – we look for ways to spend it to make our lives better.
400 years ago european farmers had to save 1/3 of everything they produced as seed for the next year. 90% of human effort was directed toward food.
Clean water sanitation, myriads of other things that enable us to live better were not possible. you could not legislate them into being.
Nothing that you claim to want or to be able to acheive as a benefit of law has ever been provided to man by law. It has always been the consequence of growing prosperity.
Exactly the same is true of your environmental laws.
If people value the things you want as laws, they will happen automatically when we can afford them, and because we want them and can afford them.
Not because of laws.
The next majro practical attack on your regulatory theory of the state is that historically all doom and gloom scenarious have proved FALSE.
In otherwords much of what you wish to accomplish is based on bad science.
Inarguably the use of force to impose bad science on others is immoral.
You say this:
“I am opposed to regulation ALL regulation, because it is immoral and does nto work.”
And then you say this:
“Existing torts law will allow you to stop that and seek damages.
In many instances where things are clear enough – you can likely get an injunction BEFORE there is actual harm as long as you can demonstrate there will be.”
Are you suggesting Tort Laws ARE NOT legal regulations?
The courts (government) still have to enforce the regulations.
It’s STILL enforced regulation, but from a different source of government.
Those absolutist statements you make are nonsensensical.
“Are you suggesting Tort Laws ARE NOT legal regulations?”
Yes.
Just to be crystal clear, I am not aware of a single libertarian in existance that beleives that someone or some business can harm you without redress.
Further where the harm is clearly identifiable and proveable, that you are not entitled to redress through the law.
That sad all libertarians do not share my specific views of regulation.
In fact most of us – libertarian or not do not think much about law or regulation.
That is OK – we should not have to. But at the same time we also should not jump and shout – there should be a law against that whenever something bad happens.
There almost always already is. and in those instances where there is not, it is almost always because there is a law that precludes redress,
Tort law – which is NOT statutory, and NOT a bunch of codes,
is extremely simple (or used to be) if you are ACTUALLY harmed by another, they must make you whole. That is it. You must prove who did it, and that what was done caused harm. that is all. In some instances you are entitled to punative damages.
Regulation is apriori government law or rule that says you can not do X,
or you must do Y in the following way.
All law is not regulation.
I would say there is no such thing as tort laws – but given enough time the state makes all kinds of laws.
Most modern “tort laws” are “regulations” and limit torts.
A frequent example is laws that say that if some producer conforms to regulations they are not subject to tort claims.
You really do not grasp the libertarian position.
The most fundimental issues is BEFORE or AFTER the fact.
Torts are primarily common law, judge made law, rooted in the legal principle that if you harm another you must make them whole.
You do not – or atleast 200 years ago did not need to look up the law to file a tort claim.
You just had to claim that Joe Doe caused you real harm.
You went to court – you had to prove real harm, and prove Joe Doe did it.
You did not have to demonstrate that Joe Doe violated a law or regulation.
Only that he caused you harm.
Today things are more complex. We have numerous statutory laws and regulations that prevent you from filing tort claims.
I have repeatedly told you that regulations are often driven by business and you completely ignore that.
Big business drives regulations for atleast three reasons:
They provide barriers to entry for small businesses
They frequently explicitly or implicitly protect business from torts,
When businesses drive the regulation they control them and get what they want.
“Those absolutist statements you make are nonsensensical.”
Nope, they are perfectly consistent and make perfect sense.
I am guessing that you do not understand what I am saying because:
You do not grasp there is more than one way to solve a problem.
That saying government can not do X about Y is not the same as saying govenrment can not do anything about Y.
Once you grasp there are multiple solutions to the problem of how to deal with the harms people cause others, that you then should consider the effects and side effects of each.
Tort – in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong that causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.
Tort law is common law – it is essentially judge made law, revised slowly over centuries.
It has TWO absolutely critical aspect that make it far superior to regulation.
1). It NEVER tells you how you must or must not do something. It is solely about HARM, the only part of the how that harm was caused that is important are those aspect pertaining to WHO caused it.
2). It is AFTER THE FACT. Tort law never says you can not do X, it says you can not HARM another.
Regulation is either statutory law, or bureaucracy made rules.
It is a priori. It is about HOW you do something, or what you are allowed to do.
It is not about HARM. The idea is that if government makes it illegal to do something that hopefully the harm often associated with that thing will not occur.
Regardless, I have about a bazillion times stated
YOU MAY NOT HARM ANOTHER, AND IF YOU DO YOU MUST MAKE THEM WHOLE.
I have said that is absolutely the role of government.
So lets look at Drivers licenses.
What would happen if you eliminated drivers licenses ?
Anyone could drive.
Well anyone can mow the grass,
Almost anyone can own a gun.
Anyone can cook.
Anyone can chop wood.
I can think of myriads of things that are MORE dangerous to yourself and others that we do all the time without licenses.
I doubt the elimination fo drivers licenses would alter who drives very much.
With few exceptions the people who choose not to have a license would not suddenly choose to drive.
Further not having a license would not change whether you were responsible if you damaged someone else’s property or harmed them.
Neither of my kids started driving at 16 – I was not ready and neither were they.
When they were ready, we worked together to learn.
Partly they learned what they needed to pass the drivers test, but mostly what they learned was what they needed to know to drive safely.
Further they would still be required to have insurance.
My insurance company offers my kids discounts for good grades, for a clean record, for taking driver training course.
Why – because these – not licenses are good predictors of safe driving.
In order to get drivers licenses both of my kids had to learn to parallel park.
Something they avoid entirely today. That was the ONLY difficult part of the license test for either of them. I parallel park about once a week – only because I have apartments in the city. The rest of my family NEVER does.
You assume that if something was not illegal EVERYONE would be doing it.
But that is stupid. Even absent laws barring murder – few of us would murder others.
We drive when we have learned to do so – when we can get insurance, when we can get our parents permission. The absence of drivers licenses is not going to put 4 year olds on the road.
Ron Paul addressed this pretty well during the 2012 republican debate in Tampa.
He was asked if he would legalize Heroin, and he asked for a show of hands from the audience of who would go out and inject heroin tomorow if it was suddenly legal – no one raised their hands.
Our government and legal system is NOT there to control the conduct of most of the people. If government and law were required to make most of us behave government would collapse under its own weight.
Government and law are there to control that small portion of people who will behave if there are laws, and will not if there are not.
Fundimentally our whole govenrment and legal system is solely about sociopaths.
And not even all of those.
“What would happen if you eliminated drivers licenses ?”
Congrats.
Great idea!
Let’s do It!
Think how many more half-blind people would be able to drive the freeways- meaning more business for out of the way stores!
And lots more inebriated drivers wouldn’t need taxis to drive them home after Bar closing time, think of the money saved!
And precocious 12 year olds could get summer jobs driving 10 wheelers!
And surely the accident rate wouldn’t rise, because those unlicensed drivers would conscientiously learn all the traffic and safety regulations on their own, saving taxpayers money by not having to hire test drive examiners.
And insurance rates wouldn’t rise, even with many more untested drivers on the roads because people will appreciate the freedom from government licensing and make a conscious effort to drive more safely!
And while we’re at it, let’s eliminate birth certificates too.
And school diplomas.
Why do you assume that just because there is not a law against something that people will do it by the droves ?
If all drugs were legal tomorow – are you taking LSD or shooting heroin ?
Experience with country;s that have made drugs legal is that use increases a very small amount. But crime, overdoses and most of the other problems associated with drug abuse tank.
What insurance company is going to insure a “half blind” person ?
How does eliminating drivers licenses make driving drunk legal ?
I guess you have never seen what drunk driving does to ones insurance ?
There have been plenty of successful torts filed against bars for allowing inebriated customers to drive home. Why would the absence of licenses change the incentive for bars to suddenly allow what they mostly wisely try to stop ?
Are you going to hire 12year olds to drive 10 wheelers ?
Do you actually drive ? I was beeped at twice just today by some idiot who was demanding that I do something with my car that violated the driving rules.
People do not know the rules. Passing a 10 question test does not prove you know the rules.
Insurance rates are and should be higher for those who are the greater risk.
Nothing new in that – would not change.
BTW do you have a clue how many unlicensed and uninsured drivers are on the road as it is ?
The absence of licenses will not make people drive more safely.
Nor does the presence of licenses.
I do not have a problem with birth certificates – but I think you overstate their significance.
For most of US history people did not have birth certificates.
Even today there are many older black people without one.
Conversely they are not all that hard to get. They cost almost nothing.
My daughter was born in China – she has no birth certificate from China.
My son was born in Korea.
Both have birth certificates from the US issued when they were adopted.
There birth certificate says when and where they were born.
And why do you think because I am opposed to government licensing that I am opposed to all voluntary proof’s of competence ?
I paid money to a college, passed the requisite courses and exams and they gave me a degree – stating that I had done the above.
If I seek a job – some prospective employers insist that I have a degree – I have no problem with that.
Absent government issued licenses, I would have zero problem with AAA or Brakes or other groups offering driving certifications (which BTW they do, and both of my kids have both, and my insurance is lower as a result), and employers could insist that to get a job you must have an appropriate certification.
Do you think Trucking companies would not (as many already do) insist on proof of training from an approriate truck driver school before hiring ?
Or insurance companies might demand such things.
Again you think there is only one way to do something and that it always involves govenrment.
Worse even inside of government you think there is only one way – and that is the stupidest possible.
Everything that you wish to regulate that should be the business of government is already covered by Torts. As is myriads of things that are legal.
Something does not have to be illegal to subject you to a tort judgement.
It just has to be harm that you caused another.
Ron;
I would look into your computer configuration.
I have a pretty slow laptop, a really poor internet connection.
And I can click on an email and have the browser load the comment to reply in a second or two.
Dave, I would but it happened on the old one I changed out a few months ago, happens with this one and happens with a tablet I received for Christmas. I have Windstream and it is anything but fast. “High Speed” it is not. Cant get cable run to the house unless I pay an arm and leg. Over 1000 feet from road and then it goes through the woods down a driveway, so everything is underground. No polls for them to easily string cable on. Cable companies have free installation as long as you are in a residential area and they don’t have far to go. Rural agricultural areas where homes are far from the road is not of interest to them.
(Fingers crossed this post without any additional effort)
I live in an area labeled a “rural disadvantaged zone”
While there are farms nearby, my county has something like 800,000 people
so Rural is a stretch.
But what rural disadvantaged zone means is you get obscure cable and phone companies and there is nothing you can do about it.
At my apartments I can get Fiber for under $100/month that comes with phone internet and TV and is fast as hell.
At my home I have very crappy DSL (windstream), and “blueridge” cable.
Had I known how bad the internet service was here, and that in 20 years it would not improve, I would never have moved here.
My mistake.
Not the only one I have made in my life.
Not the last.
My suggestion for Rick’s new article: Is the internet distorting our political world?
Excellent topic!
And I hope he posts one soon.. I too am having recent ‘server’ problems loading the site… keeps dropping and reloading over and over.
Anyone else having the same problem!
Sorry, your are having difficulty.
I have a pretty crappy internet connection and lots of problems that have to do with my ISP and I am not having the problems you are noting.
What does distort mean ?
It inarguably is changing it. In some ways better, and in some worse.
But there is no inarguable right “political world” and therefore how can we distort it.
@dh: your response is right up there with Gore’s: A zebra cannot change its spots.” – Al Gore
I am not opposed to the discussion
I am opposed to the description of the topic in a way that presumes the net is harmful.
Maybe – though I doubt it, the net will prove harmful.
The spinning jenny “distorted” the production of textiles.
The net effect was positive – fewer low skill jobs more higher skill jobs, cheaper textiles.
More value produced with less human effort.
If we are going to discuss the effect of the internet on Politics, distort presumes changes solely in a bad way.
Why are you presuming that the way things were pre-internet was the right way ?
Radio also “distorted” politics, as did TV.
The internet has had both positive and negative impacts on many things – including politics.
Discussing those impacts could be interesting.
But I am concerned about framing the discussion with a presumption that there is a right way to do politics and a wrong one, or that the impacts are entirely negative.
Dave/Roby..The internet does not distort anything. It is just the tool that is used by people to communicate thoughts, ideas and information. it is the people that provide “misleading and false information” about the politicians and political positions of parties and legislation.
We have had “fake news” since the beginning of the country. One only needs to go back 50+ years to Vietnam and the “fake” information that was being provided by the Johnson administration to see how damaging that can be. Had the people known the truth about that war from the beginning, 58,000 young men would have lived form many years longer. Lies have consequences, especially ones from our politicians.
So Roby, our political world has always been distorted with lies and deceit. Ones like myself understand that completely and is why I have little trust in government to do most anything that is good for anyone other than themselves and their party. The internet has just provided a tool for mass distribution like the Russians used in our past election.
The evidence thus far – including Jay’s DB story is that Russia’s actions were SMALL.
Accepting as true (which I highly doubt) what has been asserted so far.
There was about $100K of issue adds on FB that might have come from the russian government maybe.
The more recent claim is that a collection of FB pages were used to “organize” Trump Rallies in FL.
Again lets assume true – so Russia put up FB pages that said “gather here at 7pm Wed to meet and support Trump. ”
Did real FSB agents show up at the meeting places and pass out MAGA hats ?
Otherwise all you got is notices on FB.
BTW the absence of actual Russians on the ground at the Rallies casts deep suspicion on the claim that the FB pages were Russian.
I mean really who “organizes” rallies from 4000 miles away and hopes people show up and spontaneously rappy ?
And in the event that actually occurs – ho is that actually evil and altering the election ?
BTW Clinton lost FL by 100,000 votes. You are just not going to get what you need out of this.
I would further note this story is a good example of abysmal journalistic standards.
1). Deleted FB accounts are asserted as Russian.
FB already did a search of their own accounts and only found 200 Fake Russian accounts.
BTW there are lots of “fake” FB accounts – I have one personally.
Worse still I had FB close one of my Real FB accounts – because they decided it was fake.
I had to send them my drivers license to prove it was me.
Then they said sorry – already deleted, we do not care.
FB gets to decide their own policies. But there are excellent reasons to have “fake” accounts.
Just as Robby is posting as Hieronimous.
Anythony Watts has expressed the wish that he had NOT used his real name to bring up the Climate Skeptic account “Watt’s up with that”. Because he also has a consulting business in lighting I beleive and clients do not want to do business with people who are controversial. Not left controversial, not right controversial.
No clients wants asked why they hired that Nazi, communist, skeptic, warmist, …..
I told both my kids that if they were doing anything controversial on the internet – to create a pseudonym to do it under.
My daughter posts prolifically on politics and race issues.
she comes from the left right and libertarian at times.
My wife and I sometimes wonder how we raised a chinese redneck.
At the same time I am proud of her.
She speaks her mind.
She debates, she has a reasonably open mind, she does not accept the status quo,
she thinks about what she beleives – no one not even her parents can push her beleifs.
And she argues pretty well given her age and experience.
And I probably disagree with about half of what she says.
So what ?
“So Roby, our political world has always been distorted with lies and deceit.”
Thank you, Ron.
As we have said here, ad infinitum, we currently exist in a hyper-partisan political environment. There are a number of explanations for this, one of which could be that the internet increases polarization, based on the echo chambers provided to people who obtain their information only from politically biased sources.
This site has, for many years, been an opportunity for open debate among moderates. There are moderates on all sides of the political debate, those who are not at the extremes, but who see that the truth does not exist solely on the right or on the left.
The problem with people who argue obsessively from a single POV (and I am NOT talking about Dave) is that they are either ignorant or dishonest…or both. It’s one thing to advocate for a position, it’s quite another to incessantly deride and hector people who don’t see things from a narrow bias that matches his own. That’s how politicians distort the truth, and we are right to reject that.
I think that discussing the changes – both good and bad that have altered the means of political discourse in the past couple of decades is a worthwhile topic – if Rick wants to address it or if we just want to do so ourselves.
I think those changes are actually reflective – to some extent, between the libertarian world view and other world views.
Freedom is not perfect, and is often not pretty.
I think that modern communications are still evolving and will ultimately better distribute along a bell curve, while at the moment the distribution is more strongly resembles an inverted bell curve.
But freedom means allowing the offensive expression of offensive views.
Whether they are racist, nazi’s antifa, or socialists.
It also means allowing the offensive expression of views.
That includes ad hominem and fallacious forms of argument
as well as the OCD posting that I am being attacked for.
Freedom also means the freedom of groups to discriminate.
Whether that is TNM or DailyKOS, or Breitbart.
It means that some places can allow ad hominem and others can bar it.
I do not actually beleive that we can morally – as a society impose rules that make us less free – but we can inside of voluntary groups like TNM – I am not suggesting that we do.
But whether I beleive that or not – the discussions about it are occuring.
FaceBook, Twitter, and google are getting attacked for engaging in viewpoint discrimination – which they are all now admitting they do.
Government can not do that.
RadioLab had a very interesting debate regarding whether non-government entities such as google should be allowed to.
As a consequence of discrimination alternates such as Gab have arrisen.
The UK and probably the US are likely to put the screws to WhatsApp which allow’s end to end cryptographically secure communications that apparently even the NSA can not hack.
Aparently this app was used in the recent london bombing.
Freedom often has an ugly side.
We can not have protection from government snooping in our private life and no protection for evil doers making plans.
Anyway I think the discussion would be very worthwhile.
I think it also allows us to look at the very same problems we fight about every day – in a different context where we might think differently about them.
As an example I still think government should stay out of Free Speach – and that includes not interfering with private censorship. The EFF made a very compelling argument for restricting the censorship of Google and Facebook, and Twitter.
The point is that sometimes we read the same principles differently in a different context.
The debate about the internet is essentially one about regulation.
Do we allow a free and unfettered internet – even though that means lots of nasty offensive speach, it means providing a platform for biggots and racists (and communists)
Do we trust that nearly all people will sort it out on their own ?”
Put differently – do we subject the internet to the same regulation as the rest of our lives ?
Or do we see fromt he fact that the internet has dark sides, but still is overall strongly net positive, that maybe we do not need so much regulation in the rest of our lives ?
Is speech actually different ?
Anyway potentially alot to discus, if we want to.
“The problem with people who argue obsessively from a single POV (and I am NOT talking about Dave) is that they are either ignorant or dishonest…or both.”
How are you not talking about Dave? You are Exactly talking about Dave. Its so clear that you are talking about the exact thing that Dave does that you had to explicitly deny it, which was a fail. If you do not think that Dave is an example of what you are complaining about, then who exactly Would be an example? You have lost your whole point by excluding an extremely clear case of it. Yeah, he is your ally here in excoriating the left and defending trump and the right. That does not exclude holding him responsible from his obvious faults, if you want the credibility that comes from being honest.
Priscilla, If you would like I will create a personna here that argues liberal-left viewpoints in exactly the same obsessive, rude, know it all, everyone else is wrong, I know the one true morality manner in 25 posts per day that Dave argues Libertarian ones. You won’t last a week tolerating it, I doubt you will last 3 days, you will react angrily. I’ve had ten years of Dave. He is a perfect example of “people who argue obsessively from a single POV … they are either ignorant or dishonest.”
As to Ron’s point, people everywhere are often dishonest, even normal basically good-hearted people. Somehow we have managed to create the 21st century paradise I live in most days with painless dentistry, cancer treatments, democracy, classical music and humane societies in spite of the human failings that are in our DNA. Its good that reform movements periodically erupt in every remotely democratic society to attempt to clean out corruption or at least temporarily reduce it. Its good that we try to keep the effects of dishonesty and greed in the public sector down to a dull roar. But… anyone who thinks they are going to truly change human nature by these campaigns, whether in Brazil or in the US or anywhere, is being naive.
The dark side of human nature may in fact do us in someday, perhaps as a society, perhaps as a species. Or it may not. But it will never be eliminated, not from business, not from government, not from religious movements and not from daily human relations. We just have to do the best we can using the good side of human nature as an antidote. People who become ideological fanatics lose their original motivations and are not helpful, the fanaticism negates whatever good intentions they started from.
PC is a fanatical campaign against all the destructive isms, it has a worthy goal. Is it helpful? Fanatical campaigns to wipe out wrong thinking do more harm then good, whether its Jill Stein flavor, Ann Coulter flavor, Dave’s extreme libertarian flavor or some other ideological flavor.
Why do you react angrily to 25 posts a day that disagree with you ?
Would 21 leave you comfortable ?
Or 5 ?
Is your problem the number of posts ? How is that a problem ?
My problem, and I think Priscilla’s, is that you keep selling something that has failed historically and has an almost 200 year record of failure.
I beleive that is where Prisicilla’s stupid or evil assertion came from.
If someone argued for facism – most of us would call them stupid or evil.
Fascism has a very bloody history – but not as bloody or long as socialism.
I think those who argue against free trade are stupid or evil. It is for good reason that something like 98% of economists support free trade – Paul Krugman even got a Nobel fro free trade work, before he became a left wing troll.
BTW that means I think that Trump is either stupid or evil with respect to Trade.
The evidence on free trade is long and strong – but there are not hundreds of millions of bodies associated with protectionists – so stupid is easy, evil is harder to demonstrate.
One of the most disturbing aspects of modern political debate is the fact that dangerous and bloody ideas with a record of universal failure are still argued by such large numbers of people.
Freedom means allowing stupid and evil people to make stupid and evil arguments.
But socialism is so obviously a huge bad idea that it should be at the fringes less common than people arguing for peodophilia.
The dark side of human nature is a problem we agree on.
Though I think you are far too worried, as well as far too worried about the wrong things.
Those who are seduced by the dark side cause by far the most harm when they have power – and that means government.
The number of people who have suffered at the hands of corporate malfeasance – even including 19th century instances where we permitted the corporate use of actual force, are dwarfed by some of the smallest bad acts of government.
Add up all the deaths world wide that you can find from corporate malfeasance – deliberate or negligent – I doubt you can reach the carnage of Pinochette, much less Pol Pot or Mao or ….
I beleive that the sum or all violent deaths as a consequence of non-government malfeasance (i.e. Criminal) are dwarfed by those of government violence for the 20th century.
You are much more likely to die as a consequence of government, than as a result of some business poisoning your breakfast cereal to make money.
So why are you completely incapable of prioritizing and starting by addressing the most significant threats ?
Why are you looking to constantly empower our greatest threat to protect us from much smaller threats ?
Please read people like John Stuart Mill “on liberty”.
PC is NOT a worthy goal. The supression by force of any viewpoint always leaves us worse off.
Further you falsely conflate the actual supression of other viewpoints with arguing against them.
I MIGHT be prepared to use force to prevent you from imposing your views by force.
I and many of those you attacked have never advocated to use force to supress your views.
Arguing that government should supress some speach – and that is what PC means – is either stupid or evil. It is not what I have ever argued. To my knowledge it is not what Ann Coulter has argued.
So much boils down to the left idiocy of conflating speech they do not like with violence.
It is that conflation that makes you stupid or evil.
It is that conflation that allows you to make egregious catagorical errors, and pretend that libertarianism is somehow a form of PC.
You just malligned libertarians because they had a streaker at their convention and purportedly have all kinds of crazy conspiratorial views.
Would that not be the OPPOSITE of PC ?
“So Roby, our political world has always been distorted with lies and deceit.Ones like myself understand that completely and is why I have little trust in government to do most anything that is good for anyone other than themselves and their party.”
Yes, and so has our business world and our religious world and our world of human relations (been distorted with lies and deceit). I have lied sometimes, mostly little white ones. I suspect you have to. And yet I expect some good things out of government, business, and personal relations and I mostly believe that I get them. Its good to be skeptical/cynical/realistic about how people are, but the evidence I see in my life is that in spite of the dark side we often manage to do rather well.
“The internet has just provided a tool for mass distribution like the Russians used in our past election.”
The word “just” implies to me that you think its no big deal. I disagree. Remove the word just from your sentence and you have one that describes one of a million reasons that the internet has been a harmful weapon in the hands of fanatics, tyrants, propagandists. The internet has amplified the human ability to lie, to distort, to brainwash. Not a good thing. Young girls in Britain go online and find themselves wanting to be ISIS brides. The fact that people have always tried to manipulate the facts to their own advantage does not remove the extra power that those efforts have received from the internet.
The real harms of actual government dwarf all others combined.
The potential harms of govenrment are far far worse still.
Yet, you are fixated on the mote in others eyes, while a beam is blocking yours.
With respect to the internet and Russia – what is it that you think that you can do about it ?
First we have the issue of anonymous accounts – are you going to argue that annonymous accounts should be prohibited by law (you are going to run HARD into SCOTUS and the constitution).
But lets skip that and presume you have a world without anonymous accounts.
Are you saying that Russians should not be permitted on Facebook ?
Are you saying that FB is a purely US media ?
Are you saying that Russian can not speak their minds on FB ?
Are you saying they can not purchase adds ?
Everything the left has come up with this far regarding Russia and the internet honestly is more innuendo than proof – accounts that MIGHT be fake, MIGHT be russians who MIGHT be lackey’;s of Putin.
But lets say the effort war massive – what is it that you want to do about it ?
Fundimentally you are addressing the issue of free speech – except outside the scope of the constitution, and in a scope where the only enforcement power you have is to make war.
We would prefer that Russia not express its oppinion regarding our elections.
Just as you would prefer that I go away,
and I would prefer that you made arguments rather than spray ad hominem.
We can not stop that.
If russian free expression at some time in the future becomes massive,
that is just how it will be.
You live in the internet era. Short of the US becoming like China or NK and implimenting the Great Firewall of china – which is impossible in the US,
you can not stop this.
Just as you can not stop me from saying things you do not like, you can not stop, Soros, or the Koch’s or Bloomberg or even Putin.
In a bizarre way Vladimir has demonstrated that Citizens United was not merely correctly decided, but that there is no other alternative.
The power to supress speech you do not like does not exist anymore.
A Respected Voice of America:
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/jimmy-kimmel-test-bill-cassidy-obamacare-repeal-monologue?amp
And why is it that I should weigh the views of some celebrity over my own on a political issue ?
An appeal to authority – usually atleast appeals to an actual authority.
I am not familiar with the Cassidy bill.
But ObamaCare is on its face immoral.
Anyone trying to make an argument for it, is arguing emotion rather than fact or reason.
“And why is it that I should weigh the views of some celebrity over my own on a political issue ?”
Isn’t the answer to that self evident?
The self evident answer is that appeal to celebrity is a logical fallacy.
Ben Shapiro had the best response to Kimmel. Shapiro’s daughter had open heart surgery, done at the same hospital, by the same doctor that operated on Kimmel’s son. Shapiro’s wife, who is a doctor, did her pediatric rotation at CHLA, and is welll unaware, unlike Kimmel, that many children treated at the hospital are poor, many even the children of illegals.
Having a sick kid does not make you an expert on healthcare policy or on medicine. If that were true, I would be an expert in pediatric oncology. And I am not. We shouldn’t debate policy based on emotional appeals,
Shapiro has not before used his own family’s experience as part of his own political healthcare analysis, but he wanted to make the point that Kimmel, while denying that he was exploiting his family’s experience for political purposes, was doing precisely that.
As most of us have said many times before, Obamacare does not increase access to healthcare, it merely increases the numbers of people who have an healthcare insurance plan, regardless of whether or not that plan actually allows them access to doctors and hospitals. CHLA receives millions of $$ in donations, which allows it to provide charity care to poor children. Jimmy Kimmel, I am sure, has donated money to that end.
But he, apparently, would rather virtue-signal to his liberal audience than tell the truth.
This is how a virtue-signaling elite responds to criticism:
“Kimmel, a fierce proponent of the healthcare law, received many rebuttals for his political statement notably FOX & Friends host Brian Kilmeade. Kilmeade called Kimmel a member of the “Hollywood elite” for “pushing” politics. Wednesday night on Jimmy Kimmel Live, the host set his aim at the FOX host and let loose.
Kimmel said the FOX host “kisses my ass like a little boy meeting Batman” whenever the two cross paths and claimed he is “dying” to be a member of the “Hollywood elite.”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/09/21/kimmel_responds_to_kilmeades_hollywood_elite_criticism_ill_pound_you_when_i_see_you.html
Ah yes, the self-puffery of a late night comedian, who is used to having his ass kissed by the rest of the media, and feels entitled to threaten physical assault on anyone who dare points out that, in fact, he did use his TV platform to push his personal politics.
What he lacks in policy understanding and grace, he more than makes up for in emotion and self-righteousness…….
Yeah and that Liberal elite virtue signaling has even effected the Insurance Industry, horror of horrors:
“WASHINGTON — The health insurance industry, after cautiously watching Republican health care efforts for months, came out forcefully on Wednesday against the Senate’s latest bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, suggesting that its state-by-state block grants could create health care chaos in the short term and a Balkanized, uncertain insurance market.”
One of the massive problems with government legislation and regulation is lefislative capture.
Both industry and government become interdependent.
PPACA was passed with great help from the insurance industry – why not, it converted much of US health insurance into a regulated public utility – just about the least efficient way of doing anything.
I have paid little attention to the most recent Republican repeal effort.
It is not a real repeal. It may be arguably better than the status quo,
but it is not as good as letting PPACA fail and starting over with a clean slate.
Economic uncertainty is always bad economically.
Absolutely Republican efforts to repeal PPACA pose and economic threat.
At the same time PPACA itself is a certain threat.
All change requires uncertainty.
We should be sure that when we subject the economy to uncertainty we get good change.
Probably this bill is a bad idea.
But for exactly the same reason PPACA was a bad idea.
Evidence socialism fails.
https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/908703739363647488/UaRLDDsa?format=jpg&name=600×314
I think that Meryl Streep is one of the most gifted actresses ever.
I pay absolutely zero attention to her politically.
I think that the very characteristics that make a person a good actor, amplify emotional sensitivity to the extent that rational judgement is difficult to impossible.
I will watch any movie Streep appears in and love it.
I do not bother to listen to here politics.
I can respect her for what she is very goof at without presuming she is particularly good at many many other things.
“We shouldn’t debate policy based on emotional appeals,”
I have the impression that the trump campaign was one humongous emotional appeal. To your ideological side. So, you voted for him and constantly defend him now. Its emotional. People are emotional.
Emotional appeals are clearly terrible and should be stopped, when the other side does them.
Reality: Politics is one big emotional appeal. Kimmel (I don’t even know what he looks like) did not invent it. I suspect that he is technically in the right in his argument that the latest Obamacare repeal will do harm to many people.
Yes, politicians make emotional appeals.
Are you saying that posters here should abandon reason, discard logic and ignore facts – because the candidates and sometimes the electorate makes choices rooted in emotion ?
What kind of nonsense is the “argument” that I will argue logically only when everyone else on the other side argues logically ?
You want to criticise Trump for emotional appeals – be my guest.
You want to debate government, morality and law on an emotional basis, just because politicians do – what can I say, you are then as bad or worse than they.
Don’t you give a damn what does and does not actually work ?
Your argument is pure tribalism – my tribe above all, above logic, about reason above facts.
“Screw everyone and ruin the world – my tribe comes first, we must win – even if we destroy ourselves and destroy what we claim to want in the process. ”
If you do not want to be accused of being stupid or immoral do not make obviously stupid and immoral arguments.
I know very little about the current repeal bill,.
Still I would absolutely wager money that it will cause ZERO change to mortality trends i.e. ZERO harm – as measured in terms of health.
There will be pretty much the same number of people, the same number of doctors, nurses, hospitals afterwords. People will get sick with the same frequency and they will get the same treatment.
All that will change is things related to money.
Kimmel’s appeal is not only emotional – it is very very wrong.
We have been through this repeatedly. I think I have produced 6 or 7 major studies that state unequivocally there are almost no health outcome benefits of health insurance.
All insurance is about protecting WEALTH.
You have offered some papers that speculate – without any basis, and without actual data, that maybe there would be some change.
We so no change moving to PPACA, we can yank the whole thing and see no change.
Dave, don’t worry about what is in or is not in the repeal bill. I say there is a 25% chance it even makes it to the floor and then a 5% chance it even passes. And it will die in the house if it even gets that far.
I made the comment that those in government should be trusted about as far as you can smell a fart. Repeal PPACA, never going to happen. Tax reform, about as much chance as a snowball in hell. Build some form of border security (wall or electronic). Dreaming! And Mexico pays for it, never happens. Infrastructure, some form will pass as it helps big corporations. Cancel Iranian Nuc deal, good luck with that one. Cancel Paris agreement, done but not completely, Ivanka and Jared pushing to stay in, most likely will.
So why the hell didn’t we elect the bitch and then the GOP could have blocked a real democrat, not a democrat in GOP clothing.
Mostly I agree with your read of the tea leaves.
But I would elaborate as follows:
Raising the debt ceiling is something that like it or not must be done.
Republicans should get some concession on spending in return for doing so EVERY single time it is raised. That should be non-negotiable.
Contrary to the media, failure to raise the debt ceiling is not the equivalent of a govenrment shutdown or a default.
It merely means until the debt ceiling is raised government may not borrow,
That means it must operate solely on revenue.
That is a temporary 25% cut in govenrment.
That would typically not be a 25% accross the board cut.
Many things would have to be paid.
Actual debt service would have to be paid.
SS and medicare would have to be paid.
a few other things would have to be paid.
Past that the president would have a great deal of freedom to cut, and a requirement to cut.
Obama used that freedom to specifically punish the right – by shutting down services like the parks that were popular – even when they were actually self sufficient.
Beyond that Passing legislation need not be the goal.
Getting it voted on should be.
Get PPACA votes, tax reform votes, on the record.
The election is coming, let people decide based on votes.
Opponents of DACA are dreaming.
But DACA must be passed by congress – not by unconstitutional executive fiat.
If Trump wants a wall that bad – that would be where to get it.
I personally think the wall is a stupid idea.
Put it is politically important to alot of people,
Further its stupidity is not because it is improper, but because it will not work.
Finally, we need a real honest discussion on immigration.
We will not do what I would prefer, but we can do something less stupid than we have.
I am NOT fixated on “a path to citizenship”.
You are born here – you are a citizen.
You immigrate legally and follow the law – you can become a citizen.
You arrive here illegally – even as a child, even if we should not rush to deport you, there is no right to citizenship.
Frankly there is NEVER a right to immigrate and become a citizen.
I think we need to be careful to avoid the mess europe has created with a permanent underclass of 2nd class people with very limited rights – citizenship is far harder to get in europe than the US. There is no birth right citizenship so the children of immigrants often can not become citizens. This is a mistake.
I am also tired of this nonsense where it is landlords, employers, …. responibility to verify the citizenship of people.
If I rent to someone – I should not have to care if they are a citizen.
If I hire someone and properly report that hire on my quarterly taxes,
my obligations end.
Why wouldn’t insurance companies, which have made billions in subsidies under Obamacare, be against a system that requires them to provide affordable coverage based on competition?
Same with big Pharma. Both enthusiastically supported a government takeover of their respective industries, because it has provided a pipeline of cash, not dependent upon performance or innovation.
“I suspect that he is technically in the right in his argument that the latest Obamacare repeal will do harm to many people.”
Roby, are you saying that Obamacare did not do harm to many people, or that it is not failing?
And, Jimmy Kimmel is a very, very rich man, who I am 100% certain does not have Obamacare, but a fully paid health insurance plan, paid for by ABC. I am also reasonably certain that he does not know much about the current Graham-Cassidy bill, other than that Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy are Republicans, who do do support national health insurance.
So, are you not supportive of Kimmel because he is on “your side?”
“Roby, are you saying that Obamacare did not do harm to many people, or that it is not failing?”
I said nothing one way or another about that. I have said many times that I think Obama care is a mistake that I wish had not been enacted. I do not know whether it is “failing.”
“And, Jimmy Kimmel is a very, very rich man, who I am 100% certain does not have Obamacare, but a fully paid health insurance plan, paid for by ABC.”
Irrelevant, I could care less.
” I am also reasonably certain that he does not know much about the current Graham-Cassidy bill, other than that Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy are Republicans, who do do support national health insurance.”
So you are a mind reader? He may know more than that, he may not, I have no way of knowing that and neither do you.
“So, are you not supportive of Kimmel because he is on “your side?””
I merely said that I suspect he is correct that the latest repeal Obamacare effort will hurt many people. I could amplify that, millions of people.
Obamacare should not have been created, but once created it cannot be undone without doing serious harm to a huge number of people. That is a fact.
If the GOP succeeds they will face the consequences over many years.
“If the GOP succeeds they will face the consequences over many years.”
The consequences won’t be as dire for them as for those who will get screwed by this new scheme:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-20/republicans-peddle-nonsense-to-sell-health-care-plan
I have no idea what republicans are peddling.
But ObamaCare is quite obviously expensive snake oil and needs to go.
Anyone pretending otherwise lack’s credibility.
I have absolutely ZERO interest in fallacious arguments that some quasi repeal of ObamaCare will cause harm. I am not interested in “flat earth” arguments, or the market responds to the commands of progressives nonsense.
The only valid question here is whether this particular bill is any good.
That PPACA is not is a given.
Only those who can not comprehend facts, logic, reason think otherwise.
If as you say Obamacare was a mistake – then lets repeal it.
It is just that simple.
Right – you have no way of knowing what Kimmel knows.
Most importantly there is no credible reason to beleive he is more knowledgeable than you or I.
To the extent that an appeal to an expert has any validity at all – the oppinion must be that of an actual expert.
An appeal to celebrity is just stupid.
You can not have it both ways – ObamaCare can not both be a bad idea, and repeal also be a bad idea.
No the claim that once created undoing it would be very harmful is logical CRAP.
If every day I steal $10 from someone else and send it to you $10, and after 4 years, I stop, are you “harmed” ?
You are not harmed by losing something you never had a right to in the first place.
My giving you charity today, does not obligate me to give you charity tomorow.
Further if I stop – any benefit to you is canceled because I have stopped stealing from someone else.
If the GOP succeeds we will see the consequences in 2018. and that is about it.
My guess is this MIGHT hurt republicans – because it is less than they promised.
Regardless, PPACA repeal is almost a no brainer for republicans which is why it is surprising it is hard to repeal.
Those screwed by PPACA live mostly in red areas, those benefiting almost entirely in blue.
It is very rare for a social program to have such pronounced partisan impact.
I have not bother with the recent Kimmel nonsense, but from the sounds of it, it is the same as the past one he made, that was well and thoroughly discredited at the time.
It was a blatant appeal to emotion and it was egregiously inaccurate with regard to the facts.
Anytime anyone is pushing the “people will die” argument, you can bet they are clueless.
More emerging information on the extent to which the Russians tried the screw Hillary in the election:
First if all the claims – none of which are actually supported much less proven, were true – this still does nto get you close to what you need.
The DB claim – and I suggest going to the DB article, because though strong on rhetoric it is short on fact, is that FB accounts that are deleted that MIGHT have been created by Russians that MIGHT have been directed by Russia were used to organize rallies in FL.
So lets start at the bottom – these were real rallies, that actually occured that real people showed up at in Florida. Are you saying the people that showed up were Russian’s ?
You have a major virtual/real world problem.
Whatever occured on Facebook, real people – who I did not hear DB claiming were Russians showed up and performed these events.
Now lets got to the FB accounts. In FB’s own analysis they found something like 200 accounts that they THINK were associated with Russians, that violated FB’s terms and were deleted.
This DB report is claiming thousands of FB accounts. Aparently DB is essentially claiming that if a FB account has been deleted since the election it must be Russian.
Next, we have the problem that Russian, is not Russia.
Just as the action of any US citizen can not be attributed to the US government or Donald Trump, the actions of any russian can not be attributed to Russia or the Kremlin.
Next, we have the problem of there was a rally – SO ?
How is it that a pro trump rally can illegitimately alter the outcome of an election ?
You are still fundamentally devolving to the Trump voters are stupid and were duped.
Calling people hateful hating haters before the election was not a winning strategy.
Why do you think calling them stupid dupes afterwards is ?
Ultimately so long as your claim of “infuence” rests on efforts to persuade voters.
it fails.
We can wish that Russia would not try to persuade US voters about US elections.
But unless you are prepared to call it an act of war, you can do nothing about it.
Nor is that limited to Russia or Trump.
To be perfectly clear:
If the FSB was in Tampa with Trump vans handing out MAGA hats – you would still not have what you need.
But you do not have that. Rallies occured – can you show that actual Russians were their ? That Russians provided resources beyond purpotedly FB pages ?
Can you actually prove those FB pages were created by Russians ?
And why exactly do we even care because any tom dick or harry can create a fake FB page – it is not a crime.
Assuming that you actually prove that some FB pages were created by Russian’s, can you prove these were Russians acting at the direction of Russia ?
And finally if you managed to prove all of that – which you are not going to,
Still why should anyone care.
Did FSB agents take potential voters at Trump rallies into the back of busses and put a gun to their head an tell them vote for Trump or we will kill you ?
How is it that you illegally influence a voter ?
Did FSB agents buy votes ?
So long as at the end of this you have real citizens casting their votes in secret, and those votes being accurately counted and not diluted by fake votes:
that would be votes from people who are ineligable to vote,
such as non-citizens, non-residents of the state they are in, non-living people,
or finally stuffed ballots – either by hacking machines or otherwise altering the count,
you have nothing.
If people voted for Trump because Vladimir putin was the man behind the curtain in a wizard of Oz story – it still does not get you anywhere.
Clinton voters will certainly be aghast. But in this their view does not matter in the slightest.
Much of my argument here has presumed that the assertions in the DB story are actually True.
But based on reading the story, the likelyhood of that is near zero.
“I am opposed to regulation ALL regulation, because it is immoral and does nto work.”
Yep, the hopelessly naive thoughts of a completely delusional right wing crank with an overhead cam. Why should I or anyone care what a total loon thinks?
The sheer volume of your idiotic ideas is impressive and of course its always compelling to see to freak, but the act long ago got old.
What is naive is beleiving the opposite.
Regardless, again you have made no argument.
Your response is once again a version of fallacious ad hominem.
“hopeless” is not an argument.
What are the specific instances in which you can justifiably initiate force against another without their consent ?
Please explain how regulation fits one of those ?
The initiation of force against another without their consent is defacto immoral.
i.e. you START with the presumption it is immoral.
IF and only if you can justify it, then it is not.
The burden to do so is on you.
You have not even tried.
I would call that faith rather than fact.
I do not take the use of force against others on faith.
You are the naive one.
Its merely a statement of a relevant fact to note that you are a delusional kook.
It should be obvious by now that I am completely unimpressed by your delusional idea of what constitutes a valid argument. Using what you consider to be valid arguments you have constructed your own self consistent universe where regulation is immoral and drivers licenses are a waste of time. So much for your ability to discern “valid arguments.” To use a Davism Why would I care what a right-wing crank who doesn’t believe in regulation, at all, period, thinks? If that argument is ad hominem fallacy its one you have used so often that you may be able to get a patent on it.
If there was a “Like” box, your comment would get a big ✅ check mark
Yes, Jay
we know that like roby you start (and end) an argument with the conclusion.
That is the conclusion feels true – then it is, and if it feels false then it is.
No need to check premises, or form.
Gravity exists – because you feel it does, and morality is by consensus = because you feel that is so.
❌
Calling someone a delusional cook is always ad hominem.
I do not have ideas of what constitutes a valid argument.
We have spent milenia determining the rules of logic.
In the event you think they might be fungible – they underpin all mathematics and science.
Toss the rules of logic and you have nothing.
There is no “my idea of valid”,
either the arguments start with true premises, and follow valid forms – in which case the conclusion is by definition true, whether you agree or not,
or you can demonstrate that one or more of the premisis is false or that the form of argument is invalid.
The fact that the conclusion does nto appeal to you is irrelevant.
The argument that I must be wrong because you do not like the results is probably the biggest fallacy that there is.
This is not a question of “what I beleive in” – though again that confronts YOUR problem – you seem to think that government, science, facts, logic argument all are things you “beleive in” or don’t.
If it is a matter of belief – it is religion not science, not logic, not reason.
“Why would I care” is a valid response – it is not however and argument.
Something is not true or false because you care or don’t.
Why would I care would be a particularly good response where whether the argument considered is true or false does not matter.
As an example – it does nto matter whether Vladimir Putin paid for issue adds on Facebook, or used FB to organize ProTrump Flashmobs.
I think that proposition is false – but I do not care, because even if true it changes nothing.
Calling someone a right wing crank is ad hominem – whether I do it or you do.
I try to avoid ad hominem, I particularly try to label arguments as stupid rather than people, but on occasion I fail.
You use almost no other form of argument.
You can not patent something in the public domain (for millenia)
My argument is NOT right wing.
It is classical liberal.
The right is somewhat more libertarian friendly than in the past,
but they are not even close to libertarian.
The right has been playing the “government sucks” card my whole life. You Libertarian extremists (I do not mean people like Ron) just take it absurdly further. So I call you far right, with reason.
The “swamp” is no more ever going to be “drained” than there is going to be world peace, these are fantasies. There will be government, there will be regulations, there will be attempts to help the lower economic classes by government and some will be more successful than others. There will be environmental laws and regulations. For the rest of time. You are living in your own flat earth society, the Libertarian convention was the epitome of tin foil hat. You are the epitome of tin foil hat. Your philosophy is so extreme that it is pure hokum. Water is good. SO, drink 100 gallons per day. Freedom is good, so be a Dave style why do we need drivers licenses libertarian. Irrelevant you are.
You imagine that you are the heir to Jefferson. Even Jefferson was not very Jeffersonian when he got power as president. The Life of a 300 million person country with nuclear arms does not work in a “Jeffersonian” way any more than it works in a communist way.
Roby, I have to say that your premise is not only unfair, it’s inaccurate. I have never, ever said that “government sucks,” nor do I know of any conservative who has asserted that. I would suppose that there are so-called libertarians who do, but neither Ron nor Dave are arnarchists, or even close.
Saying that most politicians ~ on both sides ~ “suck” (and, although I don’t recall using just that turn of phrase, I have said so in other words) is not remotely the same as saying that government sucks, and I’m not sure why you insist on saying that “the right” (aren’t you the one who always objects to that terminology when applied to “the left” without qualifiers?) has “played that card” your whole life.
Constitutionally limited government and no government are vastly different propositions. I have not known you to argue for unlimited government ~ my point being that, if we are both on the side of limits, the difference is in degree.
I do not have a problem with “government sucks” – it does.
Even a strongly libertarian govenrment will do badly.
Government is a necescary evil. It is in our interests to keep it small as possible and to be be eternally vigalent as power corrupts.
The left is probably more critical of government than the right.
The difference is that SOME on the right see less government as the solution.
The left universally sees more government is the solution to bad government and searches for the unicorn of the honest politician.
Even if they exist – and a few do, it is far to few to safely government with the power government currently has.
Roby and Jay constantly offer black and white fallacies for non-binary problems – the choices is not between totalitarian govenrment and anarchy.
While missing things that are binary – or close to it – the unjustified use of force is immoral.
There are no exceptions and justification is narrowly defined.
” Roby, I have to say that your premise is not only unfair, it’s inaccurate.I have never, ever said that “government sucks,” nor do I know of any conservative who has asserted that.”
I do not know what universe you are from. Government sucks is just one way of saying it, I could have said government is a menace, or government is a disaster, or government makes a mess of everything it touches. Lets not be literal with government sucks. You get the idea and my comment is absolutely on target.
“The nine most terrifying words in the english language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Ron Reagan, conservative hero.” Conservatives Adore this anecdote and its principle. (OK, Many conservatives…) Quibbling about the clear idea that Reagan was selling will only lose points for you.
Now, did Reagan also run the government and raise taxes and generally act counter to his glib words,? Yes? That is because (many) conservatives want to deride government and its fun its easy, it gets big approval from other conservatives but when push comes to shove, its an act. We need government, even most conservatives know it and the rhetoric is just for whipping up emotion. Still they love that rhetoric.
Really, I am not making this up, its clear that many conservatives have a very very dim of government and its clear that the further right one goes the dimmer the view tends to get, till you reach the Dave level, who is so different from Ron that they are not at all the same political species. Dave very definitely believes that government sucks and he has used literally hundreds of thousands of words here illustrating that opinion. What planet are you seriously on? “I have no idea what you are talking aboutism” is NOT an effective way to persuade.
Roby.
I have no problem with the proposition that “government sucks” or the other ways you have phrased it with a few caveats:
SOME government is necescary regardless. As Churchill said of democracy – it is the worst system – except all the others. Regardless, the necescity of government does not make government good or ensure us good government.
Good people in power are by far the exception not the rule – and that is never changing.
If you beleive otherwise, it is YOU that is incredibly naive.
Government does not fail always, but it significantly underperforms other options for anything where there are other options nearly all of the time.
A desire for limited government, and understanding that Government is a blunt instrument with only limited usefulness, is NOT the same as being anarchist.
That is why I would differ with you.
Ron, Priscilla and I likely differ on the optimal scale of government, but I think we universally agree that smaller and clearly limited govenrment is necescary.
Not looking to fight over Reagan – he is in myriads of ways an enigma.
Much of what Reagan gets credit for Carter started.
Jimmy Carter was the most deregulatory president EVER, possibly more than all other presidents combined. Reagan was wise enough to continue that.
Reagan reduced the government – EXCEPT defense – which he grew.
Reagan was very libertarian, but he subordinated that with defeating the USSR and reducing the threat of mutually assured destruction.
Reagan was a great president. He was not a god.
I have no problem with the Reagan quote.
As regards Republican – they are FAR less homogenous than you assert.
The GOP is far more politically diverse than the DNC.
That is good – it makes getting things done difficult – that is good.
Many is not all.
Establishment republicans,
neo-cons,
and social conservatives tend to want smaller government than democrats, but far larger than most republicans.
Tea party,
Fiscal Conservatives,
and libertarian republicans
want smaller govenrment.
But even those grouping are mushy – many TP republicans are essentially more fiscally conservative social conservatives.
The TP is also the least “libertarian” of the small govenrment republicans.
And there are anomalies all over – there are many members of the freedom caucus that are strange blends of libertarian and social conservative
Regardless, limited govenrment is a common republican theme, but it is far from universal, and Nixon and the Bushes mouthed fiscal conservatism, but were actually progressives.
While Carter and Bill Clinton were fiscal conservatives.
Can we dispose of this
libertarian == far right nonsense.
Antifa is far left and they are anarchist.
There are huge swaths of the left that hold a very dim view of govenrment.
The difference is the solution.
The left thinks the fix for bad govenrment is more government.
That does not make them rosey cheerleaders for government.
Roby
Why do you presume I am trying to persuade you ?
Are your arguments even close to an effective way to persuade anyone ?
Again the left lost the last election and put DT in the whitehouse by confusing insulting people with persuading them.
Regardless, I have tripped over server recomendations for persuading those on the left,
Such as Haidt’s speak to the elephant not the driver.
I can not do that. I do not know how to frame arguments as appeals to emotions.
Periodically I try – The left approach is so bad it screws the very people it seeks to help.
those arguments are true, and sometimes I make them.
But I just can not bring myself to make the arguments that might persuade you.
facts, logic, reason – that is who I am. It is what I do.
Find an actual flaw in an argument – and I will reprocess my entire world view if necescary to remove the contradiction.
I have done that many times – but fewer over time – because the more one does it the fewer logical errors remain.
Emotional appeals are for your personal life – not for deciding what to do with what you stole from others.
the truth or falsity of a premise does not rely on who made the argument or how many times it has been made.
During my lifetime Nixon created OSHA, the EPA, The department of education.
Bush II created Sarbox, and Medicare D.
The claim that the right has universally argued government sucks is obviously false.
Even today, Trump wants tarriffs, jobs programs, infrastructure programs. immigration enforcement, a wall, – clearly he does not think government always sucks.
The successes and failures of govenrment are self evident.
I linked the Cato survey – but since I am sure you do not like Cato – pew and Gallup have found much the same thing.
While our view of government is at a nadir – it has never been strong.
My “libertarian extremism” does nto go very far beyond putting to words what most of us feel.
If you were honest with yourself even YOU feel that way.
Healthcare prior to PPACA was heavily the creation of government.
The left universally declared it a failure – which it was.
A GOVERNMENT failure.
The left and right are agreed our GOVERNMENT educational system is a failure.
We are not agreed on what to do.
The left’s entire identity politics campaign – and the conclusions that the left has reached regarding their loss, is rooted in GOVERNMENT FAILURE.
You might not be saying it – but it means that the Civil Rights act FAILED.
You can not claim that the cause is racism after having made racism illegal and nto implicate government in your failure.
Every single time you seek to create a new law – you are implicating past government FAILURE.
Ultimately all we disagree on is the remedy.
You want more of the hair of the dog that bit you.
I want to quit doing things we know are stupid and will fail.
“The “swamp” is no more ever going to be “drained” than there is going to be world peace, these are fantasies. ”
I would agree.
But the swamp and world peace are likely to be entirely different in 2020 with Trump than Clinton.
The swamp can never be entirely drained.
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
TJ
Will there always be regulation – I am not so sure of that.
Can we reduce what we have radically without ill consequences – absolutely.
Not a huge TJ fan – I would quote Hitler if he was right.
Jefferson falls into “do as I say, not as I do” on so many levels.
“The Life of a 300 million person country with nuclear arms does not work in a “Jeffersonian” way any more than it works in a communist way. ”
But you are wrong. The more complex and larger the country becomes, the more complex and larger the world becomes the more interconnected it all becomes the LESS possible it is for big government to work.
Systems become more fragile the bigger and more centrally planned they are.
While there are some economies to scale there are also many many issues that grow exponentially with scale.
That is true of business, and it is true of government.
The sustainability of government depends on its size – the smaller and less top down the better.
You do not need to beleive that.
But look arround you – even though in nearly every way our lives have improved, our problems with government just grow and grow and grow.
That is not changing. Not with Clinton, not with Trump, not with whoever follows them.
We will either scale down voluntarily – or we will fail.
Failure is very dangerous. While it could result in smaller more free market governments as it often did in south america and mostly did as the USSR collapsed,
it can also lead to fascist (left or right) totalitarian governments – look at where the weimar republic lead. BTW you should learn about history – Germany was strongly socialist, long before the rest of europe.
Saying that government efforts to impose solutions often result in making the problems worse, is not the same thing as saying that government “sucks.” although, if everyone wants to argue the specific definition of “sucks,” I suppose that we could waste time doing that.
Reagan was obviously NOT anti-government. He was very PRO constitutional government doing its job, which is “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
If you want to make Reagan into a “government sucks” kind of person, and extol Jimmy Kimmel as someone who somehow instinctively understands healthcare policy , that’s fine, but it’s also stupid (Note: I am not saying that you are stupid, I’m saying that any line of reasoning that equates a limited government argument to a “government sucks” argument is stupid).
What I did was attempt to draw a distinction between the dishonest and manipulative BS that we hear from many politicians, and the actual ~ and limited~ role of government as it relates to healthcare. I did that as part of a general remark disdaining the emotional appeals of rich, liberal celebrities, who use their entertainment platforms to spout off about things which they know very little and have not bothered to learn more.
Priscilla, so here is a good example of how people in government make government “suck”. By the way, in my mind government does not start out as good or bad until the people begin screwing with different forms and as they add new regulations, many of those end up making government suck.
Example. read an article in one of my healthcare publications that the average “charge” for a Medicare patients stay within the state of California hospitals is just over $97,000. The average “cost” (to provide that service) is just over $25,000. The average reimbursement is around 30% or $30.000. The government pays based on the service provided, not on the “charges” entered on the bill. The government has a regulation that requires hospitals to enter “charges:” on a bill. Most all managed care and insurance companies pay based on the service provided, but hospitals have to bill patients based on “charges”. Because a 1968 regulation setting up the Medicare system requires hospitals to provide “cost data” and charges are used to determine the percent of Medicare patients as a percent of total patients and that is applied to total costs in the hospital. But the “cost” report is used for very little these days other than to support hundreds of jobs in Baltimore.
So if it were not for the “government” and its “sucking” regulations, you could call you hospital and get a concrete estimate of your charges (if your not covered by insurance). You can not do that now as no one knows exactly which charges you will incur when you are there. And those charges would be more like $35,000 in California than $97,000.
If Roby wants to attack Reagan – let him.
Reagan was not perfect – but he was still great.
“If you want to make Reagan into a “government sucks” kind of person, and extol Jimmy Kimmel as someone who somehow instinctively understands healthcare policy , that’s fine, but it’s also stupid”
You are extracting wild interpretations of my meaning. I have said next to nothing about Kimmel (compared to your heated acidic diatribe against him.) I don’t even know what he looks like or where he performs. Reagan, as I said, in practice ran the government as if he believes in the concept of government. He threw the red meat anti-government rhetoric to the conservative base, who very definitely have large issues with the very idea of government programs. When he actually turned out to be willing to govern somewhat normally many of those conservatives felt betrayed and were fully pissed at him.
You are bending yourself into a pretzel to find wild intentions to my words in order to avoid facing the obvious truth I stated that the right dislikes and distrusts government programs and government officials and generally dislikes them more and more the further right you look. Libertarians of Dave’s vein take that even further to absurd extremes.
Perhaps you wish to not process the fact that your buddy Dave has clearly stated that he does not believe in government regulation, at all, period and believes it is “immoral.” Is that principle something you find in some way understandable, commendable, or reasonable? I doubt it, but first you would have to recognize that Dave and others actually believe these things. I bet you will find a way to avoid doing that and instead will prefer to switch the subject to mythical interpretations of my opinions.
Reagan significantly cut taxes,
Reagan significantly cut domestic spending.
He increased military spending – we can debate whether that was good or bad.
Could he have done more – certainly.
Equally important – he cut taxes, cut domestic spending and triggered an economic boom that is the longest by far in US history.
Obama is pretty close to litterally the anti-reagan – though the bushes are not far behind.
We have a record of the effects of Carter, Reagan, and Clinton to compare to those of Bush, Bush, and Obama.
We need not argue about purism to know which choice worked and which did not.
The political debate today should be – “Cut like Reagan” or “cut even more than Reagan”.
No one sane should be considering reverting to Bush, Bush, or Obama.
If you can not learn from success and failure – why should anyone bother with you at all ?
And I have to add something about the “Constitutional government” idea that conservatives use as an argument.
(Some) Conservatives have been fighting the idea of social programs from Roosevelt’s time, various conservatives consider the whole new deal to be unConstitutional. Obamacare was supposed to be unConstitutional.
There is this thing called the Supreme Court. Whether some government program or action is Constitutional in the end is not decided by a person or a party but by a system that culminates in the Supreme Court. Conservatives (and obviously not only conservatives) have their own rather absolute ideas about what the Constitution will allow and often seem to believe that their opinion has the same weight as an actual Supreme Court judgment. This is incorrect. The vast majority of the government programs that conservatives would like to believe are not Constitutional have failed to be found so by the SCOTUS.
The new deal was unconstitutional, as is PPACA.
The left has broken the constitution – and the consequences of that have been horrible all over.
We have completely lost 4th amendment protections.
I would challenge anyone to reconcile much of what the federal govenrment does with the language of the constitution.
The courts have to ignore large swaths of the constitution to support the government as it is, and then strain others far beyond anything credible to pretend there is a justification.
This is precisely what Adams meant when he refered to the rule of man, not law.
It also creates a near unfixable mess.
BTW this is entirely independent of the fact that both PPACA and the new deal are disasters. Even if they had worked – they were unconstitutional.
If we want to do something the constitution prohibits – change the constitution first.
We have done that 27 times.
When you change the meaning of the constitution using smoke and mirrors you politicize the courts and you make the rule of law meaningless.
Of course the New Deal and PPACA are unconstitutional.
what that means is we no longer have constitutional government.
We have government defined by the ideological makeup of the court.
That is not constitutional.
That is the kind of nonsense we see in “banana republics” – like Venezuela,
Is that what you want here ?
Actually no, the meaning of the constitution is not decided by 9 old men, and subject to the whim of whichever party manages to get its prefered 9 old men onto the bench.
That is a ludicrously stupid claim.
The constitution means what it says.
The authority for the constitution and the supreme court comes from the people.
One of the most significant factors in Trump’s election was his list of prospective Supreme court nominees. While his list was not universally perfect, it was brimming with judges who grasped that the constitution must mean what it says, that when we do not like what it says – we amend it, we do not play stupid linguistic games and ignore 2/3 of the document because it is inconvenient.
IF the decisions of the court regarding the constitution change based on who is on the court – then the wrong people are on the court.
IF a so called liberal and a so called conservative do not read the words of the constitution the same way – one of them is WRONG.
And that could easily be the side that is in the majority.
Again words and their meanings matter.
People who treat words in the context of law and government – i.e. FORCE as fungible, are immoral and evil.
For more than 150 years – more than half of this countries existance the court DID find all those things that conservatives dislike unconstitutional – because they are.
I would strongly suggest actually looking at the facts of Wickard v. Filburn.
And if you can support the conclusion the court reached – then you reinforce my argument that you are morally bankrupt.
The court found that the federal govenrment could regulate the grain that Filburn produced, to feed his own chickens, that were for his own consumption.
It decided that constituted “interstate commerce” because if he did nto grow his own grain he would have had to buy it and that MIGHT have had an effect on interstate commerce.
It is that kind of brain dead stupidity that the left celebrates.
More recently we have nonsense that puddles that form after the rain fall into the scope of the federal government under the navigable waterways provision of the constitution.
If an inner tube can not “navigate” it – much less a freighter – it is not “navigable waterways”.
TO most people who are not retarded or deliberately playing stupid to reach nuts conclusions, a navigable waterway is waters from our oceans as far inland as a ship can successfully navigate and no farther.
If you wish the federal govenrment to be able to regulate puddles and ponds, and streams and rivers that ships can not traverse – then amend the constitution.
The very fact that you are defending this kind of lunacy is revolting.
Further the only reason these nonsenically stupid decisions remain – and one of the most fundimental problems of the left, and one of the big issues with PPACA, is that once these very stupid choices are made they are irreversable.
I think it would be trivial to find a super majority of justices on the current court to overturn Filbrun – except that so much of the government has become unconstitutionally dependent on it – it is irreversable,.
Essentially mistakes get baked into the system and can not be fixed.
That is why it was supposed to be VERY hard to move forward and trivial to move backward. Why it was supposed to require supermajorities to do anything, and mere pluralities to undo anything.
PPACA as an example should be trivially “repealed” bu not approving it in the current budget. That simple. No congress should be bound by what the prior congress has done.
This is one of a flurry of new papers by WARMISTS backpedalling away from the models and starting to recognize that the lack of warming in the past 18 years is real.
Santer – the lead other is famous for very recently having told numerous politicians including Cruz and Trump that they were full of Shit and the Hiatus did not happen.
And here he is eating crow.
The big deal is the satellite record. While warmists do not Trust Christy and Spencer – they do trust Santers and Mears – who say the right things – even though RSS (the Mears Santer Satelite record) and UAH (Christy/Spencer) are incredibly close to agreement.
Anyway RSS not only is not finding warming at the surface, it is not finding the required warming throughout the atmosphere.
Thermometers can only measure the surface temperature of the earth.
Satelites can not actually measure the surface temperature, They measure the average air temperature of a column of air to a specific altitude.
But more importantly they can measure the heat content of the entire atmosphere.
The required heat predicted by the Global Climate Models is not present.
And it is not even a close call.
Santer and mears are claiming the GCM’s are skewed by 15 years.
Essentially they are pretending there was a hiatus for some unknown reason and now it is over. and the only change is we have 15 more years before catastrophy.
There as likely right about that as they were before that the hiatus is not happening.
https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n7/full/ngeo2973.html
BLM meets MAGA – and they agree one some things.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/09/20/black_lives_matter_leader_wins_over_trump_supporters_if_we_really_want_america_great_we_do_it_together.html
5 ways SJW’s are like toddlers
https://beinglibertarian.com/top-5-ways-social-justice-warriors-remind-toddler/
Extensive survey by cato on public attitudes towards regulation.
I would not expect the results of this to be in sync with my own views.
But the common view is far closer to mine than most other posters here.
I do find some of the things that are supposed to be contradictory odd.
A majority of republicans beleive the Fed cased the financial crisis – which they inarguably did.
A majority of democrats beleive that the mitigated and shortened its impact.
The evidence on that is also pretty strong.
The financial crisis was in many ways indistinguishable from the start of the great depression. The Fed followed pretty much the opposite path it did in 1929, and we had a recession instead of a depression.
BTW this is not at odds with the economics of Friedman – one of the great experts on the great depression, or the Austrians such as Hayek.
Both Friedman and Hayek would prefer no federal reserve.
Both would tell you that expansive monetary policies in a normal economy cause dangerous bubbles. And Both would tell you that in the event of a recession or depression that contra “comon sense” the very same free money policies that caused the problem are needed to get out.
https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/wall-street-vs-regulators-public-attitudes-banks-financial-regulation-consumer?utm_content=bufferf9f9b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Good News For Those Who Want To Screw The Health Care Coverage Of MILLIONS Of Americans: Graham-Cassidy is your wish come true!
“The two main provisions in the Graham-Cassidy proposal—converting ACA coverage expansions to a block grant to states and converting traditional Medicaid financing to a federal per enrollee cap—affect coverage for more than 80 million Americans and have substantial implications for states’ ability to finance health coverage for their residents. Most states would lose federal funding under this proposal over the period 2020-2026. Because overall funding for health coverage is lower under the bill than we project under current law, the number of people uninsured would likely grow.
While some states—especially those that did not expand Medicaid under the ACA or did not experience significant enrollment in the health insurance marketplace—may gain new funds under the block grant, they would lose federal funds for their traditional Medicaid program. In addition, states that have already expanded Medicaid under the ACA or have seen big gains in marketplace enrollment would generally lose federal funds.
This bill leaves enormous discretion to states to determine what to do with federal block grant funding and what protections to provide in the individual and small group insurance markets. The bill allows states to roll back the essential health benefits now offered in the nongroup and small group markets and to permit insurers to charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions. Because the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and private insurance subsidies end in 2020, every state would be expected to create new health insurance coverage programs from scratch. It is difficult to anticipate how much of the funds states will devote to coverage or what types of programs they will arrange, so estimating how many people will be covered, and the adequacy of that coverage, is quite difficult. Because the bill does not provide for block grants beyond 2026, federal funding would drop precipitously after that if Congress does not act to reauthorize funding, resulting in a significant increase in the number of people uninsured.”
http://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/state-by-state-estimates-of-changes-in-federal-spending-on-health-care-under-the-graham-cassidy-bill/
Jay “Most states would lose federal funding under this proposal over the period 2020-2026”
This is the argument liberals make constantly when any changes are proposed to healthcare. And the fact millions would lose coverage.
As are resident liberal, what would you do to cover this cost. Remember the information I posted last night, 30 trillion in debt by 2027 and 1 billion alone in 2027 interest expense? Remember you can’t raise taxes on the rich. That has already been reserved for the many other proposals that have been lined up by the left. I think it already exceeds 100% of the yearly income of all the people making over 1M per year.
So do we continue to increase the debt and to hell with the future generation, or do we pay for this crap?
We have seen over and over again that spending more government money on something does not result in more value – healthcare and education being very high on the list of obvious proofs.
There have been no measureable health outcome benefits to PPACA.
Just repeal the sucker and move on.
From what I can tell this bill is NOT really a repeal.
To piggyback on Ron’s question, I have one, as well.
There are three key aspects of the healthcare debate: universality, affordability and quality. We can have two of the three, but not all three ~ not in the real world, anyway.
Obamacare sought to impose universality, while maintaining affordability and quality. In reality, it achieved none of the three, although it did nominally increase the numbers of people that have insurance coverage, regardless of how useless that coverage may be ( I say nominally, because, in order to ‘cover’ many more people, O-Care had to push most of them onto the Medicare rolls, severely limiting their choices of doctors, hospitals and drug therapies).
I would ask Jay, our resident expert on all things, what system he would back that would provide all three of these things…or failing that, which two of the three does he believe we should try to achieve?
“universality, affordability and quality”
I am reminded of the tests where they ask which of these does nto belong.
The answer is universality.
Quality and affordability are SOME of the values individuals expect from their healthcare.
Universality is not an individual value.
You do not go into the coffee shop and say – I want the cup of coffee that is universally available.
But you might say – I want a quality coffee,
or I want a cheap coffee.
I would further note that the debate about these attributes is why healthcare does not belong in the domain of government.
quality and cost are NOT the only values we might have,
nor do you and I want the same thing from healthcare.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet as an example do not need and probably should not get health insurance. They can pay for absolutely anything out of pocket and that is always the most efficient way to do so where possible.
It is near certain that your healthcare concerns and mine are not the same.
It is near certain that you and I probably will not choose the same risk levels.
When my finances are tight – I cut expenses.
I may choose to buy “ford focus” health insurance.
If I were young and healthy, I might gamble on none at all.
Conversely when things are going well I may choose to by better, more expensive more convenient health insurance.
The point is the each and every one of us has different wants needs, and values.
One size does not fit all. IT does not even fit me, from one day to the next.
The argument that healthcare is a right, or that it is not a commodity, is actually EVIL.
The more you move away from health care as a commodity the less choice you get.
The more you move to a one size fits all solution, and the more it will cost.
Oh, and should you choose to address these questions, Jay, I also wonder why you think that healthcare funds are better distributed by the federal government, rather than the states, which, obviously, are more local?
To my way of thinking, it would work better if the states administered block grants. We saw, with Romneycare, the model for Obamacare, that what works in a smaller, controlled environment, often fails spectacularly when applied to hundreds of millions of demographically and economically diverse people. Many have made this point in support of the Graham-Cassidy bill, which retains many of the aspects of Obamacare, but shifts the dollars out of the control of bureaucrats in DC.
But, Jimmy Kimmel clearly believes that people fare best if they have very expensive, private healthcare, just like he does, but which is “free.”
I think that that is pure pie-in-the-sky, but I’m willing to consider your arguments for how it would work.
My view is the same as McCain’s – a problem as big and complicated as this needs BIPARTISAN brain power.
I was a critic of Obamacare when it first was enacted.
And I commented about that here, using my daughter’s complaints about it when it went into effect: she saw higher rates, she had to change doctors, she wasn’t happy.
But over time she adjusted: her new doctors were as good if not better; her pre-existing conditions didn’t disqualify her from coverage; and the paperwork and bureaucracy improved. Yes, her rates are about 15% higher now, but she says she has access to more services. But it’s f the plug is pulled as abruptly as you and your Trumpeteers are suggesting, she will be WORSE off than she was before Obama’s wobbly plan-
From what you are saying with respect to your daughter – she is paying more for maybe slightly better care.
That was ALWAYS an option. PPACA did not give that to her.
So she went through a lot of hassle to get something she could have had anyway – if she had wanted, but ended up with it by force.
Maybe she is not fuming mad. Maybe she is not even unhappy.
But your daughters story is NOT a ringing endorsement.
Regardless, PPACA effected millions of people – many like your daughter went through alot of hassles and in the end are not much different than when they started.
I suspect it is common that people are paying more and atleast Think they are getting more. They are only really getting more if they use it.
A few people have hit gold. The big “winners” are people my age – who do not qualify for medicare yet but are old enough that insurance is expensive.
The big losers are the young and healthy.
Another smaller but very angry group of big losers are the self employed – who have been F’d over royally by PPACA.
This is not the only reason that small business startups have nearly dried up but it is a big one, and it is economically disasterous.
The poor are truly unchanged by PPACA. Before they got services for free.
Now they get services for free.
They are labeled differently that is all.
So listing the above – we are spending 1.3T/decade – that is just Government, not increased insurance costs, and fundimentally little has changed.
Of course that had to be true.
I keep telling you over and over health insurance does not effect outcomes.
Further PPACA did nothing of consequence to the supply of healthcare.
It merely altered the labels and the cost.
So given your own experiences why aren’t you in favor of repeal ?
Your daughter could go back to what she had before – or if she did not want, pay more for better service.
There would be little change for her.
But Tax payers would save 130B/year,
If she opted to go back to prior – she would save 15%.
Regardless, the point is she MIGHT or MIGHT not be subject to some temporary disruption – probably not, because I doubt her current plan is subsidized,
But we would not be talking majro disruption.
We would almost certainly be talking less than when PPACA was implimented.
More importantly we would end the death spiral that is making health insurance increasingly unaffordable to alot of people NOT your daughter.
Put simply your own daughters experiences are an argument for repeal,
Maybe not a powerful argument. But not one to keep something expensive and with little value.
They are particularly an argument – because as you note PPACA is wobbly.
Blah blah.
Bottom line: this replacement was worse.
Like trading in a car with bad horn and blinker lights for one with faulty breaks.
And paying more for it.
That is really the only fundimental change of PPACA – healthcare cost more.
It is far too complicated for government
This is not a federal issue, it is not a state issue, it is not a local issue, it is not a government issue.
It is an individual issue.
The only way you will get affordability, quality, and choice is to have people get their own healthcare – however they choose.
Romneycare actually worked badly in MA.
But not as badly as ObamaCare in the US.
Why – because health insurance was ALREADY very expensive in MA, and because many “features” like pre-existing conditions had already been imposed before Romneycare.
PPACA has been particularly disasterous to rural areas – particularly red states without immense cities. Because PPACA represents a radical and unsupportable change to insurance in those areas.
Insurance in blue cities was not that different from PPACA prior to PPACA – it was already expensive and already met PPACA guidelines.
I think the GOP is being very stupid not repealing PPACA.
This is true of other political issues, but it is particularly true of PPACA.
The people who are helped (and the actual benefits are extremely small) are nearly all already democratic voters,
The people who are harmed are nearly all already republican voters.
Dave, no one is going to repeal the sucker.
And, while I agree that, at this point, it would probably be the most effective an efficient way to fix the system, it’s just not going to happen.
Not to mention, that there WERE problems in the US healthcare system that should have been addressed by Congress long ago, not ignored and magnified until we had a left-leaning POTUS with a veto-proof majority in Congress. Single-payer national healthcare has been the goal of the Democratic Party for some time ~ recall Hillarycare ~ and it should have been clear to Republicans that, if they wanted to avoid the situation that we’re in now, they should have addressed this many years ago.
So, Graham-Cassidy is a start, and it is a modest and moderate start, at that. Roby, who once admired Lindsey Graham, apparently now thinks he is a red-meat conservative, but, the truth is, Graham remains a moderate, and moderates have to drive what is now a repair-process, rather than a repeal.
I find that Rand Paul is uniquely dishonest in his opposition to anything and everything that is not full repeal, and it is that mindset that will sink any sort of reasonable process.
Sorry, Priscilla, but absent some GOP bandaid, it is absolutely certain that PPACA is going to be repealed.
It has been in a death spiral for years.
Each year that passes some government prop gets kicked out.
There is a set of temporary provisions that dies in 2018 that will increase the death spiral.
If PPACA can survive – as democrats passed it, without unconstitutional help from the executive – then so be it.
But as it increasingly fails – everyone is going to have to get on board about doing something,
The FIRST step should be repeal.
Republicans getting suckered into repeal and replace was a big political mistake.
It was a stupid unforced error.
The answer was always simple.
PPACA is worse than what we had before.
So we get rid of it.
If after that democrats and republicans can come together – maybe we will do more.
Ron carp’s constantly about debt. I absolutely agree with him on that.
PPACA is absoluetly responsible for increasing debt by about 1.3T
Additionally it has increased health insurance costs by about 1.6T,
Further the additional taxes have had about a 3T negative economic impact.
The real impact of PPACA is enormous, and negative.
And the benefits are zero.
This is to be expected.
I keep carping on this but PPACA does not actually increase the supply of healthcare.
When you add money to a system with a fixed supply – you increase cost, that is all.
The argument for PPACA is that it increases access.
That is another way of pretending to say it gave you a right.
But it would be a positive right.
And you can not give a right to something that would exceed the supply.
The fact is the poor and uninsured were getting healthcare before.
If they had not been, PPACA would have completely broken our healthcare system.
PPACA changed nothing except who paid and how much they paid for services.
It did not create more service.
You can not increase supply by dumping money into the market.
That just creates inflation.
Which is exactly what we have seen spiraling health care cost inflation.
Dave, if you or anyone else really believes the PPACA is going to be repealed without something worse and more costly taking its place, I hope you have a good insurance policy yourself because you are going to need it when they admit you to the looney ward at your local healthcare provider.
The GOP is not going to do anything that will cost them an election. That is why none of the current plans are passing. The democrats are not going to let the PPACA just die by itself and will replace it with single payer or something just as bad because that is what they do. They give away costly entitlements today to be paid for sometime tomorrow, whenever that is. And they will gain in elections because the demographics of the country are changing and it will not be to long before more and more states turn blue (from illegal immigrants legal children) and both the house and senate, along with the president, become a staple of American politics. The GOP will become the new Libertarian party with just a little more support. (Much like California legislative bodies)
As for all the arguments going on now about the current state of our reimbursement markets, the problem was, is and will always be the government involvement in that system from the very beginning. They set up a screwed up reimbursement system with medicare and all the insurance companies jumped on board their crazy horse riding it to the edge of the canyon and jumped off with all the other lunatics that bought into that crap. But no one wants to listen to the real problems and the real fixes, just the political arguments that are forced down our throats by the career politicians and supporters of both parties just regurgitate their poisonous blabber.
It will be repealed when the failure is great enough.
Ron
government is nearly always going to screw it up
Pretty much always when you see something in the market that makes no sense – and it endures – government is at the bottom of it.
If you understand that government does nto typically get things right,
then you should support getting government out.
Rand Paul had a disasterous 2016 presidential campaign.
He did not have the fire in the belly necescary for a presidential campaign and he allowed winning the campaign to confuse him on his values.
Basically he discovered that his Father’s uncompromising positions worked better politically than trying to be accomidating.
Since the election he has been returning to his own core values.
He is not dishonest. He is the only honest politician in Washington.
My suspicion is he is working towards a future presidential run, and hopefully he has learned from 2016.
He is NOT his father – and that actually means he has the potential for even broader appeal. He can come off less strident than his father. But he has to stick to his core values or he is screwed.
He is doing so, and I am proud of that.
The fix for healthcare is not and has never been more govenrment.
There is absolutely nothing that I can think of ever that has benefited from more government.
Yes, pre PPACA healthcare had problems – but things are inarguably worse.
Graham Cassidy is at best less bad than PPACA and more bad than what we had before.
If we can not do something good – then we should do nothing.
Further the free market learns from the consequences of failure.
It is time for government to experience some of the same learning.
Allowing PPACA to fail could be bad.
But the good outcome might be a better understanding by the electorate that there is no such thing as free. That redistribution is ALWAYS harmful – especially to the people it claims to be helping.
“Roby, who once admired Lindsey Graham, apparently now thinks he is a red-meat conservative, but, the truth is, Graham remains a moderate,…”
?!?!
Show me where I said that, show me where I even mentioned Lindsey Graham here and I will mail you an apple pie.I have actually said next to nothing directly about the repeal bill, one small appropriately cautious comment. You are pulling this nonsense about what I think from thin air. I have the same regard and opinion for LG that I had previously, I simply doubt that his concept is going to turn out to be a good thing if it becomes law. McCain, another moderate, seems to have it right, Congress can do better, and I do not believe they have really tried yet. Bravo!
I am guessing that you are still overreacting to my obviously true statement that there are many on the right who feed on anti-government red meat and there are many GOP politicians who are happy to feed it to them, although they privately know better.
Then, when the fantasy behind the red meat comments turns out to be nothing they can deliver on, they face conservative voter rage and get primaried. Repeat in cycles, the next crop of more extreme conservative loons gets the same fate too once they are in congress, or they join the Freedom caucus and are righteously pure and and an impediment to any sensible legislating.
No I am not claiming that there is much intelligent life on the side of the Dem party and their base.
Primary voters as Ron said, are dominated by the most extreme people. The moderate centrists etc. could change things, but they would have to vote in primaries.
TNM is a microcosm of the political process. Who has the most energy, is it the most sensible person? Naive fanatics run on some kind of nuclear power, others just sigh and go fishing.
“I am guessing that you are still overreacting to my obviously true statement that there are many on the right who feed on anti-government red meat and there are many GOP politicians who are happy to feed it to them, although they privately know better.”
Lets skip “although they privately know better.” for a moment.
The remainder of your statement is not an argument.
I could rephrase it as
There are many who dogs that drink water, and many dog owners that feed them water.
This BTW is a very common form of invalid argument that you make.
The actual core of your argument is that “criticism of government is wrong”
but you assume that assertion to be true without ever proving it.
We generally allow that as a convenience – where the assertion is not controversial, or where both sides already agree to it – it is still fallacy, but harmless.
But where the assertion itself is really at the core of the entire argument – then it is fallacious in multiple ways.
Circular reasoning being just one.
“although they privately know better.”
Argument from omniscience – again an extremely common fallacy of yours.
Pretty much every time you presume to know what others think you are drowning in fallacy.
Ron,
not only don’t you argue with facts, logic and reason.
You do not appear to know that facts, logic and reason are.
“Primary voters as Ron said, are dominated by the most extreme people. The moderate centrists etc. could change things, but they would have to vote in primaries.”
Half Truth.
The more difficult voting is the less likely it is those with no interest in the outcome vote.
There are lots of studies on that.
It is also why the higher the voter turnout the more unstable a govenrment is.
Voter turnout is only high when government is doing something that threatens one group and is supported by another.
“TNM is a microcosm of the political process.”
“Who has the most energy, is it the most sensible person? ”
Meaningless question, non sequitur
“Naive fanatics run on some kind of nuclear power, others just sigh and go fishing.:”
Ad hominem, hyperbole, just plain nonsense, GIGO …
Yawn. Fail. More gibberish about logic from a person who is so out to lunch on the subject that he honestly believes that reductio ad absurdum means that if a lot of something is bad, then a little of it is bad. You long ago disqualified yourself from lecturing on logic. The loony conclusions you have reached about politics, e.g., government regulation of any kind being unnecessary and immoral being the latest howler, are the final proof that your logic gland is defective. Dave discussing logic and fallacy is like Helen Keller discussing the use of color in impressionist paintings. Pompously preposterous but utterly unconvincing.
All the normal humans on this site lacking your funhouse mirror of a brain understood my meaning perfectly, whether they agreed or not.
That states will lose funding – or we will go bankrupt is a given.
Why are you arguing to preserve a status quo that few actually like and that has actual costs – direct and indirect of between 5-8T/decade ?
No plug is being pulled, Jay, that’s nonsense. Any replacement will have a transition period ~ even the so-called “skinny” repeal had one.
And, remember, we’re talking about the individual insurance market, not group insurance. Jimmy Kimmel, to use an example, likely has a gold-plated cadillac plan, which costs him nothing and pays for everything. But it’s fairly unlikely that he is in the individual market, since ABC, his employer, has group plans.
So, while I’m glad that your daughter doesn’t mind paying more for her insurance, and that she has more services, but she is by far the exception. There are millions of middle class people who have suffered greatly because they can not afford the insurance that they need.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/obamacare-affordable/index.html
Roby;
To an extent I agree with you.
Absolutely, I argue obsessively from a single POV.
I do not think there is anything wrong with that – not when I do it, not when you do it.
At the same time it is wise to listen – that does not require agreeing.
You may not think so, but I do listen to your arguments – when you make arguments.
My big complaint regarding you, jay and moggie, is that you do not make arguments very much.
Regardless, I am not sure where Priscilla is – I have vented often about pretty much what I think she is saying:
Ad hominem and fallacious appeals are not argument, and add little if anything to discussions.
But I do beleive in freedom – including your freedom to spray ad hominem and appeals to emotion, and to duck any real argument.
Everyone in the world does not think like I do, as hard as I find that to beleive.
Nor does everyone think like you.
I think Priscilla’s argument was weakened by fixating on a single POV.
But I do not speak for her.
what I see as non-constructive is a lack of willingness to make valid arguments.
That said, the criticism that those on the extreme left are either stupid of malevolent is valid and has been made many many times before by very smart people.
That criticism MIGHT apply to other POV’s, but given the historic failure of the extreme left in the 20th century anyone today selling communism or socialism is either stupid or evil.
The same probably can be said of fascism – but the case against socialism is insurmountable.
I find it extremely disturbing that we are even talking about nonsense like Single Payer.
Even socialism lite has failed wherever it has been tried.
We are not far from Social Security and Medicare bankrupting the country.
Inarguably – even if we survive, we will have done so by heavily burdening our children.
An overwhelming majority of americans want SS and Medicare preserved – atleast for those who were promised it. But similar majorities do not want us to repeat the same mistake again.
So yes – if you single POV is arguing for things with a historical record of more than a century of failure – usually very bloody failure – then you are either stupid or evil.
The problem is not with single POV’s, it is with selling failed bloody POV’s
Sometimes it is not just a particular POV or its narrowness, but the time spent espousing it.
The ancient knew better to limit speeches by using a water clock:
“Apart from timing their speeches, the water clock also prevented their speeches from running too long. Depending on the type of speech or trial that was going on, different amounts of water would be filled into the vessels.”
Smart people.
Tick Tock SPLASH!
😏
That is a reason to vote FOR this bill.
Big Bird also objects to cutting funding for public broadcasting.
Ha. This is exactly the point I was trying to make about “the Jimmy Kimmel Rule.”
It is illustrative of the current mindset that the word “weapon” is used here. Anyone who is not on board with liberal or left wing orthodoxy is the enemy. Even Nancy Pelosi is now considered a traitor to the cause, for condemning Antifa, and making a deal on DACA with Trump.
Sans culotte-ism is ascendant…..
This is really long – sorry, and it takes a long time to build to key points, but it is otherwise excellent.
The entire left is not post-modern neo-marxist politically correct identitarians.
But the philosophical underpinnings for pretty much all of the left rest there.
Child labor was ended by free markets and prosperity
The validity or invalidity of that approach in a completely different context has no bearing on an environment where the only actual cost to speach falls on the speaker and listeners are free to choose what they will and will not read.
Once again an obviously stupid argument.
ObamaCare did not turn out very well, the time spent on it proved of absolutely no value, it did not work as predicted.
I think that the GOP should let it fail rather than put a bandaide on it and take ownership of its stupidity.
But I do not see any value in congress spending alot of time studying things and having hearings – given that the results prove the study and hearings worthless.
You can not order the economy to work as you please – it does not listen.
Spending alot of time building castles in the sky does not add value.
The consensus of opinion of health care professionals is that the Republican replacement legislation is WORSE.
Your solution is to replace castles in the air with shanties in the toilet.
We need to flush your ideas with the rest of the crap coming from the Ridiculous Right.
Oh ? Is that so ?
Please provide me the analysis of a so called healthcare expert that properly analysed the effects of PPACA who also thinks that some Republican proposal will fail ?
Do you think that I should rely on “experts” who have historically been wrong in the past ?
I have not offered a “solution”.
My position is that we should alteast quit doing what does nto work.
PPACA is inarguably a bad, unworkable idea that incredibly expensive and is failing.
Getting rid of it – completely, should be a no brainer.
Going to something bad from something worse is a good start. It should not even require debate.
Castles in the air are inferior – even to “shanties in the toilet” (whatever that actually means), because the latter is real and the former is not.
Jay has no idea what he’s talking about, Dave.
Doctors, and other healthcare professionals HATE the ACA, which has imposed many professional and administrative burdens on them and has taken the focus off patient care. From a CNN piece:
“The ACA took this terrible broken health care system and added a lot of burden onto physicians,” Hill says. “We’re losing the focus of who we’re supposed to be taking care of: the patient. You’re not my customer anymore. Now, I’ve got to respond to the federal bureaucracy, not you.”
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/health/obamacare-doctors-opinions-aca/index.html
G-C is not perfect (and , thanks to McCain, the guy who campaigned as a leader in repealing O-care) it’s probably dead in the water, at this point.
But it would begin the process of taking our healthcare out of the hands of federal bureaucrats and putting in back in the hands of healthcare professionals.
Jay, lets see your sources ~ not data on insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies, but data showing that actual doctors, nurses and other professionals think that the ACA is better. Silly little names don’t count.
First off, it’s costing less than expected:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/cbo-third-obamacare-costs
No Jay it is not
You really want to use TPM as a source ?
Regardless:
First all measures of the cost of PPACA, as well as all measures of the cost of replacing it are typically done by CBO.
CBO does an admirable job, but they are governed by projection rules that are absolutely insane. Further how they are required to calculate what something costs BERFORE it is passed and how they calculate it after, and how they calculate if it is undone are all radically different.
It is perfectly possible for CBO to say something will save $1B, then that it has saved $2B, and that repealing it will save $3B.
Next there are 4 costs to PPACA:
The cost of the tax increase that supports it.
The reduction in GDP that is a consequence of both the taxes and the other negative economic impacts.
The cost the government pays in subsidies and other costs.
The increased costs of people for insurance.
The best estimates of the total cost of PPACA are between 5-8T/decade.
TPM ? really ? How bout if I start linking to Brietbart ? They are more accurate than TPM.
And performing better than expected:
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/11/has-the-affordable-care-act-proved-its-worth/obamacare-has-been-even-more-successful-than-expected
Well atleast you are now linking to more normal left wing sites like NYT.
Regardless, No it is not performing better than expected.
It is slowly headed into a death spiral.
Almost no one is debating that.
It is not doing so as fast as some of its opponents hoped.
But by almost every measureable critieria PPACA has substantially underperformed its projections when passed.
But I would go a bit further, even the criteria it was design to address – the number of uninsured:
It has failed to meet expectations.
The criteria itself is nearly meaningless.
Having or not having health insurance is not a measure of healthcare outcomes.
It has no bearing on outcomes.
Again – find a trend line, something we have actual meaningful long term data for, that has been altered.
We are blowing Trillions for nothing.
Next, the doctor shortage ( from those not accepting it) didn’t materialize:
The fact that PPACA did not result in a doctor shortage means it did not result in an increase in medical care.
This is not something you should be bragging about.
We are spending more money for the same amount of healthcare.
More people are promised care – but no more care is being given.
Part of this goes back to what I keep telling you.
Health insurance does not effect outcomes.
There are 330M people in the country approx, the same as before PPACA.
Those who were uninsured before, got care before.
If they were poor – they got care free at the ER (and appear to be continuing to get care at the ER, the mot expensive way possible and something PPACA was supposed to fix).
If they are young and healthy – only a tiny portion of them needed care before – and they got it and had to pay for it, and in the even rarer instance it was seriously expensive they went bankrupt. After – they now have insurance – or some of them do. and they still get the same fairly infrequent care.
Those with insurance – unchanged.
All that has changed was the amount of money spent.
If PPACA had actually worked – meaning that there were mythical creatures that had no care that needed it – then there would have been a doctor shortage.
The fact that there was not proves the point I keep making – insurance is about money, not health.
Lets put this in another context – though as you really do not get it with respect to health, you still probably will not get it.
Lets say that the government notes that only 75% of us have life insurance.
It mandates everyone must buy life insurance and it fully subsidizes life insurance for the very poor.
So after “universal life insurance” what changes ?
Do people die later or earlier ? No – because life insurance has nothing to do with “life”.
The government will have to pay alot for subsidies, the life insurance companies will get a windfall – but they will have to pay out more claims.
Still in the end nothing of consequence changes.
I can also do this with eggs – that would be closer to the way that the left THINKS health insurance works – because eggs are – well eggs. You do not buy options to buy eggs or egg insurance.
So lets say eggs cost $3/dz, but only 75% of people buy eggs each week.
So govenrment passes a law saying everyone must buy eggs once a week, and gvt will subsidizes eggs for poor people.
Free market people jump up and down saying – the price of eggs will skyrocket and there will be a shortage of eggs.
The law passes. 8 years later – no shortage of eggs, in fact the number of eggs produced is the same as before. The price of eggs has risen to $3.50 – but that was only a little more than the egg laws advocates predicted.
So is the law a “success” – of course not, the same number of eggs are being produced and they cost more. Farmers have gotten a windfall, consumers screwed.
But there was no shortage of eggs and egg production went unchanged.
So what happened ? The consumption of eggs did not change.
In all likelyhood the same people are getting actual eggs as before.
but even if not so, if some are getting eggs that did not, some are not that did before.
The absence of shortages of doctors means that the gross amount of healthcare delivered is unchanged.
And far from reducing their income as many doctors bitched, it has increased it for many:
http://fortune.com/2016/06/10/obamacare-isnt-stopping-doctors-incomes-from-soaring/
Again
Supply unchanged,
Service delivered unchanged
More money in system.
=
Doctors get paid more.
Do you think that is a good outcome
The Dr.s I know hate it.
But I do not presume that any purported market group hates government intervention.
Because that is very rarely true.
Myriads of bad laws exist BECAUSE businesses or trade groups actively seed government intervention.
Or because government buys them off – as it did with PPACA.
I do not want healthcare in the hands of healthcare professionals.
I want it back in the hands of the market.
The worst possible outcomes are when anything is dictated by one group.
Lefties understand that monopolies are bad – except when Government creates them.
Regardless, I do not care to see Jays data – true or false it does nto change things.
It is always a bad idea to presume that the “experts” on one side of an exchange know how to run that market.
Markets work because all of us are both producers and consumers, and because all of us have a choice in every decision we make.
Reduce choices and the decisions decrease in quality.
Dave, you can post all the pro libertarian anti liberal propaganda you wish. I don’t actually have time to post anti-libertarian stuff all day and night, and I think that the things I posted already proved my point about the nature of the Libertarian party.
What is the difference between your version of Libertarianism and Ron’s? Both of you are cynical about government and dislike the left. And yet, I enjoy Ron and find him a reasonable man with understandable concerns and I find you to be a delusional crank.
You both have cynicism, but you have something Ron does not have, at all, naivete in pure form. Pure naivete is the thing that separates the loony left from more or less sensible liberals, and it is the thing that separates folks with some libertarian tendencies from a full bore, we don’t need regulations at all cult member like yourself and most of the loony people at the libertarian convention. The fact that you see your best alternative as arguing with people like myself and Jay here on TNM who you have no chance of converting shows how little traction and impact the Libertarian movement has. There is no libertarian revolution so you waste your energies here.
Find me the people of left right or libertarian tendencies who have no naive delusions that their side has the answers and must and will defeat other ideologies and I will listen to them respectfully, because they are on the path to a workable future. Find me the Jill Steins, dhliis, Hannitys etc. and I will call them all irritating cranks who are mostly irrelevant.
The future belongs to the more reasonable versions of these tendencies. Why? Because the radical forms are great at selling revolutions to their true believers, but don’t have workable ideas to build and sustain a society. I am not saying, for example, that “free markets” is not a workable idea in any way shape or form, but taken to an extreme as you do, no they are not a workable idea, any more than liberal ideas taken to an extreme are. Markets are a strong force but they are always going to be less than totally free and society is always going to redistribute some wealth and have environmental and other regulations. You believe in a world without any restraints on market forces and don’t believe in the harms of that world, but you are not part of a movement that has any chance of getting its way.
Post all your naive simple-minded propaganda. It has no effect other than irritating people. Its very simple, the future will be shaped by a mixture of left, right, and libertarian ideas and none of these side will ever totally dominate. They will be in tension and some degree of a shifting balance within a range. True believers are doomed to being very disappointed. Its sort of a mess but it beats the alternatives. Its the worst outcome, except for all the rest.
Roby;
Emoting all over is not proof of anything.
Further I am not “anti-liberal” – you are not liberal.
Elsewhere I just read an editorial correctly noting that the left is not progressive either.
Which re-enforces my point.
Your political views are such that you must hide them behind labels that misrepresent who you are.
A liberal is one who highly values individual liberty. Neither you nor the left do.
A progressive is one who seeks to advance the world, yet on issue after issue – you want to go backwards.
How can one expect to have an honest discussion with someone whose identity is papered with lies.
Being cynical about government is not inherently ideological.
The view that government has failed in many things is very close to universal.
What is oddly controversial is the probability for future failure based on past failure.
Those on the left seem to think on whatever issue is being addressed at the moment – that so long as democrats are offering something, this time it will work. Anything offered by republicans, of course will fail.
Regardless, while it is true that libertarians are cynical about government.
So are conservatives as well as many on the left and center.
Probably because that cynacism is well supported by a long history of govenrment failure.
Anger at the left is not inherently libertarian.
The outcome of the last election is the consequence of broad anger and rejection of the values of the left – particularly among independents and centrist democrats.
You are being attacked because the core values of the left are:
ANTI-liberal and
ANTI-progressive
Because it is increasing obvious that you are intolerant and hateful.
This is not my judgement, this is not a libertarian argument – but the obvious judgement of the election.
Many of the arguments I make here are “libertarain”.
But most of the arguments I make here are not particularly libertarian or extreme.
The problems of the left are of its own making. My articulation of those problems might reflect my libertarian values. But the problems remain none-the-less.
I am cynical about the left – that is a very reasonable position historically justified.
Overall I am an optimist.
Sorry, Roby, I am not the slightest, naive. I would be very surprised if my life experiences, my political experiences, were not far broader than yours.
I have no problems with compromise – but I treat it as a tool not a value.
That distinction is important. It means compromise must be a means to move towards a good end or to avoid a bad one. It is not an end in itself.
Further it means one compromises approaches – not values.
Compromising does not change what I think. It changes what I do – for the moment.
I do not expect to reduce government to the levels I think are appropriate.
But I am not going to change my values and principles because I can get less than what is right. Again, I compromise regarding what will be done, NOT values and principles.
Further I am prone to argue the most extreme position – partly because it is actually the correct one, even though it is not what I expect will occur,
but also because if you can not counter the most extreme position it demonstrates very effectively how strong that argument is, and how weak yours is.
Absent catastrophy we are not going to reduce government to 20% of GDP in my lifetime.
Though we should – and more.
That is not a reason for me to abandon principles and values, argue for half a loaf and settle for 1/4.
Finally, thwarting the modern left, demonstrating its ideological and intellectual bankruptcy is a worthy goal in itself, and I can best do that from the most sound – you would call extreme, libertarian position.
Libertarians are the anti-thesis of the modern left. We ARE the real liberal, we ARE the real progressives. The post modern neo marxist left is anti-liberal and anti-progress.
I know that you are not personally post modern or neo-marxist.
The evidence is that you really know very little about fundimental philosophical principles.
But what you argue for has its roots in that post-modern neo-marxism.
You may not be familiar with it, but that philosophy is at the core of what few real arguments you make.
Are you capable of a valid non-fallacious argument ?
Why does the odds of my converting you matter in the slightest in an argument or debate ?
And why BTW doesn’t that standard work both ways ?
If I should not argue with you because you are so rigidly entrenched you can never be persuaded – you are absolutely certain the same is true of me – so why do you continue to argue ?
What you are really after is the ability to express your views WITHOUT criticism.
I beleive in near absolute free speach.
You get to say what you wish, no matter how stupid.
But as PROGRESSIVE supreme court justice Brandeis noted the remedy for bad speach is more speach.
We are not in a forum where speach is itself a limited resource – you can espouse your views to whatever extent you see fit.
And I can respond to whatever extent I wish.
There is no “equal time” provision – you have all the time you choose, as do it.
We can not “shout the other down”. Whatever you say is said, it is out there to be read and evaluated – or ignored, the same with what I say.
There is nothing “unfair” about that – not that fairness is a meaningful value.
You seem to be really incited by my assertion that there is no need for regulations.
Do you agree that the desired end is the reduction of actual harm ?
If not then what other end is it that you seek from regulation ?
I have demonstrated that Torts perform the same function.
That should mean that the debate should merely be over the differences between those approaches in accomplishing that end. ‘
But you are too flabbergasted to even contemplate that there might be more than one way to address a problem.
You first and ONLY answer to any problem you see is heavy handed government regulation.
No Roby – it is you that is naive an think you have all the answers.
You do not even wait for a question – the answer is more govenrment.
Libertarians do not know all the answers.
They just know that govenrment is only the answer for problems that require the use of force. That all other problems we solve on our own or in voluntary cooperation with others, without the use of force. That used to be something people took for granted.
It remains something that is self evidently true.
I know that frustrates you. If it was actually wrong you should easily be able to demonstrate that.
You can’t and therefore you respond with fallacy, ad hominem and appeals to emotion.
But Roby
You do not listen respectfully.
You have little or no respect for views besides your own.
I may provoke you to a greater lather,
But you spew ad hominem, fallacy, and appeals to emotion at EVERYONE, regardless of their views.
Nor are you especially unique. That is how the entire left functions today.
The argument against doing anything about PPACA – something you have accepted as a disasterous failure is “people will die”. You need not prove that – it is obviously false.
It is a simple appeal to emotion. It is also an insult to people who are actually trying to do something to fix the mess that you have made.
Starting in the 60’s and growing incescantly to the present the left has shifted more an more to identity politics. To demeaning the view of anyone who does nto rank high on intersectionality. That is the most racist discriminatory position one could possibly hold.
In this election it finally went over the tipping point and a majority of voters grasped that
“hateful hating haters” meant THEM.
It is odd that at the moment in time in which we are the least mysoginist, racist, homophobic, the left is clamouring more loudly than ever that we are an evil racist mysoginist, homophobic society.
To the extent my ideology has any influence at all on the way we are governed – that influence is positive.
But this is not really about my ideology – it is about yours.
I could post completely absent any ideology – and I often do.
The most important problem facing us today is YOUR ideology – not anyone else’s.
Neo Nazi’s the KKK and skin heads are just not a serious threat to the country – as repugnant as they may be.
The claimed resurgence that the left has feared has not happened.
The boogeymen of the left today are:
A flamboyant jewish british fag, who like black men,
an orthodox jew who is the biggest target of alt-right hate,
An establishment republican white blond female wasc,
an immigrant from india,
a japanese american who just wants the right and left to sit down and talk,
and a college professor and respected researcher who thinks that we should actually examine the results of data.
These are the people called white supremicists, Nazi’s, fascists, by the left today.
These are the people that must be protected by a phalanx of police to be able to speak today.
These are the people whose messages are so dangerous that no one can be allowed to hear them
I do not think I agree with any one of them on everything.
But every one of them is a reasonable voice of sanity compared to anyone on the left – and that include YOU.
Please do not lecture others on morality and respect.
I am not interested in your views on morality and respect.
I have seen no evidence that your views on morality and respect are worth listening to.
I have seen no evidence that you treat anyone you disagree with respect.
I have seen no evidence that you have a moral compass.
And very very little makes me angrier than hypocrisy
Addressing your “extreme” straw man.
When YOUR ideas FAIL, you do not get to label those of others as extreme.
When you can not refute the “extreme” position – then you have no base to argue from.
A position being the opposite of yours – does not make it extreme.
Positions that have worked – either historically or outside of the US are by definition NOT extreme.
Positions you do not wish to discuss are not inherently extreme.
Your argument is again “fallacious” right out of alynsky – “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.“ , “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“
Effective tactics, invalid arguments.
Calling something extreme does not make it so.
Nor does something being extreme actually make it wrong.
The truth lies wherever it does, without regard to left right or middle.
Calling something extreme – whether true or not, is not argument, it is fallacy.
You do not make valid arguments.
You engage in insults and ridicule, and you do so thoughtlessly.
And you should expect that when you do so, that you will get insult and ridicule in return.
Can you find a single instance anywhere ever where you can demonstrate that a regulation actually accomplished its purpose ?
Our history is the history of improvement – improvement in health, safety, pollution.
we have improving trends in all of those that are centuries long.
We have improved with laws and regulations – we have improved without them.
I can find a few instances were the rate of improvement DECLINED after passing regulations.
I have never seen a single instance where it has been possible to demonstrate that any law or regulation had a noticeable positive effect.
Until you can find such an example – it is YOUR position that is “extreme” and untenable.
facts, logic, reason.
emoting what you beleive to be true, does not make it true – nor is it argument.
If you can not easily dispatch a position you call extreme – either it is not extreme or it is likely correct, or both, regardless, it is better than yours.
Roby;
I am not the one that is the “true beleiver”.
I have provided evidence and argument to support my positions.
Sometimes I have argued the evidence.
Do I need to demonstrate to you that quality of life, standard of living, pollution, …
have all been improving for centuries ?
Or must I provide you data to support that.
I will be happy to do so if you wish.
But I think it is reasonable to rely on evidence that all of us know to be true without proving it.
Conversely. I do NOT accept that there is evidence to support your positions that I have argued.
Please demonstrate that regulations have delivered some benefit – that is with actual evidence.
It is your positions that are rooted in “beleif” not evidence.
Markets are not perfect. I have never claimed otherwise.
Government is a necescary evil. I am not an anarchist.
At the same time nothing has ever done better than markets. There is no “perfect” solution.
Conversely government inarguably does more harm as it grows.
And NO! there is no justification for govenrment redistribution.
You want to redistribute – you are OBLIGATED to morally justify it – morallity is NOT determined by your feelings. as well as demonstrate that you will get the outcome you claim. You can not do either.
Ha, you crack me up Dave. You claim that I made no valid arguments and used almost nothing but ad hominem attacks on you in my post; yet, it took you 11 posts and several thousand words to reply! How many words does it take to reply to an ad hominem attack? And how many words would someone use to reply to an the endless string of them that you claim I make? Few or none.
Dave I (and others here) have used facts and logic and have sunk your wacko libertarian battleship. The fanatical energy of your denial is strong evidence of that!
Roby;
Nope, I do not think I could go through your posts just on this particular article and find any that contain a valid argument.
BTW, a correct assertion that you are not making a valid argument – is not ad hominem.
Nor is the way you “feel” when you hear an argument determinative.
Nor is an assertion that something is common sense.
Please take an actual course in logic.
Every set of assertions that does nto match a specific logical fallacy is NOT a valid argument
As I recall there are about 20 rules of formal logic – BTW reductio ad absurdem – a common argument I make is one of the FORMAL rules of inference.
The most basic rule of inference – modus pollens is
P implies Q
P
therefore
Q
An argument that has valid premises, and the components conform to the rules of inference produces results that are known to be correct.
Your idea of a valid argument is little more than “I feel this to be correct”
appeal to emotion.
“Some expert says this is correct” appeal to authority
“Some celebrity says this is correct” appeal to celebrity.
“the polls say” – appeal to popularity which is fallacious unless the question is what do the people believe.
“Dave I (and others here) have used facts and logic and have sunk your wacko libertarian battleship.”
Begging the question.
“The fanatical energy of your denial is strong evidence of that!”
Non sequitur
“How many words does it take to reply to an ad hominem attack?”
An infinite number.
Ad Hominem pretty much always drags the argument off point and results in rankor.
“And how many words would someone use to reply to an the endless string of them that you claim I make? Few or none.”
Meaningless question.
MAGA: Keep Those Billionaires Flying In Style!
http://hill.cm/2grPMAS
The Price is wrong.
Dave “Actually no, the meaning of the constitution is not decided by 9 old men, and subject to the whim of whichever party manages to get its prefered 9 old men onto the bench.”
Right on one count. Its 6 old men and 3 old women.
But are you REALLY going to tell us that SCOTUS based their decision on the PPACA on the constitution and not political persuasion? When the hell did legislation that does not include wording about taxes become constitutional when it places a fee on someone and SCOTUS “interprets” FEE to be TAX because (as later found out) Roberts was determined to uphold the reputation of the court and his own reputation, since he testified that judges should not be activist, and felt that siding with the conservatives would be an activist action. In other words, that decision was not based on the constitution, but on the whim of one asshole on the court that sided with the liberals.
You can spout off all you want about SCOTUS and rulings based on the constitution, but when push comes to shove, it is politics that control all important decisions.
If you don’t want politics to influence the court, insist on the nomination of MODERATE judges. Not ultra conservative or ultra liberal judges- appointed to satisfy a presidential constituency.
It’s doubtful that will happen in this contentious political environment, which now under DisgustingDonald’s divisive blustering is more divided than ever before in our lifetimes.
jay. “If you don’t want politics to influence the court, insist on the nomination of MODERATE judges”
Brouhahahahaha!. 40%-45% of the voters are considered moderates and we can’t even get more than a handful of moderates elected in the house and Senate. If we can’t do that, how the hell is “insisting” on a moderate judge to be nominated going to happen?
What La La land are you living in?
Are you saying Despicable Donald won the Republican nomination with the moderate Republican vote?
Didn’t tRump and the TRUMPANZEES nullify the wishes of moderate republicans?
Didn’t the hate mongers and rabble rousers shape the Republican primary debate? The moderate views of the most reasonable moderate candidate, John Kasich, didn’t register at all. Same for Bush. And Rubio. Where were the moderate primary voters for them? Nowhere.
The election rhetoric and the platform and the policy promises in both parties weren’t shaped by moderates in either party. They were shaped by the extremes, yammering for extreme action.
And when Moderate Republican views were shouted down, and moderates had virtually no influence in shaping the platform, or moderating the Moron Candidate’s excesses, did moderates complain? Did they switch parties or refuse to vote at all in large numbers? No, they went along for the ride.
Si no, I don’t expect moderates to be put forward for SCOTUS consideration in what’s remaining of my lifetime. Just more of the same political Left-Right taffy pull.
Jay, we get what we got because moderate voters do not give a crap during the primaries, so we end up with the dregs at the bottom of the barrel for both parties. Only 14.8% of eligible GOP voters turned out and only 14.4% of eligible democrat voters turned out during the primaries in 2016. That is why we have fringe candidates in both larties and why we have such division in the country. And why even SCOTUS is politically dominated in important cases. Who, other than Kennedy, can we identify as a justice that all cases are based on the constitution and not personal political beliefs.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
Trump got unexpectedly high support from evangelicals – almost certainly because of his SCOTUS list.
Trump also did well among republicans, btu won because he did better than Romney among democrats and independents in rust belt states.
Jay
Trump won the election.
Obviously those who did not vote for him were not happy about that.
There is nothing different between people who did not vote for Trump and people who did not vote for Obama.
Both groups did not get the outcome they wanted.
That is the way the system works. It is not “evil” it is not “nullification”
If moderates did not shape platforms – that would be their problem.
You are not entitled to the outcome you want.
Moderate republicans were not “shouted down”, they LOST.
I would have preffered different republicans than Trump.
I LOST.
With respect to SCOTUS, I hope Trump gets lots of nominiations and sticks to his list.
He appears to have made an excellent choice with Gorsuch.
No Jay, you do not want moderates.
Moderate judges are not constitutionalists, or apolitical. They merely use different politics.
IF you want the rule of law, not man, then you should NEVER elect anyone who is going to interpret the constitution anyway other than as understood by the people at the time it was written – regardless of their politics.
That produces the closest we can get to a consistent constitutional, not political result that conforms to the rule of law not man.
We can fix the constitution if we do nto like it by amending it.
We should never fix it by changing its interpretation by judges.
Supreme court justices should be historians and linguists, not politicians.
It is extremely important that the meaning of the constitution be as stable as humanly possible – short of being amended. Because anything else ultimately means we are lawless.
“IF you want the rule of law, not man, then you should NEVER elect anyone who is going to interpret the constitution anyway other than as understood by the people at the time it was written – regardless of their politics.”
That’s the far right conservative mind set we want to avoid in future judges, more akin to religious fundamentalism than moderate ‘judging’
We want Judges with moderate stances in regard to MODERN life, not interpreting the law in the context of colonial times.
No Jay that is not “far right”,
It is the basis of several centuries of statutory interpretation.
It is the way the laws and constitutions in pretty much every state in the country are understood. It comes to us from the English.
You are calling it “far right” – because the left has pushed something different.
It is so pervasive in the western world, BECAUSE it is the only logically correct approach.
No we do NOT want judges with “moderate stances”. We want judges with NO Stances.
We want judges that to the greatest extent possible leave their feelings, their ideology, absolutely everything but the text of the law outside the courtroom
We deal with ideology, with feelings, with all those other things in the legislature.
Courts are NOT the place for policy debates.
Courts are about the law as written, not as one ideology or the other wishes it were.
Though it means more than this – it means not crafting laws that violate peoples rights or will not be obeyed, this is specifically what the rule of law means.
It means the legislature debates and sets our laws, and policies – not the executive, and not the courts. That the meaning of law and constitutions rests on the words as used by those who wrote the law, not others who had nothing to do with writing those laws.
That the power to change the laws and constitution remains with the people – typically through the legislature – not in the hands of those who enforce the law – the executive and the courts.
Would you want to live in a state where the police officer gets to decide the meaning of the law, changing it as suits him ? Or one in which the courts could do the same ?
That is explicitly what is meant by “the rule of man”.
Our founders were explicitly trying to avoid the system imposed on them by King George III. A system where the executive – the king, could diddle with the law as he chose, and where the courts were entirely in his thrall.
This is a common problem with the left. This concept that we can discard centuries of evolved philosophy, or law, because in the moment that might get us a better outcome.
The left is blind to the long term consequences of their acts.
You went nuclear on the Senate’s tradition regarding filibusters under Obama, and now you have republicans under Trump needing only 50 votes to confirm judicial nominees.
You turned a blind eye to the president legislating via executive order, and found that all of Obama’s executive actions were washed away quickly, and that Trump is now free to do the same as Obama.
The process of governing is supposed to be very difficult. That is to prevent exactly the kind of messes we have now.
It is far better to have law that is less than perfect and changes slowly after great consideration, than to have the law constantly churning. New law appearing all the time, or old law being understood in new ways.
Courts that confine themselves to the text of the law as written and the meaning of words as understood by those that ratified the law when passed, is the only means to “the rule of law, not man”.
That framework allows the people – through their legislators to change the law as they wish through the normal but difficult process, It allows us to change the constitution through the same process.
What we do not want, is the law or constitution being changed at the whim of 9 unelected old men.
“What we do not want, is the law or constitution being changed at the whim of 9 unelected old men.”
Not only are you tedious, boring, overly wordy – you’re constantly inaccurate. Or are you in a daze of dumbness not to know three of justices are women? And that 6 of the nine justices are probably your age or younger. And they’re surely younger than President Dufus – are you calling for that dumb old Dunce to be declared unacceptable because of ‘old man’ syndrome too?
“Not only are you tedious, boring, overly wordy – you’re constantly inaccurate. Or are you in a daze of dumbness not to know three of justices are women? And that 6 of the nine justices are probably your age or younger. And they’re surely younger than President Dufus – are you calling for that dumb old Dunce to be declared unacceptable because of ‘old man’ syndrome too?”
Ducking the question.
It does not matter whether SCOTUS is made of men, women, or children.
What matters is whether it makes decisions based on what the law or constitution says, or what they wish it said.
Determining what it says is NOT an ideological process, it is a linguistic, and historical one. Hence the “far, far right conservatives” you deride look to the plain text, and where the meaning of words has changed over time – the meaning of the text as understood by those it applied to when written.
I am younger than every justice on the current court – except Gorsuch.
Not that it matters.
Trump is younger than 5 of the justices.
Again not that it matters.
Wrong again, THIS TIME about tRump agewise re SCOTUS. 3 older; the rest younger
http://threestory.com/scotus/
Jay, I have said multiple times that Donald Trump is a RESULT of the political dysfunction in our country, not the cause.
Going back to Clinton, continuing through Bush, and coming to a critical point during the Obama years, we have been spending trillions on wars that have done little, other than to de-stabilize the Middle East and allow the Russians to become a dominating influence there, spending trillions on our ballooning welfare state, much of it fueled by illegal immigration that has been encouraged by Democrats, in hopes of securing a permanent majority, appeasing dangerous regimes such as NK and Iran, and allowing our national debt to spiral completely out of control, with absolutely no concern for future generations. Add to that, the increasing federal control and subsequent dumbing down of our public education system, the gigantic student loan bubble that has destroyed the financial hopes of a generation, while saddling them with useless degrees in things like “gender studies,” the ongoing disintegration of the family structure, particularly in our drug and crime ridden cities, the dismantling of our manufacturing sector through globalization and regulation, and the increasing polarization of Americans through identity politics…..oh, yeah, and the destruction of the healthcare system, which we have talked about endlessly here ~ long before Trump. And I haven’t even mentioned SCOTUS and the ongoing attacks on the Bill of Rights.
And, people like you insist that it’s Year Zero, and Donald Trump is the cause of all of our problems? No, people are disgusted and discouraged that the only choices available to them in this last election were a corrupt, lying and uninspiring old woman, who had cackled over her destruction of Libya (“We came, we saw, he died, hehehehe!”) and committed obvious felonies, by using a secret server and deleted classified emails, the usual Libertarian candidate, rational on the economy, clueless on foreign policy, and a bombastic and rude billionaire and TV star who claimed that he could fix all that was broken. Oh, and Jill Stein, a left wing looney and opportunist.
So, to Ron’s point, this is where we are. Trump was elected because fewer people voted, yet more people in PA, MI, and WI voted for him than for Hillary (Romney got more votes in MI, but lost it). And Trump also won Ohio and Florida. So, now, we have to hear about how bad the Electoral College system is, instead of how bad the two major parties are. Whining, name calling, and excuses, never solutions.
Priscilla, WELL SAID!!!! Time for us all to take a break as anything said after this is just continuing blabber. See you on the next article.
No I am saying that SCOTUS does not decide the meaning of the constitution.
SCOTUS quite badly decides how government acts – hopefully, but not always in conformance with the constitution.
The reallity is SCOTUS has lost real connection with the constitution and it is sufficiently bad, that it is not likely ever correctable.
Wickard V. Filburn was just plain wrong. It is not even a close call.
But that will never be fixed – even if every justice in their heart realizes WvF is wrong.
Because reversing would wreak havoc on government today.
Instantly the courts would have challenges to almost the entire CFR.
No court will let that happen. While on rare occasions where the impact of a prior bad decision is narrow the courts will reverse. Most court errors are forever.
Within a short period after a major bad decision is made, it can not be fixed without toppling the government.
Roberts PPACA decision is one incredibly clever bit of nonsensical fancy footwork.
The only good news is that in subsequent decisions, the “argument” that Roberts followed has failed, so his PPACA decision has no precidential value.
And your point is????????????
My point is we need to do something to make sure they stop fucking with our elections. And sloughing off the past now documented interfearance with shrugs and rationalizations that they’ve always been trying to interfere is dangerous to the national interest.
You can not stop their attempts to influence our elections.
You can stop their hacking voting machines.
With respect to all the rest of the nonsense that you are whigging out over, you can not stop it, and quite honestly I do not think you should.
That would be the same as saying Voice of America is criminal.
We want free speech, we want it world wide,.
We want it for ourselves, we must allow it for others.
Even russians.
We are also well past were our sources of information are a walled garden.
The world gets information from us
We get information from the world.
You can not stop it
and if you were wise you would not want to.
Jay. I think you are making as much headway into convincing readers on this site that the Russian involvement in our elections has not been identified, is not being addressed and something needs to be done as i am convincing readers on this site that the national debt is too high, that future generations will have a standard of living less than now due that reaching an unsustainable level and something needs to be done.
We both have said this many, many times already.
According to Brennan’s testimony Russian’s tried to hack voting machines in some precincts in 32 states, they universally failed.
This is ONE area where we really must do something.
The electronic voting machines are a bad idea.
If we are going to keep them they MUST produce a paper trail.
I do not beleive that Trump “colluded” to hack voting machines.
But if you ever prove that he did or even tried to.
That will be the end, he is done, toast, kaput.
Just to be clear, you must prove Trump or the Trump campaign sougth to hack voting machines – either directly or through russia or some other way.
Merely proving the Russians tried only means we must secure our voting machines.
Dave “The electronic voting machines are a bad idea.
If we are going to keep them they MUST produce a paper trail.”
I am not anywhere close to a computer literate person. I know how to turn them on and off and that is about it. However, someone clarify something for me.
Scenario: You have 10 voting machines in the precinct (which is like where I vote)
Each one has an inserted device that records votes (also like the one where I vote)
At the end of the day (assuming early voting), the inserted device is removed that provides some form of electronic data that is then transferred to one primary machine that summarizes the vote totals.
At the end of voting period, that summary of total votes for each candidate is called into the state office (and an electronic copy provided as a backup file) and the state reports the total vote cast as they do now.
How can these machines be hacked if they are not connected to the internet?
If they can’t be hacked, then “COMPROMISE”, use an electronic system that is not connected to the internet!
We still have electronic voting, electronic summary and faster reporting than paper ballots. Just not as fast as internet communication.
Ron,
The critical issues is not “computers”, it is a lack of transparency.
If you go to a back box to cast your vote, and you check off all your choices and leave,
and at some other point in time someone else extracts from the black box, a count of the votes,
How do you know that the tally matches the votes cast ?
There is absolutely no way to “audit” the voting.
We had a big mess in FL in 2000, but it did not explode nearly as bad as it could have.
Why ? Because every major newspaper in the country sent reporters down to FL and they counted they conducted their own audit of the votes.
They did it in The gore counties and they did it in the Bush counties, and the end result was, there was no way to count the vote that did not end up with a small Bush victory,.
A complete statewide recount would have increased Bush’s lead.
But the key issue was that the public could independently verify the vote.
With electronic voting machines there is no record that can not be electronically altered.
And that means without a trace.
There have been constant complaints regarding the electronic voting machines by people claiming their votes were changed – there is no means to verify that.
The most critical aspect of any voting system is NOT that it is “hack proof” it is that it is auditable.
All that is necescary to “fix” the computer voting machines is to have them print out a “receipt” of your vote. If it is wrong – you can ask that it be corrected.
If you accept it, then you toss it into a bin on the way out of the polls.
After the election – maybe days or weeks or months, someone can and should audit the results. That means pull the receipts, divide them by machine,
select a couple of machines randomly and compare the paper tally with the machine tally.
If any machines show an error, then audit all machines.
and call in somebody to investigate for hacking.
Though personally, I would completely get rid of all machines, and go for paper ballots.
There are myriads of ways to hack these machines – and they are often connected to networks. They are also stored and not that securely.
We have been hacking voting machines since before there were computers.
The best and first line of defense for systems like voting (not specifically the computers).
Is not to make them perfectly secure.
It is to make them perfectly auditable.
No one is going to play games with an election if they are absolutely going to get found out.
why do you care how fast the “reporting” is done ?
Most of our elections are “called” by the media, using exit polls long before the results have been tallied.
In close elections – the actual count could take a long time.
Coleman/Franken was fought out over something like 6 months – and likely wrongly decided.
Far too much of what we do regarding voting is done stupidly and can be fixed simply by looking at the problem differently.
As an example, most of the close elections recently have been inside the margin of error.
We have to get past the idea that there is a perfectly accurate count.
We can not do that.
As noted in FL we can have hanging chad, or butterfly ballots or all kinds of unclear voting.
But we can know the margin of error.
Any election that has results inside the margin of error – should have an automatic runnoff.
We do not want court fights over which ballots count.
That politicizes our courts.
We do not want to be fighting over 100 votes – when the margin of error is 2500.
Anyone with an understanding or mathematics and statistics, knows that results inside the margin of error are meaningless.
Dave “why do you care how fast the “reporting” is done ?”
I never said I did care. We could go back to hanging chads and have tables of people counting the ballots like that for all I care.
It is this generation that cares and wants instant returns. In that case, seems to me that voting machines could be stand alone and the info from each one sent by telephone and not internet once the numbers were used.
That stops all hacking.
Now if someone at the precinct takes that machine data and changes it, its the same if they replace your paper ballot with another paper ballot. Or better yet, using the Johnson method of voting he used in the early 50’s to get elected.
Most of what happens on election day is done by the media – relying heavily on exit polls.
The good news is that they are incredibly good at that.
We will have those no matter what, and most races will be called before midnight.
There is actually a very good reason to SLOW the counting/reporting process – as the votes on the east coast effect those on the west, and the election is almost always called before California, Alaska, and Hawaii vote.
Probably nothing is impossible, but I collaborated with the computer scientists doing the studies of computer voting after the 2000 election, and securing a computer based system is damn near impossible. Further, independent of whether you can actually make it secure – people have to BELEIVE it is secure. Voting is supra constitutional.
If we have no faith in the election – we have no government.
Generally we have two types of processes – open loop and closed loop.
Open loop systems require either a process that is highly tolerant of error, or absolute perfection at every step in the process.
Most of todays computer voting terminals are open loop.
What open loop means is there is no means to externally verify the processes.
All forms of paper ballots or all systems that produce paper records for each vote are closed loop.
The voter can look at their paper record and confirm that it reflects their intentions, and act if it does not. Further the existance of raw paper ballots means that no one can get away with altering the count as it is reported up the chain (that is the easiest form of voter fraud – do not mess with the ballots, change the tallies), regardless where there is a record of raw ballots, any fraud anywhere along the line can be detected at a later date (absent destruction of the ballots)
It is far easier to develop reliable closed loop systems – whether they have computers or not. No one is likely to hack the election – if they are certain to be found out.
The next big issue is error. Absolutely every measurement system has error.
We can not count 120+M votes without making lots of mistakes – it is just not possible.
But we can know what the likely error rate for a system is.
If Joe Blow beats Jane Doe using a voting technology that has a 3% error rate (that is about what punched cards are), and Joe wins by 5% – absent fraud, the election is over.
But if Joe wins by 1% when the error rate is 3% – even if that is by a million votes,
no matter how good that might sound on TV that actual result is statistically indeterminant.
The truth on FL 2000 is that Bushes margin of victory was much smaller than the error rate. There should have been no recount, no court cases, a result inside the margin of error that is never going to fall outside the margin of error no matter how many times you recount it is going to be statistically indeterminate.
And the public, lawyers and courts are not very good at understanding that you can count the ballots 30 times – and get 30 different results – and none are more legitimate than another.
When the results are inside the margin of error, there should be a runnoff.
We definitely should not politicize and corrupt our legal system and courts with recounts, and challenges. Coleman/Franken 2008 was a travesty. There were accusations of fraud all over – that is what you get when a hundred votes might tip the balance. The courts had to make decisions based on who they beleived, and you do not want a judge – who is also a democrat (or a republican) deciding something that will impact his relationship with their party. The same Year Georgia has a tight senate race and it was decided by a runoff.
BTW – I do not care if you decide elections inside the margin of error with a coin toss.
But do not pretend that 100 votes out of a million is statistically signifcant.
And do not suck the courts into making decisions inside the margins of error.
IT is destructive corrupt and stupid.
No keeping computers off the internet and transmitting tallies over the phone is not good enough – not even close.
Voting machines are stored – usually for 2 years at a time.
They are stolen, and sometimes they are hacked where they are stored.
If you xmit data over the phone – that means that someone can develop a program to impersonate a voting machine over the phone.
The last presidential election was tipped by 70,00 votes.
If someone paid me $1M I can come up with a way to beat any computerized voting system that may exist – so long as I only have to tip 70K votes out of 120M.
And assuming that I am allowed to break into storage facilities where the voting machines are stored.
The solution is not to secure the machines. It is to switch to a closed loop system – which every scheme that has a paper ballot is.
BTW if you have computers AND they produce paper receipts that are preserved, you not only close the loop on the machine, but you also have the machine closing loop on the paper. That makes that more secure than just paper ballots.
If the paper ballots and the machine tallies do not agree (within the margin of error)- you know you have a problem.
You may not know what it is or where it is, but you know that something went wrong.
Probably deliberately.
I can hack an open loop system – given enough money – and never get caught.
Hacking a closed system requires hacking both the tally and the audit trail.
I can do exactly the same hack on a closed loop system and I will get caught.
Once you know the system has been hacked, the government can spend millions of dollars trying to figure out how and by who, there will always be some
evidence somewhere.
It is probably impossible to design a system that people involved in the process can not alter a few votes here and there. that is not what we are trying to stop.
The johnson problem is is the appearance of ballot boxes with lots of votes in them that we do not know where they came from.
That problem persists today – in the Coleman/Franken fight there were several thousand ballots that “appeared” after the election. Further something had to be wrong because the polls record the number of voters and the number of votes greatly exceeded the number of voters. We also have plenty of instances where the number of votes exceeds the number of registered voters.
Anyway the means of dealing with that is to make all handling of ballot boxes take place completely in public.
Here’s a Doctor’s opinion of what worked and didn’t work:
http://www.postindependent.com/news/local/doctors-tip-what-obamacare-did-and-didnt-do/
There were and are many doctors who have criticized and praised different elements of Obamacare; there’s a difference of opinion on it. and don’t tell me, and by extension those with more positive views than your prejudiced partisan negativity, we don’t know what we’re talking about. You’re the one with a worn out mindset.
I want doctors responding to makers – ie the wants and needs of their patients.
I do not care much about what ANYONE in a regulated fake market thinks about government.
I do not want consumers or producers thinking about government.
I want producers thinking about the wants and needs of consumers.
You are correct that politics controls far too many decisions.
And that is why I am libertarian – because congress, the president, and and SCOTUS should not be making decisions for me.
The most fundimental error made in most of the discussions here, is the implicit without thought presumption that something is a problem for government.
Most of what government does are things that it should not.
https://fee.org/media/24784/5x5p4187z3lz-2.jpg?width=600&height=566.6666666666667
Intellectual inconsistancy – contra the title some examples are from the right.
https://fee.org/articles/12-venn-diagrams-that-show-the-intellectual-inconsistency-of-the-left/
How modern socialism – like free healthcare for all, can destory a modern affluent state.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/21/want-medicare-get-used-eating-rabbit-now/
And there was a special prosecutor to investigate why this nutbar who was NOT covert at the time was outed ?
http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/21/leftist-darling-valerie-plame-bit-anti-semite/#.WcQLftFRaL0.twitter
Poll on regulators.
Here is the RCP polling data on OCare since January. Right around inauguration day Ocare went into the black, approval. Previously it was in the red.
Of those who disapprove there are 3 groups. One wants no such thing at all as Ocare, one wants something less encompassing and one group disapproves because they believe that it did not go Far Enough.
Ocare was not a compromise in the way it was put into being but it may be a compromise in terms of some think its to much, some think its too little and some approve of it.
It is a “solution” in the sense of being one possible answer to the issue of uninsurables.
I suspect that doing it in or letting it fail will be unpopular choices with a political cost.
RCP Average 6/17 – 8/29 — 46.3 41.3 For/Favor +5.0
FOX News 8/27 – 8/29 1006 RV 49 48 For/Favor +1
PPP (D) 8/18 – 8/21 887 RV 45 36 For/Favor +9
Economist/YouGov 7/31 – 8/1 1329 RV 50 43 For/Favor +7
Economist/YouGov 7/23 – 7/25 1282 RV 45 47 Against/Oppose +2
PPP (D) 7/14 – 7/17 836 RV 43 40 For/Favor +3
Economist/YouGov 7/3 – 7/4 1323 RV 48 46 For/Favor +2
FOX News 6/25 – 6/27 1017 RV 52 46 For/Favor +6
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 6/17 – 6/20 900 A 41 38 For/Favor +3
PPP (D) 6/9 – 6/11 811 RV 44 38 For/Favor +6
PPP (D) 5/12 – 5/14 692 RV 44 37 For/Favor +7
CNN/ORC 4/22 – 4/25 RV 49 47 For/Favor +2
PPP (D) 4/17 – 4/18 648 RV 47 31 For/Favor +16
Gallup 4/1 – 4/2 1023 A 55 41 For/Favor +14
PPP (D) 3/27 – 3/28 677 RV 52 37 For/Favor +15
CBS News 3/25 – 3/28 1088 A 49 45 For/Favor +4
FOX News 3/12 – 3/14 1008 RV 50 47 For/Favor +3
PPP (D) 3/10 – 3/12 808 RV 47 39 For/Favor +8
CNN/ORC 3/1 – 3/4 1025 A 46 49 Against/Oppose +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 2/18 – 2/22 1000 A 43 41 For/Favor +2
PPP (D) 2/21 – 2/22 941 RV 50 38 For/Favor +12
Pew Research 2/7 – 2/12 1503 A 54 43 For/Favor +11
PPP (D) 2/7 – 2/8 712 RV 47 39 For/Favor +8
PPP (D) 1/30 – 1/31 725 RV 46 41 For/Favor +5
PPP (D) 1/23 – 1/24 1043 RV 45 41 For/Favor +4
FOX News 1/15 – 1/18 1006 RV 50 46 For/Favor +4
CBS News 1/13 – 1/16 1257 A 48 47 For/Favor +1
CNN/ORC 1/12 – 1/15 1000 A 49 47 For/Favor +2
And hitler won the 1938 plebecite with 80% of the vote, and Trump has picked 6 points in the past 4 weeks, and head to head thumps clinton far worse than last nov.
and ….
Of some 30 polls you cite only 2 have PPACA with an actual majority.
It required 60 votes to pass the Senate – not 51.
Which SHOULD mean anything over 40 votes against TODAY should repeal it.
We are not supposed to be carving government into granite.
Any govenrment program or law that can not MAINTAIN supermajority support should be repealed.
I read today that Tim Kaine, our would-have-been VP, wrote (or tweeted, I’m not sure which) something about Obamacare that indicated that he believed that employer-paid group healthcare plans were part of the OCare exchanges, a statement that is entirely incorrect. Kaine, a sitting senator, apparently does not know the difference between an Obamacare exchange policy and an employer-provided group policy.
It occurred to me that, if Kaine is ignorant of the fact that the Obamacare exchanges are only for those people who do not get their health insurance through their employers, there are surely many others who are similarly ignorant. This could definitely influence the way people perceive Obamacare, and how they answer poll questions about it. If they have employer-provided plans, possibly paid, or partially paid, by their employers, that they are satisfied with , they are probably be more likely to say that OCare is ok.
The OCare exchanges are for the individual insurance market, that is, people who are unemployed, employed part time, or who work for small businesses that do not provide group plans. Those are the people who are suffering most under the ACA, because, if they don’t qualify for subsidies (or if they only qualify for small subsidies), the cost of even a bronze plan ~ the lowest coverage, with the highest deductibles~ is often more than they can realistically afford. And if they are below a certain income, they are forced into Medicaid, whether they want it or not.
I think that when we’re talking about Obamacare, we should keep in mind that, if the man who ran to be a heartbeat away from the presidency does not understand this, it’s fairly likely that millions of other people don’t either…. I’d be willing to bet that Jimmy Kimmel is one of them 😉
(Anyway, I’m going to take Ron’s suggestion and take a break until Rick’s next column ~ 1500 comments is enough for this one)
One of the links I provided recently – I think the FEE article on Trump defiling the sancturary, noted that the skills needed to get elected are POLITICAL skills.
They are not policy skills.
Politicians are often incredibly ignorant about things ordinary people have little difficulty with. That does not make them stupid. It just means that what they are good at is politics.
That is another reason why getting elected should disqualify you from public office.
The skills needed to get elected are exactly the ones we do NOT want in politicians.
Johnson infamously blundered through the Vietnam War, because he tried to use his political skills to fight a war. He was famous for controling the war down to which bridges to destroy – trying to “send a message” that was not being received.
Kaine is wrong, Kimmel is wrong, sometimes I am wrong, we are all wrong on occasion.
I would refer you to the link I just posted to Ilya Somin from Wapo/Volohk arguing that our ignorance requires us to be libertarian.
The most common argument here is – there is a problem government must fix it.
That is so ingrained in us, we do not even think about it. We do not consider any other possible option. We do not stop for a second and say – are there other ways.
Further, not only do we demand that government fix it, but we explicitly demand another law or regulation. We seem to think that laws are magical – pass another law and everyone will do as the law directs and nothing bad will ever happen again.
Yet, everyday laws are broken, so clearly laws do not “fix it”, at best they allow us to punish wrong doers. Further, many here seem to want to pass laws against the laws of nature – we want to legislate Hurricane’s out of existence, the planet cooler, cancer to be cured, and accidents never to happen. We want control where control does not exist and we pretend that government has that power. Government can not give us control of the uncontrollable.
We are so fixated on government and law and regulation as the answer to every problem that we do not even ask if there are already laws against that.
We are so upset the a person would beat there spouse – that we demand a law – but assaulting others is already illegal. A pimply teen at Jack-in-the-box undercooks some burgers and several customers get sick – maybe badly – and we must have a law against that. Never mind that there are already laws against criminal negligence. Never mind that if the negligence is not criminal – then we should not now criminalize it. Never mind that we have torts to punish people for negligent harms to others. Still we must have another law.
Jimmy Kimmel does not seem to understand that his child’s birth defect is not a “pre-existing condition”, and would have been covered for most everyone who was insured before PPACA, and would have been covered – before and after for anyone who was too poor for insurance.
Even our congressmen do not understand the laws they pass – the speaker of the house, tells us we must pass the legislation before we can read it. And even if they did read it they probably would not understand what they themselves wrote.
Most of the posters here, do not understand that PPACA did nothing for healthcare and next to nothing otherwise, except redistribute wealth to insurance companies.
The laws of supply and demand are immutable. ObamaCare did not change the supply of healthcare, it changed the supply of health insurance. The laws of supply and demand say that if you increase demand without a change in supply – either prices will rise or one way or the other supply will be rationed.
The supply of physicians since 2000.
Given that the number of physicians has been fairly constant – actually dropping significantly after PPACA passed, why would anyone beleive that we have delivered more healthcare ?
We have spent alot more money for the same healthcare as we had before.
At best – like communists we have redistributed healthcare so that some who used to get more, now get less and some who used to get less now get more.
But we self evidently did not increase the amount of healthcare.
But we did increase the cost.
We need to let go of the hubris, the false assumption that the law, government can really change much of anything.
The product government produces is force. That is its ONLY product.
It does not produce healthcare. It does not produce food, It does not produce cars.
More govenrment means more force. That is all it means. Because that is all govenrment produces. More government means we are less free.
Given that all of us, myself included are wrong so often – why should we be rushing to increase the force to do things – we are probably wrong about ?
I would not trust myself to run the world, why would I trust someone else ?
Nope. Another simple-minded factually wrong piece of libertarian propaganda, a fairy tale.
“The US federal government imposed the first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War – (3% of all incomes over US$800) (equivalent to $21,324 in 2016).[11][verification needed] This tax was repealed and replaced by another income tax in 1862.[12][verification needed] It was only in 1894 that the first peacetime income tax was passed through the Wilson-Gorman tariff. The rate was 2% on income over $4000 (equivalent to $110,723.08 in 2016), which meant fewer than 10% of households would pay any. The purpose of the income tax was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions.[13] ”
Tariffs and excise taxes were the largest sources of US Federal revenue prior to the real advent of the income tax in earnest in 1913. We still had to pay for our public life.
1913. Roads hardly existed in the modern sense. Schools and colleges were a far more modest system with a much smaller set of goals. WWI and II and the Communist revolutions had not occurred. Build a time machine and return to the glorious imaginary tax free world of 1913. Please.
Not a fairy tale – aside from two brief periods of very low income taxes which were subsequently declared unconstitutional, for our first over 100 years we had no income tax, and for more than 150 years the cost of the federal government outside of periods of war was about 3% of GDP.
Even today – infrastructure is paid for by excise taxes on gasoline, and schools are paid for by local govenrment.
Libertarianism is the answer to voter ignorance – from WaPo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/20/how-political-ignorance-strengthens-the-case-for-libertarianism/?utm_term=.fd86bd52e731
Every dollar of local taxes levied against businesses, reduces wages by 0.43
I think this is an excellent article. I think it extremely accurately portray’s my relationship to Jay and Ron with respect to Trump.
Every criticism of Trump is spot on.
I think Tucker also gets Jay and Roby.
The left hates Trump for the same reason that colleges and universities are flipping out and going violent over conservative and libertarian speakers.
Trump is shitting in the catherderal of the state.
The speakers are shitting in the catherderal of academia.
The left is fighting blasphemy in the church. Heathens have come in and are pissing all over the sacred vestments.
https://fee.org/articles/trump-defiles-the-sanctity-of-government-and-it-drives-the-center-left-mad/
“Trump is shitting in the catherderal of the state.
The speakers are shitting in the catherderal of academia.
The left is fighting blasphemy in the church. Heathens have come in and are pissing all over the sacred vestments.”
Enjoy your ecstasy of right wing shitting and pissing on the state and academia while it lasts. Ha, you left out shitting and pissing on the dreaded press and media.
I think that you have inadvertently described your goal here at TNM perfectly. Its your little part of the larger right-wing shitting and pissing campaign. This is the chance of your lifetime to be your true libertarian self and shit and piss all over the place at TNM. Its an ugly image. It suits you.
In 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, etc. we will see how well that shitting and pissing worked out for you right wing nuts. I doubt you will be so ecstatic when the results of your shitting and pissing experiment come in over time. All the targets will survive and wipe your crap off. trump (and you and Hannity, Coulter, Bannon, and Yianopoulos etc.) will be just an ugly episode that passed leaving a cautionary tale about right-wing idiot shitters.
Seriously, history will shit back on you nuts.
The income tax exists, the New Deal exists and is Constitutional, the US military exists, environmental regulations exist. The modern state exists and it is not going anywhere unless nukes or climate change or a true civil war knock our civilization over. All of these modern manifestations of US government are not going away. For better or worse the US path was chosen in 1913 with the 16th amendment or perhaps much earlier with the Monroe doctrine. The US was going to be a huge complex powerful country with a large powerful complicated government. You want a completely different world than what is. You will never get your naive fantasy world. Your only way to get even is by gleefully taking part in this idiot shitting campaign.
You will go ranting to your grave without getting this, but… There really is no dignity or victory in shitting in public.
The Divisive Dufus needs to be removed!
News photos showing him escorted out of the White House in a Straightjacket will start the heeling process.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/352114-poll-two-thirds-say-trump-has-done-more-to-divide-than-unite-us
Trump is not what divides us.
The largest dividing factor in this country today is the left’s inability to accept that the majority of the country rejected them. That result was inevitable.
If not in 2016 then soon enough. If not Trump, someone else.
The division is NOT over Trump. It is over the leftist religion of government.
things resemble the pre-civil war period – because they are much like the pre-civil war period – the left seeks slavery and the rest of us seek freedom.
Ultimately the elitist slavers will lose.
If we are fortunate they will cede power without violence.
It’s stupid crap like this that makes it impossible to discuss anything with a scatterbrain like you:
“The largest dividing factor in this country today is the left’s inability to accept that the majority of the country rejected them. That result was inevitable.
If not in 2016 then soon enough. If not Trump, someone else.”
The majority of the nation voted FOR Lefty Hillary.
The majority of the nation NOW wants tRump out of office.
I’d provide recent links but you bore me – like talking to a phonograph record from the 1950s
“It’s stupid crap like this that makes it impossible to discuss anything with a scatterbrain like you:”
Try a mirror
Did not say the majority voted for Trump, I said the majority REJECTED the left.
True in most any way you measure it. Are you saying libertarian voters ENDORSED the left ?
Further even if it were not literally true – which it is, you still have 10’s of millions of people saying no you can not further infringe on their rights – you have a huge problem.
You may not infringe on one persons rights, you certainly can not infringe on tens of millions.
But you are clueless.
No the majority do not support impeachment, even a plurality do not.
Less than 43% want the house to consider impeachment.
Further the split is incredibly partisan – 71% of democrats, 15% of republicans a bit over 30% of independents.
Further, support peaked after Comey was fired, and then again after Charlottesville,
and dwindles after. I am sure Trump will do something else to piss the left off soon enough.
You live in a bubble.
The nation is divided – you divided it.
You have made the price of coming together getting your way on everything.
We will remain divided, because no one is paying the price for dealing with you.
You haven’t a clue what the majority of Americans think about divisive tRumpsky.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/352114-poll-two-thirds-say-trump-has-done-more-to-divide-than-unite-us
You really are delusional.
We are divided because the left is incapable of accepting that they no longer rule the world.
You claim this is about Trump – but you would not be happy if we had President Cruz doing much of what President Trump is.
Regardless, Trump rather than Cruz, or Kaisich or …. was actually elected for a reason.
A reason that predates Trump. And that is building anger with the left.
Read the FEE article, it is very close to what I beleive.
I oppose many of Trump’s policies, I did not vote for him and he is no hero to me.
But I am not apoplectic that he won. In fact I am happy that Clinton lost.
There is a very large minority that actually supports Trump.
They are larger than the minority that frothing at the mouth opposes Trump.
Most of us fall into the middle. Most of those are not happy with Trump AND not happy with the left.
Maybe you will impeach Trump. It does not matter much, the anger at the left is not going away. The left is incapable of understanding that, understanding why it lost, and understanding that irrespective of Trump, the left must change or we will remain divided – possibly violently divided.
Trump is the symbol of your problems, he is not the actual problem.
I would note that Trump pivoted left on several major issues more recently,
It accomplished absolutely nothing with respect to calming those of you on the left down.
I do not know what his strategy is, but he has actually proven than you are rabid.
That your frothing at the mouth is because he represents a heretical threat to your religion.
Your religion is dead Trump or no Trump.
I stopped back in to see if there was a lively discussion of the NFL controversy going on. Instead, I end up reading a foul, unhinged, and hateful rant against conservatives and Trump supporters. I expect as much from Jay, not from the commenter formerly known as Roby. Perhaps he was trying to win a contest to see who could use the most scatological terminology in a single comment?
Dave, I don’t always agree with you, nor you with me, but I have never known you to use foul invective against anyone here, despite being the target of it on multiple occasions. Even if I never agreed with you, I would respect the dignity and doggedness with which you argue your positions using facts rather than abusive language.
I suppose it makes more sense to not pop in here again, until there is a new column to discuss. When Rick and Ron are around, our “tolerant” left-leaning “moderates” seem to behave themselves a bit better….
I support:
the players protesting,
the owners chosing to fire the players or not
the fans supporting or opposing the players
Trump bitching about the players.
The Jeffrey Tucker FEE article noting that Trump is violating left taboo’s, descreating the left’s sacred spaces, really connected with me.
Tucker BTW is anarcho-capitalist – that would be more extreme normally than you think I am.
Regardless, he nailed this.
I am not happy about Trump, I was not happy about Obama.
I am just not a Trump supporter, too many of us positions are wrong,
But I have not had a president that I fully agreed with in my lifetime.
IF he does not start a trade war or a nuclear war, and manages to get government a little out of the way of the economy, I will be happy. Not perfectly happy, not dancing in the streets happy. I will still have plenty about Trump to complain about.
But to ma he is just another president. One I still hope will be on NET better than the last two, but grasp that he might not.
He is not Hitler, he is not the boogey man, he is not the devil incarnate.
He is not the end of the nation. He is unlikely to harm the nation as a whole more than the last two presidents, and it is possible he could be better.
In otherwords he is not a reason to storm the bastille.
Yet, the left is storming the bastille.
And Roby and Jay are too.
Overall, I do not think Jay and Roby are “far left”.
But their frothing vitriole makes it clear how homogenous the left is.
The distance between Jay and Roby and Antifa is not that great.
I do not think that either Jay or Roby have much understanding of left ideology.
I do not think they have a clue what post modernism and neo-marxism are.
I think they are certain those are not their own ideology.
But they and millions of others on the left are being drug along by exactly those nihilist ideologies – whether they are cognizant of it or not.
I look at all that has come out about the 2016 election – and my response is “my god the obama administration is far more corrupt than I thought”. Nixon was impeached over an attempt to bug the DNC. The Obama administration was heavily engaged in spying on their political opponents. It remains to be established whether Trump was personally wiretapped. But his campaign was – multiple times, and multiple people. Further this mass unmasking of political opponents is also spying and also illegal and improper.
Think of how it would come off is David Axlerod had been wiretapped by Bush,
or if much of the bush administration was watching who Obama’s campaign met with and talked too. As I said this is exactly what Nixon had to resign over.
Yet we are fixated on Russia/Trump which remains a nothing burger.
Wow, something like one trillionth of Facebook ads MIGHT have been from Russians and they MIGHT have been working for Putin, and of course though the adds were not actually for Trump – they were dog-whistles – I never quite get that claim. Dog whistles are suppose to be out of the ability of others to hear. Yet, purported conservative dog whistles only make leftists froth at the mouth.
The entire left – including so called left moderates like Jay and Roby are drooling in anticipation of something that will rid them of Trump.
Trump must go!!! Because what ? If you beleive he is a bad president – we have had myriads of those.
This nation has lots of problems. Trump did not make them.
Trump did not create the mess in the mideast,
He is not responsible for the troubles of europe, or asia, he did not make the mess that is our economy, nor the mess that is obamacare, nor the growing criplling debt of the country. He did not cause our immigration issues.
Ultimately he will bear responsibility for his dealing with those issues during his presidency
but even if he handles all of these badly – he will not likely prove worse than Obama or Bush.
There is alot to not like about Trump. There is not anything yet to storm the bastille over.
Those preparing to storm the bastille – are their own problem, and their own enemy.
A Conservative Christian’s response to the Anthem kneeling controversy:
https://twitter.com/_political_p/status/911693980756271105
1/ I’m a conservative Christian & I’m kneeling for nat anthem tomorrow. Let me explain why: I love the men and women of the military a lot.
2/ The military fights our wars, does things we’re not trained, equipped or brave enough to do. They do this to preserve freedom & liberty.
3/Free speech means you may not like some of it. It pisses some folks off an athlete (some cuz it’s a black athlete) kneels during anthem.
4/But sometimes u have 2 shock the system. Same people who voted for idiot to shock system don’t want same with anthem? Like flag upsidedown
5/players are doing something shocking to say this is important, this is worth it & we are under duress. So I’ll kneel for different reason.
6/ I’ll kneel because POTUS attacked private citizens for doing something well within their rights for a cause they think is important.
7/ Don’t fool yourself he did it in the south at an Alabama rally to appeal to the populist ignorance that constituency feeds on. #UBum
8/This fucker is so reckless with his words & Twitter. He’s just shitting everywhere – It’s the most gratuitous thing I’ve ever seen.
—————
Get it Pricilla? – It’s not only those left of altRight who tRump incites to profanity. He’s evoked profound disgust among a wide spectrum of Americans who find him dangerously offensive.
I know that you do not get republican geography, but many evangelicals are on the left on many issues.
Regardless, this mess started before Trump.
If you are kneeling during the anthem to protest Trump – you are a bit confused.
At the same time you are free to.
You are free to be upset that Trump is president.
Still it happened. And it did because voters disagreed with you.
And they likely would have disagreed – had the choice not been Trump.
We repeat the endless Hillary explanation tours and the lunatic investigations, because you do not accept what happened.
You have said that Trump managed this by artifice – because if things had been slightly different some other republican would have won.
That does not matter.
The majority of voters voters against the left.
If Trump was so abysmal – then that would have been LARGER with another candidate.
Priscilla, I too am checking comments since my e-mail allows me to read them, or delete them without reading based on the first sentence or two. Yours I decided to comment on and hopefully it will post it in the first few tries.
I think there are many like myself that find the politicization of sports in this manner repulsive. I can not turn on a radio or TV sports program without this being the main topic of discussion. So I have stopped watching or listening to those. Like Dave will comment in his next dissertation, that is my right and I am exercising that right. I also believe there are many like myself that are no longer watching the NFL games. That also is my right.
I do that because I find this action by the players to be a slap in the face of anyone who has died defending their right to protest. The flag and the anthem are a symbol of democracy. It is not like the confederate statues that were symbols of slavery to many. When 405,000 died in WW2, 37,000 in Korea, 58,000 in Vietnam, 2400 in Afghanistan and 4600 in Iraq, they died defending democracy and freedom. They died defending the flag and antem that are symbols of that freedom.
I do not see these players spending much of their own money on efforts to bring their problems to the public attention. Heaven knows they have all the money they need to buy hours of advertising on TV and spread their word. Lord knows there are some who have enough to start their own cable TV station that concentrates on racism. I don’t see them working in constructive ways to find solutions to their problems with police. They may be doing that, but their message is not getting out.
We will see where this all ends up. If I were an NFL owner, Kaeperneck would never be on my team. He screwed the goose when he promoted Castro, wearing the Castro shirt with the words “like minds think alike”. He talks about and kneels because the blacks are a victim of racism, but then supports a dictator that had the most repressive regime for years. And if I were an NFL owner, I would fix the problem with kneeling during the NFL by directing my coach that our players will not enter the field until that pregame ceremonies were completed.
So now, back to reading a book and listening to music, escaping the non-stop political crap on almost any media device turn on.
So the nation is divided. But contra Jay, Trump is not what has divided us.
Trump is just the bullhorn that echos what many of us are thinking or saying quietly.
I support the right of Nazi’s to protest.
I support the right of people to peacefully protest Nazi’s.
Those who are not standing for the national anthem have every right not to do so,
and those of us who are unhappy have every right to be angry about that.
I would further say that meaningful protest involves risk.
If those who will not stand for the anthem, are at no risk, they are making no statement.
Civil Rights protestors risked everything.
These guys risk nothing to protest against a country that has made them rich.
Thought I addressed the “risk factor” when I wrote a paragraph that started “I do not see these players spending much of their own money on efforts to bring their problems to the public attention.”
But then I also posted a link to an article about the NFL getting paid to have their players attend the playing of the anthem. (Yes that’s their RIGHT, I know!)
So the players are slapping me in the face (I served, but not in a war zone) along with everyone else that defended their f’ing right to protest. I view the flag and anthem as symbols of democracy and freedom. Now I learn the owners have been bought off and all of them are silent for the most part. So I am exercising my right to watch something else on TV. Maybe enough people will not watch and they will have to return more than their crappy $12.1 million because their viewer ratings are too low to fulfill their contractual agreement of a given level of TV viewership.
And before anyone spouts off and ask me what I think about racism, division and the piss poor treatment of minorities, I agree completely that this country is racist, we have a racist president (that I did not vote for), that we have only been more divided in the late 60’s and early 70’s with the equal rights movement and the Vietnam war and that young black males are treated much worse than the same age white kid in the same city, wherever that may be. But Dr. King had a movement that worked in a positive way. These overpaid brats that have done nothing in their lives other than carry a football have done nothing positive for their movement. They need to read some history about Dr. King and learn how to make a difference.
Thank you for serving.
Humans are tribal, Racism will never cease. We will always favor those more like us.
Unless you are arguing that the entire world should receive US wealfare – you are racist.
All that said, we have a spike at the moment in anger over racism from the left, but no actual spike in racism which has been declining for decades.
Most though not all the problems attributed to racism today – aren’t.
There are just not nearly the murders per capita in the hampton’s as in the south side of chicago.
Look at income, and future prospects, by education, family formation, age of first children, and similar values – and there is no difference between races in the US.
Poor badly educated whites from broken families who have kids in their teens have no brighter a future than similar blacks and hispanics.
You noted the military. The army turned Colin Powell arround. I have many friends of different races that have built a better future for themselves by joining the military.
I have one black female friend who had a child as a teen, joined the army and now has a successful grown child, worked in the whitehouse several years and now has a 6 figure salary.
If you have an IQ over 80 and a high school diploma or a GED the military will take you.
I am not pretending we do not have problems – including ones of racism.
But racism is not our most important problem today.
It is not our 10th most important problem today.
As I said before.
I have no problem with the players protesting.
The fans upset with the players,
The owners – upset with the players or the president or taking money from the military or not.
The president expressing himself on an issue that has been overtly political for decades.
Mostly I am staying out of it.
It is a tempest in a teapot in my opinion.
And the best thing to do is actually ignore it all.
Ron, maybe you feel different, maybe you agree, the same with the rest here.
That is OK.
There is only one thing I care about in this issue, that the power of govenrment remains uninvolved.
Trump can tweet what he pleases. but beyond his own free expression, he should stay out.
Just as government should stay out of all hiring and firing, and the excercise of personal choices.
Priscilla, In quotes on top of my post was Dave’s offering:
“Trump is shitting in the catherderal of the state.
The speakers are shitting in the catherderal of academia.
The left is fighting blasphemy in the church. Heathens have come in and are pissing all over the sacred vestments.”
Not Mine, Dave”s. Get it? Your innocent Dave the mild. Nor is it the first time he has posted this particular wording, its the third of fourth time. This time I responded in kind.
You are hypersensitive to slights against conservatives and can’t hear slights BY conservatives to save your life. Sort of like Dave has never heard trump lie. You two make a great pair.
You have complete and utter blinders on to the ugliness that comes from the right.
Roby;
Is the metaphor wrong ?
Every day I read a dozen posts from you or Jay that roughly translate to
“trump is shitting in the catherdeal”
Are you saying that is not true ?
Are you saying that Trump is not disrespecting values that you hold dear ?
My remark is neither innocent nor guilty.
I offer it as a metaphorical observation reflecting what is occuring and why it has the left upset.
Frankly, I would think you would agree with it. Then the debate shifts to, does the cathedral Trump is shitting in have value ?
Further you again demonstrate the shallowness of your logic.
You seem to think I have insulted you by noting that Trump has insulted your values.
You take criticism of your cathederal as personal insult.
You are arguing that no one can argue with you, because noting that you are wrong is on its face insulting.
This is the same error you make when you think calling people hateful, hating haters shows that you are tolerant.
You are incapable of seeing yourself in the mirror.
You are incapable of distinguishing between insulting a person and insulting bad ideas.
you conflate the criticism of your ideas (it is perfectly acceptable for you to criticism those of others), with violence and personal insult.
I think you are deeply in a bubble, horribly naive, and incredibly hypocritical.
All of those are personal insults – but each of them is also self evident.
You are unbeleivably narciscistic.
I do criticise you personally on occasion. Probably more than I should if I wish to be effective – but far less than you deserve.
But mostly I criticise your ideas, your principles, your values, your beleifs.
I do so sometimes brutally – people have rights. Ideas do not.
If your ideas can not stand up to attack, then they are worthless.
It is not ugliness to criticise ideas – particularly bad ones.
I do not have a problem with your doing the same back.
I expect you to.
I expect you to vigorously defend your ideas – with facts, logic and reason.
I expect you to attack my ideas – with facts logic and reason.
That is what debate is.
That is the crucible in which we test ideas, values, principles.
You are not defending yours, you are not really attacking mine.
I do not care so much about the insults and fallacies.
as the complete absence of argument.
I do not care about the hyperbole – but I do on occasion point out that if you remove the hyperbole, there is nothing left.
The loathesome man walked viley down the road – says nothing more than some man walked down the road and you do not like him.
I sprinkle my arguments with hyperbole sometimes, but there is still an argument when you strip the hyperbole away.
The key problem is not that you use fallacy and hyperbole.
It is that there is nothing else there.
That means either:
You do not understand your own position
or your position is not defendable.
“Get it Pricilla? – It’s not only those left of altRight who tRump incites to profanity. He’s evoked profound disgust among a wide spectrum of Americans who find him dangerously offensive.”
Not to pile on, but I’m gonna pile on. She won’t get it. Entirely selective in perceiving offence and wrong.
Selective ? How So ?
Trump did win didn’t he ? More importantly Hillary and the left inarguably lost.
Are you saying you accept that ?
If so, then what has the past nearly year of ranting from the left been all about ?
Yes, Roby, we know that in left world only the left can be offended, and only the left can be wronged. We know that truth that hurts your feelings is error.
Mythical damage to something non-existant.
The only people engaged in violence are those on the left.
Nazi’s marching is not the end of the world, it even happens in sweden, it has happened before – quite often.
What is actually worse since Trump has been elected ?
Yes, those on the left are pouting because they have not gotten their way.
They are stomping their feet and threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue.
We all are worried about North Korea – but that problem was caused by others.
And no one knows the answer. I will accept complaints that Trump is handling NK badly – when someone can argue compellingly that there is a good way.
I can not think of some measureable criteria by which we are worse off than a year ago, and several ways we are better today.
Does the word “Divisive” ring a bell?
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/352145-houston-texans-owner-trumps-comments-divisive-and-counterproductive
We are not divided because of Trump. We are and were divided long before Trump.
Are you saying that Clinton, Bush or Obama “healed” the country – brought us back together ?
I do not think this particular issue is worth the time wasted on it.
I also think that owners do have a problem – not because of Trump, but because this is pissing off football fans.
It does nto take too many fans choosing not to come to a game before owners take note.
Players and owners have alot of power. But the fans have the ultimate power.
Not Trump, not the owners, not the players.
Regardless, it is still not Trump creating the divisions.
Even those players who are protesting – are protesting against divisions that predate Trump. CK did not start this after election day 2016.
Puerto Rico is in ruin, but #DotardDonard is eerily silent about the devastation.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/24/americas/hurricane-maria-puerto-rico-aftermath/index.html
If Clinton was president (or anyone one else sane) massive help would already be on the way.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/352175-clinton-trump-should-send-us-forces-to-help-puerto-rico
Maybe the Israelis can help:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-rescue-team-applauded-in-the-streets-of-mexico/
Or maybe you can.
I am really not much interested in the hypocritical complaints of people who will not get up off their own buts to help.
If you do not care enough to do something yourself – fine. But then you do not get to complain about others.
My wife is telling me I’m wrong and that the US is already providing lifesaving aid to Puerto Rico: bottled water, food, electric generators, beds, temp shelter.
I just hope recipients don’t have to stand during the National Anthem to receive aid.
Of course you are wrong.
Puerto Rico is part of the US. If Puerto Rico is helping itself, then the US is helping Puerto Rico.
Bzzt, Wrong. If Clinton were president massive amounts of money would be greasing palms. And as with Katrina – a hundred Billion spent and nothing to show for it.
You seem to think money is the solution to all problems.
“If Puerto Rico is helping itself, then the US is helping Puerto Rico.”
Right- If drowning passengers on an airplane that crashed off the coast of California are helping each other, then there’s no need for the US Military stationed nearby to help, as Americans are already helping Americans.
Are you from Planet of the Dopes?
When ever have passengers in an airliner that crashed into the ocean been rescued.
Short of an aircraft running off the end of a runway into wet muck, people do not survive airliners crashing in the ocean.
Further if you are actually drowning – rescuers have at most 10 minutes, or you are dead.
I am from reality, where we do not convert personal moral values and duties into collective ones enslaving others, to satisfy personal preferences.
Wrong again, Discombobulated Dave:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_6
Briefly I thought I would have to apolgize because you found a 75 year old counter example. I was going to note that we fly jets today,
But then I noted that this was not a crash followed by a search and rescue.
This plane did not crash. It ditched.
This plane sought out an appropriate place to land in the ocean.
In a controlled ocean landing the plane sunk within 15 minutes of landing.
We have lost myriads of planes over the ocean since our first flight.
The rescue of military pilots who ditch or bail out is rare.
The rescue of passengers in an airliners are almost non-existant.
There is no reason to devote billions of resources to address something that almost never happens.
It was my understanding that nature pissed all over Puerto Rico – not Donald Trump.
Further they were in abysmal shape before hand. They are bankrupt.
If you are concerned about PR – I am sure you can go down and help.
You are truly a Buffoon.
A destructive storm has decimated Puerto Rico.
And you’re sympathetic to tRump ignoring that devastation because they’re bankrupt?
Mexico just had an earthquake should Trump demand aide for Mexico and head there to tour the carnage ?
Trump should do his job as president. I would have prefered he stayed away from Houston too.
Regardless, Puerto Rico’s problems need no federal assistance.
BTW, I opposed the huricane aide to Houston also.
Let things take their course. The Federal money for Katrina nearly all ended up wasted.
Money is not the solution to all problems. Nor is government.
If you are desparate to help in PR – I am sure they will appreciate you coming down to do so.
Your ranting about PR is merely a symptom of your hypocrisy – unless you are headed down to help yourself.
There is no merit in stealing from Bill to help Jose.
Mexico is a neighbor nation; civilized neighbor nations should help each other when disasters strike.
Puerto Rico is a US territory with 3+million US citizens; nations are MORALLY obligated to help their own citizens when disasters strike.
That you actually believe the federal resources of our government shouldn’t be used to help our own citizens after natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, speaks volumes of your own obtuseness… by your idiotic STUPID reasoning, the US Coast Guard should not be employed to rescue shipwrecked passengers on a sinking ocean liner.
The only moral obligations that exist regarding either Mexico or Puerto Rico are INDIVIDUAL. All morality is individual.
The only obligations that bind a nation are to secure the rights of its people.
There is no collective obligation of a nation to mitigate a natural disaster.
Nations have no moral obligations or duties, they have specific social contract obligations.
Nowhere in the social contract are there and positive obligations to mitigate natural disasters. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention natural disasters.
Governments are not free to pillage their own people to do what some even a majority deem as good. That is slavery – and that is immoral.
They can be no binding positive moral obligations – individual or collective as they are beyond our ability to satisfy.
There are not “federal resources” that are not what has been taken from people.
In point of fact there actually are no federal resources at all.
Anything that we send to Houston, or Puerto Rico will have to be borrowed.
And that means our children with have to pay it back.
Again you are personally free to go to mexico or puerto rico.
You are not free to steal from Bill to help Jose.
I am not sure there is a legitimate reason for the coast guard to exist.
Regardless, rescue was not part of the charter for the original coast guard “revenue cutters”.
Rescue at sea is an obligation that seaman impose on themselves. It is highly unlikely that a coast guard cutter is going to rescue a sinking ocean liner – collisions with other vessels or icebergs that result in sinkings usually occur outside territorial waters.
Or they did when the limits were the rational 3 mi limit of most of history.
Once again you seek to make the personal collective.
Your personal moral obligations and duties rest on you and you alone.
You can not impose them on others, certainly not by force.
If you beleive that those in Puerto Rico need your help – help them.
There are people accross the world in need of help for myriads of reasons.
It is outside your individual ability to help all in need.
It is outside of our national ability
It is outside the resources of the entire world to help all.
Helping others is an individual choice.
Your argument is an open admission that the nation is your slaves.
That your individual choice to help Puerto Rico binds all of us.
There are many in this country now who have far stronger ties to mexico, who feel more strongly about helping those in mexico.
That too is why helping others is an individual choice.
Priscilla, this puts a whole new light on Goodell’s comment concerning Trumps comment. AND!!!!!! Why complete silence from owners. $12.1 million buys alot of silence.
http://dailysnark.com/nfl-teams-didnt-stand-national-anthem-2009/
The amounts of money are quite small – less than CK’s contract.
The article is interesting – but not especially meaningful.
The article noted that this is something that fans want.
I was on the football Team in my high school for 3 years (statistician for 3, and manager for 1).
that was from 1972-1976. During that time no one, not a player, not a fan sat for the national anthem. And that was at the tail end of the vietnam war.
People are free to protest.
In 1968 Tommie Smith and John Carlos gave the black power salute from the olympic podium after winning gold and bronze. Jesse Owen’s had desparately tried to stop them.
The moment was iconic. It is a permanent part of olympic history.
But it had averse consequences for Smith Carlos, and even the Austrailian who won Silver, as well as Owen’s for failing to stop it.
Few of us have much respect for million dollar players whose “statements” will have no cost.
Dave: “The article noted that this is something that fans want.”
So you believe that BS? You can asked most any fan in the crowd and if they are not too drunk, they will not even notice that the team was on the field during the anthem. They have only begun to notice because of the Kaepernick crap.
I find it interesting that many players that become their teams union reps are cut the next year by the teams. I would hope the owners have the balls to cut these assholes when they get a chance. They are doing a lot more harm than union reps by a long shot.
If my impressions of what fans want are wrong – so what ?
I am not looking to defend or attack anyone on this issue.
I am for letting freedom ring.
I am probably not a big fan of well paid athletes virtue signaling.
But they are free to virtue signal away.
Trump can express himself as he pleases – so long as he stops at expression.
What people can and can not do, is not a function of who we perceive as the most virtuous. I need not respect Trump or Players to leave them to their own free expression.
My oldest daughter wrote a very intelligent facebook post that I copied and pasted here a year or so back, taking issue with some of her friends on the left who have entirely bought the notion that cops target blacks and deliberately kill them. It was a brave thing for her to post and I was proud of her, very proud. I posted it here because I agree with her, the idea that cops have a deliberate war on black citizens is unhelpful paranoia and it feeds into inciting violence against cops and others.
At the same time, very good black friends of mine who are successful, not whiners, not very political, and, frankly, are more culturally white than black in some cases, have told me how this feels to them, and it surprised me that passion they expressed it with: they feel like perpetual targets and they experience ridiculous creepy crap fairly often that white citizens don’t experience. They do not feel like there is “justice for all”. That is the first part of why this is happening and trump has made it much worse week by week.
I expect that many white conservatives are simply not able to understand the impacts of certain kinds of events have on the national black collective psyche and will dismiss feelings of strong unfairness that many, even most, black citizens feel. I don’t expect that there are any words I can write that will break through that mental block. Without living in those shoes there is no way that some are going to understand the issues of being black in America, even today when slavery and lynchings are gone.
Kraft, a trump friend and supporter, understands what this is about, most of the owners and the league seem to understand as well. But, its like Romney clearly understanding who trump is and saying so and having that just dismissed by many GOP voters. No matter how obvious it is its not going to penetrate into the understanding of many conservatives and staunch GOP loyalists what the fuss is all about. This will be just one more chasm for liberals and conservatives to fire at each other across.
On top of which the idea that the POTUS is idiotically complaining that football has become too soft, and more violence is needed, what with all the terrible long term health effects we are now understanding about concussions in sport and football in particular, is just one more sad reminder that we have an oblivious imbecile as president and that is not an issue to his core and many loyal GOP voters are ever going to face honestly.
I do not believe that trump supporters are going to see this, but if they don’t like the intrusion of politics into sport, well, trump just elevated this intrusion of politics into sport to a stratospheric new level. Its like having Jerry Springer for president, a new mudfight to instigate every day or so. Topless jello wrestling is coming to the White house any day now. And many GOP voters will be fine with it when it happens.
A week ago my wife and I were at an event in Philadelphia celebrating, Byran Stevenson’s Supreme court victories regarding Juvenile death penalty and Juvenile life sentences.
Stevenson is an amazing person, and he has done the impossible.
His speach was incredible.
But Stevenson dwelled on the racist aspects of our justice system.
And there are some.
At the same time the statistics do not bear out the claims of systemic police racism.
Not that some police are not racist, and more are just assholes, and more still are doing the job as they are told.
I do not want to get into a statistical food fight. Because it does not matter.
We are not going to build the impetus to change based on racism.
We need to directly address the prosecution and sentencing of people under 25 years of age – as we know that they are not fully developed mentally and those under 25 have the greatest change of rehabilitation.
We need to substantially reduce or eliminate death sentences. They are expensive and destructive of the entire justice system – if you do not beleive that Read John Grishom’s “An Innocent man” Grishom was so torn up by the story he swore he would never write more non-fiction.
We need to end the war on drugs.
We need to end the militarization of the police.
We need to restore the 4th amendment.
We need to end stupid laws, like bans on selling lose cigarettes of big soda’s
If you are not willing to kill someone for violating some law – do not have that law.
We need to subject the police, the DA’s the courts and all of govenrment to oversight and accountability.
We need to end asset forfeiture.
Many of these reflect facets of policing that weigh more heavily on minorities.
But we need to end them – because they are wrong, not merely because they are racist.
Dave, I said much the same in my 11:26 post. Only will add that I personally do not believe you can be a christian and believe in the death penalty. “Thou shalt not kill”. The taking of another’s life if your life is not being endangered is a sin. Killing to defend yourself or loved ones is acceptable.
I used to be aggressively opposed to the death penalty.
My wife’s job as a public defended cured that. There are a very small number of criminals who should never get out, and who even other prisoners should not have to deal with, for whom no punishment is enough.
Those are rare, and usually those avoid the death penalty anyway.
As a practical matter – it is incredibly expensive – not merely in money, nothing is more destructive to the people in our criminal justice system.
Every defense attorney that has lost a death penalty cause spends the rest of their lives trying to figure out how they could have done better. There is a local judge who was a public defender, and has the record or getting the same guy sentenced to death 3 differnet times, ho would lose, appeal, win, get a new trial and lose again.
I beleive the guy died in prison.
Death penalty cases are hard on the DA’s the judges the prisons.
Further every single year that the US has had a death penalty, atleast one person who was executed was subsequently proven innocent.
Recent evidence suggests that the overall rate of convictions of innocent people is atleast 2.5% and possibly as high as 10%.
Trump did not bring politics into sports.
Do you think Jesse Owen’s Gold medal’s in the Munich olympics were not political ?
How about Carlos and Smith in 1968 ?
CK predates Trump.
You seem to beleive that players are free to express their political viewpoint – without consequence and no one else may comment.
Personally, I would like to see players protest something significant and meaningful.
I would also like them to have skin in the game.
But if we are going to protest small, then we should expect the entire nation to get into a food fight.
Regardless, if you throw the first jello cube you do not get to complain that others joined the food fight opposed to you.
“Never in modern times has an occupant of the Oval Office seemed to reject so thoroughly the nostrum that a president’s duty is to bring the country together. Relentlessly pugnacious, energized by a fight, unwilling to let any slight go unanswered, Mr. Trump has made himself America’s apostle of anger, its deacon of divisiveness.”
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
That is the oath of office of the president.
There is no clause in the constitution that suggests the presidents duty is to bring people together.
That is pure leftist bunkum.
Yes, we would all like more unity and calm.
We would like alot of things – and that is only one of them.
I would tolerate an enormous amount of acrimony to get to a balanced budget.
Sorry Jay, but you are bemoaning that Trump is not a leftist.
That was self evident during the campaign.
“There is no clause in the constitution that suggests the presidents duty is to bring people together….That is pure leftist bunkum.”
Interesting. You believe the desire from Americans to have the President unite the nation in common cause is ‘Leftist.’ To avoid future Leftist stigma to the nation should we change our name to The Divided States of America?
Once again you can only reach your desired results by mangling language.
Should the president be empowered to unite us all to club baby seals ?
There are myriads of issues that divide people – is it the power and duty of the president to resolve each of these and impose that resolution on us by force ?
Unite the nation in common cause – is appealing language – until you bring it into specific context.
The constitution defines the role of the federal government. We are united in that.
In all other things we are free as individuals.
The entire country is divided at the moment over those kneeling for the national anthem.
Should the president unite us by arresting those who wont – that is clearly what he would like the power to do. An overwhelming majority of americans would prefer everyone would stand. Though most of us are wise enough to understand we can not use force to get others to do as we please when we can not persuade them.
I have asked you and Roby repeatedly – when are we free as a nation as a government to use force to compel others to act as we wish ? What are the principles that tell us when the use of force is acceptable or not.
I have a long list of instances you think force is acceptable, and those you do not.
But no principles.
I have no way of being able to tell in this instance is force acceptable or not.
You decide these by whim, not principle.
Iraq was right, then it was wrong, then right again ?
We should go to war with russia over facebook gun rights adds.
We should not use force against North Korea who has explicitly threatened us and others with nuclear armageddon.
Football players are free to speak politically by taking a knee during the national anthem,
but Citizens united can not speak politically about Hillary Clinton
We should confiscate our childrens wealth to help storm victims in Puerto Rico, but not earthquake victims in Mexico
We should use force to prevent people from selling loose cigarettes, and big soda’s,
but not to stop people from attacking neo-nazi protestors.
We should use force to steal from others to pay for free college and free healthcare.
I have no clue what principle underpins your choices as to when force is acceptable or not.
Regardless, we are United as a nation in the use of force
against those who initiate force against others.
To compel people to honor their agreements.
To compel people to make whole those they have harmed.
In all else we are free as individuals to do as we please within those constraints.
As we think that appeals to celebrity are arguments.
How happy (and young) they look.
Just must prove that oral sex is good for sunny dispositions.
Intentional or otherwise the rant about NFL players taking a knew might be politically brilliant.
It plays very well with Trump’s base.
The NFL is clueless – they have fined players for wearing shoes supporting victims of domestic violence – but they can not figure out where to “stand” on this issue.
Lots of players are black and are kneeling.
Lots of fans are Trump supporters and they are not happy.
Lots of counter protests against those taking a knee – and yet no violence, no people wearing masks, carrying sticks.
It seems that the counter protestors understand that the players are free to take a knee.
And fans are free to be angry about it, and to protest themselves.
The appropriate response to speach you do not like is more speach.
Contra Jay – the nation is not untied on everything, will never be, and it is not the presidents job to unite us.
It is however his job to protect our freedom.
The freedom to take a knee, as well as the freedom to complain about those taking a knee.
Regardless, Trump is taking the expected flak from the left.
I know that Jay thinks that is significant, but it is not.
Trump loses nothing, and may even gain from those who never voted for him going apoplectic.
Further, this could play out all kinds of ways – most of which are good for Trump.
This is also overall bad for the left.
I can support the right of players to take a knee.
But that does not mean I think players should do it.
I also support the right to burn flags – but I do not respect people who do burn flags.
This is a:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Voltaire
Moment.
And the left is not channeling Voltaire, which means this hurts them.
I think the same about Trump’s remarks – they were stupid,
But Trump is not likely to be the one paying the heaviest price.
“I can support the right of players to take a knee.
But that does not mean I think players should do it.
I also support the right to burn flags – but I do not respect people who do burn flags.”
We agree. Flag burning and Anthem kneeling are counterproductive irritants that ‘inflame’ opinion.
“I think the same about Trump’s remarks – they were stupid,
But Trump is not likely to be the one paying the heaviest price.”
Right, the nation as a whole will be paying the price, with exacerbated division. And his #Trumpanzee base will remain staunchly loyal. Though other former supporters seem to be having second thoughts, many affiliated with pro sports. Like Tom Brady, once a solid supporter, who said he disagrees wit Trump and found his comments ‘divisive’ (how about that Dave, he finds tRump divisive too) and Fox Sports host Terry Bradshaw who blasted President Trump on Sunday as well. And many NFL owners who donated $$$ to his campaign, and called him a friend, have woken up as well to his improper unpresidential DIVISENESS.
Jay, I said I was through commenting, but I can’t help myself on this subject. I can not agree more with you on the division in this country and how people are beginning to bail on Trump. I thought he was an ass before and believe more so now. So we had the choice of a whinny ass bitch (Clinton has proven to be a whiny one now) and a ignorant ass. Wow, love those choices. No wonder only a little more than 50% of the voters vote.
Sports used to be a haven were one could go and be protected from politics. For a few hours each Sunday (football) or a few hours some day of the week (baseball) we could escape. We could also turn on the radio and listen to sports talk shows and be free of the crap in Washington.
Not any more. Even NASCAR has been polluted with this crap when reporters find it necessary to ask owners what they think of other professionals actions. I love Richard Childress response. “If one of my employees kneel, they can get a ticket home on the bus”. Richard Petty also remarked, anyone kneeling should leave the country.
But the real response everyone should be looking at is this one.
http://nypost.com/2017/09/24/lone-steeler-comes-out-of-locker-room-without-team-during-anthem-protest/
This man understands the difference in what the flag and anthem stands for. But look behind him. How wonderful to see a young black man standing with his hand over his heart, No one made him do it. He did not expect a camera to be filming him. He is not trying to make a point. He is being respectful to the 500,000+ men who have died since WW2 defending this country and the freedoms these millionaire asses are making of themsleves on the field.
I can only pray that they care cut from their teams next year. And I hope the NFL suffers huge losses of revenues. If they can defend domestic abusers and disrespectful players to those who have died, they do not deserve to receive any money from fans. But that will never happen.
Ron
Trump did not cause anyone to kneel. They have been doing it before he was elected.
At best, he drew even more media attention to it.
Are you angry – because Trump made you angry, or because those players who kneel are making you angry ?
BTW those kneeling are trying to make a statement.
They have failed. They have failed, because we have not found their statement sufficiently compelling to support them.
Dave,I am not angry! Just because I think Trump is a total ass that is a joke for a president does not make me angry. I am also not angry because I think the NFL and many of its players are asses so I choose not to watch. That is my right.
The people that voted for Trump voted for him based on handful of reasons.
1. “Build the wall” which I will accept as a physical barrier and electronic security measures. Little has taken place.
2. Renegotiate the Iran nuke deal. Has this happened? Reports are now coming out that he does not intend to pursue this.
3. Replace Obamacare. OK, I will say he has tweeted about this and I doubt anyone could get Rand, Collins and McCain to agree on most anything.
4. Tax reform. As he focuses the attention of the nation on kneeling players, nothing happens with Taxes.
5. Infrastructure. Cant happen until Taxes done.
So his ADHA takes attention from what he ran on and won. Everyone knows congress can not walk and chew gum at the same time. Right now they have to do that separately and even then the ones walking are tripping and the ones chewing are choking. So he is not focused and is not leading congress and they need someone leading. Had Obama been as scatter brained as Trump, we would not have Obamacare.
The obvious conclusion to draw now, Ron, after we’ve seen the mess he’s making, is that he’s NOT QUALIFIED Mentally, Judgementally, Tempermentally, to be President.
We’ve got to find a legal method to remove him from office.
I do not think a president since Reagan has been qualified.
We still elected them, and the unhappiness of those who did not get what they want is not a basis to alter the outcome.
Trump continues to beat Hillary in head to head polls.
When Obama was elected I prayed:
Please let everything that I know and beleive is the truth be false, so that our president who beleives almost the opposite of what I do on everything succeeds.
Or please let this person now our president act consistent with what is true, rather than what he beleives.
God did not answer that prayer.
I think it is highly unlikely that he answers your prayer regarding Trump,
and I think you should be very careful what you wish for.
Voters did more than elect Trump – their support of Trump was equivocal.
Their rejection of the left was not.
Nothing about the Trump presidency has made the left more appealing.
In fact Trump is extremely successful in making the left look insane.
Maybe you will get rid of Trump – but that is not quickly going to fix the image of the left or the image of government.
Trump did not tarnish the image of the left or government – you did that to yourselves.
Removing the president requires the action of congress.
Even the 25th amendment only circumvents the impeachment process, it still ultimately requires congress to act.
To remove Trump you need atleast 1/2 the house and 2/3 of the senate.
You would need far more than you have or are likely to have to get that.
If you do not like that – amend the constitution.
We do not as a nation agree on our favorite color.
The world will not end if we do not agree on standing for the national anthem.
All kinds of Former supporters are purportedly having second thoughts – yet Trumps numbers are rising.
Besides, is that an important criteria.
Regardless, Trump’s comments regarding kneeling during the national anthem echo those of a large portion of the nation.
Trump did not create that division. Those who chose not to stand did.
They made that choice to make a political statement.
That is their own version of “shitting in the cathederal”.
They have failed – because the significance of their statement did not resonate.
We are not debating their issue, we are debating patriotism and respect for the nation.
That is the wrong debate for the left to be having.
The ultimate voice on this will not be Trump’s or the player’s or the owners.
It will be the fans.
We will get a lesson in how free markets work.
Regardless of the outcome, it is the voice of the fans that will ultimately dictate -regardless of what that voice is.
Maybe they care greatly – then the players had better stand or they will be fired.
Maybe they care little – then this will fizzle.
I beleive I said I would have prefered that Trump not speak to this, or that if he did he did so more carefully.
Regardless, Trump did not divide the country.
Most of the divisions in this country are rooted in the left.
The Left chose to impose ObamaCare without broad popular support – that is far more than a simple majority, which you did not have.
Obama Chose to act unilaterally on numerous issues, that the country was divided on.
While agreement is not sufficient for action, it is necescary.
Those things we are divided on – must be decided in favor of the greatest individual liberty.
We can not use force without supermajority support.
I think the NFL has been caught flatfooted on this and wishes the issue would go away.
Regardless, the divisions are not new, and Trump did not cause them,
just as he did not cause Harvey or Irma, or Maria.
We all know you think Trump is personally responsible for every bad thing in the world.
And that 666 is tattoo’d on his scalp.
Dave Your post that begins “Roby; Is the metaphor wrong ?” contains 506 words according to MS word. According to the Find function in Chrome dhlii has posted 921 times on this Rick topic. If we take a guess at the length of an average sized dhlii post it would be on the order of 200-300 words. Times 920 that gives between 180,000 to 276,000 words you have written on this topic alone. The majority of those words were directed at haranguing Jay and myself.
A 300 page book with 400 words to a page comes out to 120,000 words.
You have managed to direct somewhere between the equivalent to 1.5 to 2.25 books, On this Topic Alone! towards people you repetitively claim make no arguments at all! Now multiply this times 10 years. You have written millions of words here at TNM and persuaded or converted no one.
I make plenty of arguments, everyone here does. You can no more see our arguments than you can see trump’s lies. Its in your head. Something is out of wack.
You believe that this is all about some kind of logical exercise where a person uses logic, a la mathematical proof, in a battle with other people’s logic to find the correct answer to social problems. Then if you can deny that any of the other people facts or logic are valid you win, again.
These are opinions Dave, everyone here but you only believes that they are giving their opinions, not a logical mathematical proof. I can prove almost nothing of what I believe about politics. I have almost no firm opinions about what the solutions to almost any problem that falls into political arena are. You believe in contrast that you have such a base of facts and logic that you are in a position to educate and harangue everyone. You believe that you are correct. I simply believe that I have an opinion, mostly to situations in which the “correct” answer is not possible.
You poor sod, you have never just had a normal human conversation in your life, have you? Everything you say is part of a battle you have to win.
If you behave in person as you do here you must be as welcome in your town as a fire and brimstone preacher promising hell to homosexuals etc on a college campus. People must hide in bushes and jump into alleyways when they see you coming with your harangue.
Here is a little picture of how your yada yada yada routine affects listeners.
The “Dave” begins at 1:30.
If only writing a book were so easy.
Your counts have serious problems, but I am going to ignore that as it is irrelevant.
You are free to read, or not whichever posts you want.
Just as you are free to respond or not.
There is no cost imposed on you, whatever time you spend, you do by choice.
Others here do make arguments.
You very rarely do. Whether the issue is Trump or anything else.
One of the more central issues addressed here – when is the use of force justified – you have never answer.
You have attacked me on the issue. You have demanded constantly that force be used for this or that. But you have never explained how we determine when the collective use of force – aka government is justified and when it is not.
When you have attacked me it is with ad hominem.
You skip with part where you support (aka argue) your point and just presume the point.
Your position is right, everyone knows it, therefore anyone who disagrees is stupid.
An argument is not state your conclusion, claim it is obvious and insult those who disagree.
If you want we can confront specifics like Trump.
But your posts are all the same regardless of the issue, and lacking in any argument.
Further you take disagreement as insult.
Emotion is the basis for all with you.
Truth for you is based on what you feel.
Violence for you is based on what you feel.
If I criticise your position – you see that as insult and violence.
There are facts, there is logic, there is reason. These are immutable.
They do not answer every question. But when they answer they are not wrong.
There are things that are just opinions, but even of those, opinions have real world consequences – often knowable consequences.
In the real world all opinions are not equal, some are more popular. Some work better.
Even where something is merely an opinion, that does not entitle it to equal consideration, even opinions must be argued – fact logic, reason.
As you note many things are not provable. I can not prove what will happen if you raise the minimum wage. But I have lots of economics based on centuries of history and economic principles that states with near certainty that the consequences will be bad – specifically for those you are trying to help.
No, I can not offer that with certainty – but 98% probability is good enough that I am not going to do something that is 98% likely to be stupid.
Further – you say one many many things you do not know the answer, that maybe the answer is not knowable.
If True that is a reason that government should NOT be acting.
We should never be using force on others when we do not even know if what we are doing will work.
It does not matter if I am always right. You do not seem to grasp that implementing YOUR ideology REQUIRES that you are always right.
You may not use force when you are not right, when you are not sure.
You may have whatever opinion you want, you can not impose it with force.
“You are free to read, or not whichever posts you want.”
Like a psychotic litterbug saying “Feel free to step over or around or through my piles of trash”
You really are unable to distinguish the concrete and abstract.
Words are not violence, they are not litter. You do not have to bandage them or pick them up. They impose no cost on you, unless you freely choose to read them.
Back to psychoanalyzing over the internet.
Jay, you might consider reading my link below on Aspergers. It was Pat Riot who initially realized that Dave has Aspergers. As such, its really not under his control. For me, I accept that he is locked into his behaviours and I am the one who has choice. I pick on him a lot in response to his hounding, but its futile. This is his wiring, This pattern of falling into his Aspergers and participating in it is not healthy and as long as he is engaged it will continue in exactly the same way. Anyhow, that is my take on it. Clearly I have never had the discipline to act on my knowledge of what is going on with Dave.
Not this aspberger’s nonsense again?
First – would not matter in the slightest. Truth is truth even if Hitler utters it.
I am hard pressed to think of anything more stupid and clueless than trying to diagnose another person over the internet.
Absolutely I shutdown discussions of intentions, beliefs, emotions, motives, thoughts.
Because even if we were having this debate in person where cues to those things were actually present, they would still be entirely irrelevant to debate over the use of force.
There is no emotional justification for the use of force.
This is little more than the stupidity of discarding an argument because it is made by a libertarian.
Is this really where you wish to take the debate ?
I have repeatedly argued here that calling people “hateful, hating haters” is not the way to win their hearts and minds – BTW that is not an observation that someone with aspergers is capable of making. Do you think that psychoanalyzing people over the internet is wise ?
I think it is another example of immorality – again an observation inconsistent with aspberger’s.
Dave said: “Words are not violence”
Good. Then I’m acting with Constitutional restraint when I say you’re a Silly Willy Wordy WingNut.
BTW, more health care professionals have come out against the Republican Repeal-Replace fiasco.
https://twitter.com/topherspiro/status/911933970421551105
If you would like to meet me in person – say so and we can make arrangements.
Otherwise speculating beyond what I have written is a stupid pretense of omniscience.
You state that much of your opinions are merely beliefs, yet you are prepared to have foundationless opinions on most everything – including my social life.
I may write too much, but you are entirely unconstrained in the extent to which you are prepared to opine on things that are not your concern and often demand they become public concerns.
One of the flaws that John Stuart Mill noted in democracy was that ultimately too many of us feel we have a say in the lives of others and are entitled to impose our views by force.
You epitomize that.
You got the whole Shitting in the cathedral conversation dead backwards Priscilla. Had you actually read Dave’s post above mine you would have avoided that. Well, I can’t say I blame you for Not reading Dave’s posts but the ” marks around his original nasty scatalogical imagery should have been some clue that the original diatribe about shitting and pissing on things belonged to your good buddy, mild polite Dave.
Still waiting for your “Oooops.” Or, you can do what you do for so many ugly things that come from the right, pretend you don’t see them.
Can you clarify how Priscilla got the shitting in the catherderal reference wrong ?
My sense is that it is you that gets it wrong.
“One of the flaws that John Stuart Mill noted in democracy was that ultimately too many of us feel we have a say in the lives of others and are entitled to impose our views by force.
You epitomize that.”
All of your endless blather about me comes down to the fact that I am not impressed with the practicality of your libertarian views. Your blather would apply just as well as anyone who does not believe in “a government so small you can barely see it.” You could choose anyone here to blather at and blame for their acceptance of the reality of government but you have fixated on me, partially because at times I have been silly enough to go down your rabbit hole with you. Perhaps because I believe in the seriousness of the implications of climate change, perhaps because I believe in the necessity of some environmental regulations. Other reasons also abound.
Yes Dave, government is laws, laws only have meaning if they can be enforced and enforced in the end implies force. So, government is force. You have decided that in your opinion the highest possible morality is not using force, therefore any but a limited government is immoral. I understand your argument but think that events have proven that it is naive. That is the one and only argument you are really interested in getting someone to have with you in essence, the limited role of government and therefore force, and you have fixated on me in particular because that’s what Aspergers sufferers do, fixate on something and never let go and never admit error adn never understand other points of view.
Dave, I am sorry I get mad at you, I have understood for years that you are an Aspergers personality, so, its not your fault that you do what you do. Its my fault for expecting you to do otherwise and its my fault for engaging with you at all. Our discussions are exactly the type of pathological unhealthy futile political discussions that I came to TNM NOT to be part of but your Aspergers has trapped you and its trapped me.
Now, we know from experience that you will not admit that you have Aspergers, and if I had it perhaps I would not admit it either. Perhaps you do not admit it to yourself or perhaps you do and just won’t admit it here. In any case, you have been dealt the hand you have been dealt and I do actually feel sympathy, annoying as you are. Its Not your fault. You hound people here, you follow them around haranguing, so I lose discipline at times and give in and engage. Its my fault, I take the blame. I know better. I really, REALLY do not want to be a part of your syndrome, I’ve asked you a dozen times to leave me out of it.
http://heartlessaspergers.com/how-to-spot-a-man-with-aspergers-syndrome/
Dave, this has to stop. The one thing you wish to discuss with me is the limited role of government. In the future the one thing I will wish to discuss with you will be the implications of your Aspergers regarding your points of view. Engage me and you will get a discussion of your Aspergers, in particular, how it leads to the fact that you understand next to nothing people are trying to say when you read their posts.
Now, I wish you Peace and request that you leave me in peace. I am not interested in what you are selling.
“All of your endless blather about me comes down to the fact that I am not impressed with the practicality of your libertarian views.”
How narcisist of you.
You are not impressed – fine, but how do we get from there to, and therefore Roby is justified in using force against others.
The bar against initiating force is not libertarian.
Libertarains are just the ones that remind people, that is a principle we ALL claim to bind us.
What you or I beleive, is irrelevant.
Your beleif does not justify the use of force.
You have never justified your use of force, you just try to pretend it away.
God no! Not climate change again.
I just provided you links to many new papers from WARMISTS demonstrating that the hiatus actually occured, that little or no warming has occured in the past 20 years, and therefore the climate models are wrong.
What does it take to kill a hoax ?
Again you “beleive” in regulations.
Belief is not enough.
Radical islam considers beleif a justification for murder.
Those leading the inquisition “beleived”.
Those leading the salem witch trials “beleived”.
We may not use force merely because we “beleive”.
Aspergers’ Indication # 1. You understood nothing of my meaning. This can happen to anyone sometimes. With you its almost the only outcome that ever occurs. Its an extreme case of not understanding other people’s meanings.
Indication # 2, You actually believe that something you posted is supposed to have convinced me that climate change is a hoax. You are astounded that I was not moved by your link. You have no perception whatsoever of the reality of how others think. If you are convinced by something, that is it, its proof and why should Roby be continuing to talk about climate change? Dave, that is not the way a healthy mind thinks about other peoples thought process.
Roby;
1). I do not misunderstand your meaning.
For the most part I deliberate choose not to address “beleif”, intention, motivation, and emotion, as these are nearly impossible to get right over the internet and damn hard face to face, and not relevant to debate regarding the use of force.
I deliberately choose to take some of what you write literally – because you make myriads of logical errors that are rooted in using language in a muddy fashion.
Again perfectly appropriate in fiction, poetry, your personal life, but completely inappropriate with respect to the use of force.
As an example, it would be perfectly appropriate for me to say than many of your recent posts are hurtful, they are emotional violence, they cause me pain, and harm.
Does that mean I would be justified in assaulting you ?
No, because we recognize that actual violence, and harm are not the same as emotional violence and harm.
I think I have a good sense of your beleifs, intentions, motivations, and emotions.
Further I am not a narcist – everything is not about me, my beleifs, my intentions, my motivations, my emotions – but your posts do not get past you.
I must have aspbergers, because nothing else explains your failure.
Both false and irrelevant.
I read the article.
Dave’s comments reveal many of the clinical signs described
I wonder: does Dave have a monotone or robotic voice?
Roby;
Still no argument.
You do not accept my “libertarian” argument regarding when force is justified
fine – you still must offer your own.
Otherwise you are really just an anarchist.
I guess I can try to help you, and offer the actual argument that some on the left have made.
1). All beleifs are equal.
This is essentially post modernism. It is an incredibly stupid view held by some incredibly smart people. It should be self evidently false.
Regardless, it devolves to
Power is truth,
And that means that Nazi’s, Stalin, Mao were moral.
If you can not live with that, then the proposition is wrong.
It is called reductio ad absurdum and it is a valid logical argument.
2). I feel my beleifs are true.
The morality of the world could hinge on indigestion.
Regardless, this either requires some unconscious collective values, or it degenerates into a permutation of (1) – Power is Truth.
If there are these collective values, we must all have them, so we can ultimately establish them intellectually.
Regardless, the burdern of establishing that your “gut” values are universal falls on you – other wise we are back to 1.
3). My beleifs are shared by the majority.
Devolves pretty much instantly to
Power is truth.
There are several other possible arguments such as hard determinism, but you have not danced near those, and are unlikely to as they are horribly unappealing.
Regardless, every argument above devolves to Power is truth,
and makes every tyrant that ever was moral
“You do not accept my “libertarian” argument regarding when force is justified
fine – you still must offer your own.”
I “must” must I?
Why? Because you insist? What right do you have to tell me what I “must” do?
Dave, why do you address yourself to me at all? What are you trying to accomplish by endlessly pressing your one idea on me? Do you have a goal?
This is pure obsessiveness, and to an extent that is not part of a healthy mental life but is part of the Aspergers set of behaviors.
I’ve told you countless times what my opinion is on the extent of government and why, but it infuriates you that I do not come around to yours. I am simply not interested in the same subject you are obsessed with, tiny government, in your Aspergers way. In ten years you have not processed this simple reality and continue to harangue me on and on with no end in sight and no change in tactics. Insanity is doing something 1000 times and expecting a new result on the 1001st. That is you. You have no respect for my interests, wishes or boundaries, you have your purpose and have no interest at all in understanding mine. Which you could not in any case. Its all classic Aspergers, as Pat Riot first noted.
Unfortunately Aspergers comes with severe limitations on understanding meanings, which does actually reflect on your intellectual outcomes. This I suppose is why you do not admit to having it. The Aspergers obsessive fixation on one idea is another impediment to having a valid thought process that balances different sets of facts and values.
The use of force MUST be justified – otherwise it is criminal, and can be resisted with FORCE.
This should not be hard to understand.
Nor is this about “roby” – I can not compel you to do anything – though if you use force without justification it is not likely to end well for you, not because I am going to do something – unless that unjustified use of force is against me.
But the requirement for justification I am addressing is for the collective use of force, for government force.
Are you saying that the police can come to your home and beat you up or kill you for no reason ?
Our courts are incredibly bad at holding law enforcement accountable.
They except ludicrous justifications that they should not,
but they STILL require justification.
But beyond the police, are you saying that it is acceptable for government to legislate – without reason ? Would laws reimposing slavery be moral ?
You seem to be clueless about this. You seem to think I am making some whacky libertarian argument. While I am making an argument libertarians commonly make,
It is also a foundational argument.
Only tyrannies and criminals use force without justification.
The first purpose of government is the protect us from the unjustified use of force.
God, no, not the “aspberger’s” argument again
First – who cares ? If true, it is irrelevant, either my arguments are valid or not.
If I speak them with a lisp, they are still valid.
So I really need to address the stupidity of trying to diagnose someone over the internet ?
Regardless, I do not have Aspberger’s or any other ASD (autism spectrum disorder).
My personality has characteristics that do not coexist with any form of autism.
Finally the entire claim is just an effort to put a label on so that you can ignore the argument.
You counter an argument with facts, logic, reason, not by labeling the person you are arguing with so that you can ignore them.
With respect to your website:
There is a big difference between understanding the thoughts, beleifs, desires and intentions of others and arguing them as a basis for the use of force.
You and I are not forming a romantic attachment, we are not engaged in a relationship where skill understanding your thoughts, beleifs, desires, and inentions are important.
We are debating the legitimate use of force by government, where each of those is specifically irrelevant.
I am very happily married. I have two kids that I love, I have friends – some very close.
I have relationships where all these skills matter.
I am better at some than others.
I had an email exchange with Prof. Haidt several years ago about libertarians and empathy, and I suspect that my arguments changed his mind, because he is occasionally self identifying as libertarian now.
Libertarians do not lack empathy. They may even make personal decisions based on empathy or feelings. The distinguishing characteristic of libertarians is not weak empathy, but the unwillingness to allow empathy to override reason on choices that involve the use of force.
In my personal life I make myriads of decisions based on emotions and empathy – often ones that prove mistaken. In many instances I know I am taking a risk and the more logical choice rather than the more emotional one is better.
I have made choices based on how I will feel about myself rather than what is in my own best interests. When it is with respect to yourself, that is moral.
When you are making choices that involve the use of force, every single trait you are describing as part of aspbergers must be turned on.
We do not make decisions to use force based on empathy, mind reading, or our sense of the beleifs desires or intentions of others.
If you wish to fixate on diagnosing people over the internet, then I am going to try to determine whether you have williams syndrome or you are just a sociopath.
Those are basically the opposite of aspberger’s.
Those with williams syndrome are extremely capable in terms of each of those social elements that are missing from people with aspbergers,
But the completely fail at all math, logic, reason, spatial thought.
Sociopath’s do not actually have empathy, but they are incredibly good at mimicking and manipulating the emotions of others. In otherwords they are incredibly good at reading emotions, beleifs, intentions, and then using them.
Regardless, lets pretend for a second that I have aspberger’s.
This particular forum (the internet) is suited to intellectual debate, not emotions, empathy, intentions, ….
I have little interest in a discussion with you on intentions, motives, beleifs, emotions,.
If that is what you want – get a therapist.
Finally your perception of my intentions, motives, beleifs, emotions, …. really sucks – that probably means you do not have williams and are not a sociopath.
It just leaves clueless.
Today’s best remark:
“If Trump’s IQ drops any lower…
Well have to water him twice a day!”
🌾🌾🌾
Traditional tRump supporters and allies are giving him the middle finger now
Sorry, I broke one of my own rules.
I should not have presumed to sense your emotions.
The entire Dallas Cowboys team including the owner knelt BEFORE the national anthem.
The stood for the anthem.
“the Cowboys had chosen to kneel before the anthem and pray for equality and unity while purposefully not kneeling or sitting while the anthem was played, out of respect.”
I have not watched football in a very long time, But when Landry was coach the Dallas Cowboys too a knew BEFORE every game.
Regardless, the NFL owners are between a rock and a hard place.
They can not afford to piss off minority players who make up the overwhelming majority of players.
They can not afford to piss off fans – because even a small drop in fans support would be economically disasterous.
This is not an issue I have strong feelings about.
But your post is in error. If the Cowboys want to protest – fine. Regardless we should not be spreading Fake News. I would guess that Jerry Jones’s pre Anthem team kneel is an effort to find something that his players and his fans can live with. I doubt Jones wants pissed fans or players. Further unless the cowboys have changed, I would expect the entire team to do whatever Jones tells them to.
I am more interested in the drama of the issue.
On one hand this is the left shitting in the rights temple.
It is also our national conflict in a morality play.
It is an interesting battle of messaging.
For the left this is a racial equality thing.
The right initially made it about disrespect for the flag and the country – those are not winning messages. More recently they have made it about honoring soldiers.
That is a much more powerful message.
We also get to see how the left and the rich each handle the same type of threats.
When conservatives try to speak at colleges or in public forumns – the left becomes violent.
We are now seeing how conservatives handle things when the tables are turned.
We are also having a public debate over free speach.
Anyone here can believe whatever they want about free speach, but it is getting harder to be ignorant of the law.
Political speach in a government provided forum is near an absolute right.
Whatever you feel that is the state of the law.
Conversely in the context of your employment you do not have a free speach right.
But you do have the freedom to end your employment.
You can disagree with this, we can debate it. But it is the approximate current state of the law.
This may also prove to be a lesson on the power of markets, and of minorities.
Purportedly something like 61% of people think the players kneeling is OK.
But if even portion of the 38% who do not loose interest in football they are highly likely to prevail.
This also plays heavily to Trump’s base.
How many of those supporting the players voted for Trump and will change their vote because of this ? Few if any.
Too many here fixate on majorities as if they are determinative – they are not.
Most americans do not vote – and that is a good thing.
During the revolutionary war there was never majority support for independence.
There was a powerful and insistent minority, face with a majority whose views were much weaker.
too much of our political understanding is binary – you are for or against something.
But real world decisions – such as which soda to buy – are usually not binary.
Many factors effect our decisions, and they do not have equal weight.
Trumps approval rating is incredibly low – yet he still beats Clinton.
Partly because her approval is worse, and partly because Trump’s core voters are pretty dedicated, while the number of voters on the left with the same dedication are significantly lower.
Who is greediest ?
I think this editorial significantly understates the risk to democrats.
Moving further left not merely abandons the middle is weakens the slightly left of center,
which is what cost Clinton the election.
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2017/09/21/democrats-are-gifting-the-median-voter-to-republicans/
https://twitter.com/BevHillsAntifa/status/912411161915559936
Some wisdom on health insurance
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/28/risky_business_115225.html?utm_content=buffer59fb3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
We should definitely ban Child labor right ?
Oops! Studies from India reveal that the ban made things WORSE!
https://t.co/VMQxtL0Icv
Can we end this nonsense that ObamaCare improved outcomes and saved lives once and for all.
This is not Breitbart reporting, this is NPR.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/504667607/life-expectancy-in-u-s-drops-for-first-time-in-decades-report-finds
Damon Roof meet Emanuel Kidega Samson
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nashville-church-shooting-chapel-usher-085445007.html
Even NYT is taking a stand against regulation.
As noted this plays to Trump’s base.
Human laws that violate rights are based on nothing but brute force, and we have no moral obligation to obey them.”
Lysander Spooner
This was the argument made against slavery.
If it does not apply to other violations of human rights – then why does it apply to slavery.
According to NYT survey’s socialism now appeals to a large portion of americans.
Our education has been so corrupted that americans now beleive the most heinous political system that has ever existed that murdered over hundred million people in the 20th century could be a good thing.
Myriads of debates here involve left appeals to academia, or assorted politicians.
Doesn’t the fact that these are the people who have sold out country socialism suggest their views should have little value ?
The left is fighting vigorously to assure that no one even hears the voices in opposition.
When only one view is heard, when only one ideology is taught, why would we expect that people would not prefer that view ? Why would we expect people to make good choices when they are badly informed.
Fault for the ignorance of the american public rests with the left. They have owned education for nearly a century producing generations of intellectual yet idiots.
I agree with atleast some of what Brooks is saying – though he is overly simplistic.
The culture Trump is challenging is not dominant overall, only on the left.
Regardless, Trump does reflect a cultural shift.
The dominant culture of the 50’s and 60’s was flawed by racism and sexism. That culture was successfully challenged. But that challenge from the left discarded good along with bad and added myriads of new bad.
The challenge that Trump reflects is likewise imperfect, including bad along with good.
But it is as necessary as that in the 60’s.
The possibility for real debate exists, but not so long as the left intends to double down on the mistakes of the past.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/64-demand-nfl-players-stand-for-national-anthem-50-less-likely-to-watch-over-politics/article/2635678
This is not an issue I care about – but it is being overhyped by pretty much everyone.
My observations.
I would note that no Business – not even the NFL can afford to have as little as 5% of its customers make other choices for very long.
If the data in this poll is accurate – the NFL is likely to act quickly.
A solution that fans accept will be found or players will actually be fired.
The NFL can survive with lessor caliber players. It can not survive without fans.
The players have lost the messaging war.
Burning the flag worked during the vietnam war for two reasons:
It was a protest against the war – so the connection was strong.
The connection between racism and standing for the national anthem is weak to nonexistent.
There was no means for those unhappy with flag burning to impose a consequence on those who burned flags.
As I noted before we are getting a lesson on how the real world works – and it does not work as those on the left wish.
Government has and should have no means to punish people for their speach.
Outside of government speach may have consequences.
People could buy your book – positive consequence.
Or they could boycott you.
What they can not do is engage in violence.
NFL players can take a knee during the national anthem as a form of protest.
The decision regarding whether that is expression to be rewarded or punished rests with the consumers of football – the fans. Not with the players, not with the coaches and owners, and not with Trump.
At worst Trump’s role in this was to bring it to the attention of fans.
This is also a huge messaging failure on the part of the left.
Interestingly one that mirrors the election.
The left made the election about identity – race, gender, orientation.
Trump made the election about american exceptionalism
Trump won in Nov. 2016, and the same outcome is likely here.
Bannon has claimed that if the left wants to double down on identity politics he can counter with economic nationalism and beat them every time.
I think that Bannon is wrong about economics.
But he is very right about something related which the left does not grasp.
People are racist, or mysoginist, or homophobic – they always have been, and always will be. We are tribal. That is nothing new. We all see our tribe as better.
But today, americans as a whole do not share the left’s views on the magnitude of racism, mysoginism, or homophobia.
We are all members of many tribes. We are male or female, white, or black, straight or gay. We are also american or not.
Trump was elected and the NFL is likely to fold, because our sense of national tribe is stronger than our concern about racism, sexism, and homophobia.
We finished 8 years of a president who was constantly apologizing for the country.
Very many of us are tired of apologizing.
The left has made this about race.
Trump has made it about veterans.
The left is further off message because it is just hard to get worked up because football players in the 1% want to expiate their racial guilt.
Gota love that regulation
Which way does the wind blow ?
https://twitter.com/WiredSources/status/912812908761018368
Not good for NFL
https://twitter.com/DerekUtleyCEO/status/912795652345810944
And here is Harvard calling those extremist libertarians – centrists.
And possibly even a reasonable compromise between conservatives and progressives.
http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/how-austin-petersen-can-make-libertarianism-cool-again/
You Damn Lefties, Stop Defacing Our Flag!
Football ratings have been in decline for 4 years, for many possible reasons having little or nothing to do with politics.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/09/nfl-ratings-trump-anthem-protests/541173/
Jay;
This will play out one way or another.
The results will give us a clue regarding the relative values of the electorate.
No matter what the outcome the losing side is going to be arguing that things are not as they seem and it really means something different.
I am not interesting in arguing ratings changes with you. Your and my views are irrelevant.
Jerry Jone’s read of the ratings matters.
But I am fascinated to see what happens.
So the fired FBI director and the current acting FBI director acted to prevent the arrest of Alvi Awan when she was illegally leaving the country with 12,000 in cash.
Despite DC police and an FBI agent at the scene wanting to arrest
http://truepundit.com/exclusive-in-march-comey-and-mccabe-blocked-the-arrest-of-imram-awans-wife-as-she-was-fleeing-the-country-to-pakistan/
I think the following display by the members of the NYC Council is disgusting. I expect to be alone on this on TNM, but that is OK, I have been alone all my life, I even refused to stand up for the national anthem over 50 years ago. But this display by my elected officials leads me to think of race wars and I blame Trump FOR IT ALL: http://www.nydailynews.com/…
-Really pissed.
Whats to be pissed about. Odel Beckam aned something that happened in Tampa? Two black kids, one bulling the other, one dead? I am missing something here.
dduck12. You are not alone in part, the part for your disgust for this action. The are hundreds, if not thousands that do not stand when the colors are displayed or the anthem is played. They are the ones paralyzed in wars since the 40’s defending others rights to act like this.
But I a sorry I can not accept your position that Trump is totally to blame for this happening. He was not part of the political scene when Obama started the split of this nation with his comments concerning Trevon Martin, his interference with the Henry Louis Gates issue or his administrations interference with the Ferguson riots after Michael Brown was shot and killed and Obama declared Darren Wilson guilty before he even went to trial. I remember well the discussion that took place on the same site concerning these issues and the same division about Obama resided as we now see with Trump here.
However, Trump has not done anything to bring us together He is just perpetuating the division that started with Obama and it is getting worse. I have lived long enough where I can say I don’t remember a time when it has been as bad as it is today except for the 60’s.
But I will add that a bunch of overpaid millionaires that have never worked a day in their lives and have failed to even earn a college degree in many cases when the education was thrown their way is not getting much sympathy from people who can make a difference. Those being the suburban middle class who go to the games, buy their jerseys and buy their products they endorse. Slap them in the face and see how far they will go to do anything to make an improvement in the lives of those they are demonstrating for. It won’t happen. In fact less will be done now by those same people!
RonP: I didn’t vote for Obama, I don’t like him, and yes he did bad things. But, they were small compared to Trump even if they set a tone. Trump is an idiot, Obama was just being a normal person that was on the side of his tribe/people and against his political enemies. Trump picks fights with anyone and shoots of his mouth using a megaphone, and he has no class or sense of proportion. In other words he is a complete ass____, who is tormenting racial animus and divisiveness.
I agree with all you said Ducky… Moderate positions, all the way.
Don’t see any variation with my own views.
DDuck, “Trump is an idiot…Trump picks fights with anyone and shoots of his mouth using a megaphone, and he has no class or sense of proportion.”
So just what can be done? We are stuck with the ass until the next election UNNLLESSSS… you and Jay are willing to hire an assassin. All the comments on TNM that have been made are not going to remove him. Everyone reading understands where you and Jay stand. I will not vote for him. And if the Democrats would run Joe Manchin, I would vote for a democrat, but short of him or someone very close to his political positions running for the democrats, I will vote Libertarian once again.
I am opposed to someone like Trump, but I can accept his BS , crass mouth and egotistical personality over anyone from the Sanders/Warren/Clinton (since she moved left) wing of the democrat party. Just the fact we do not have another Sotomayor or Kagan on the court is proof enough for me that Trump is better than any Democrat.
I have been following developments in the “russian hacking”.
The odds that Russia Hacked the DNC are now close to Zero.
Not only has the crowdStrike report been decimated, but all of CrowdStrike’s work since its inception is underfire.
The founders of CrowdStrike made their name identifying China as the source for a different Hack while they were at MacAffee. That claim has now been pretty much refuted.
As has pretty much every other major instance were CrowdStrike has attributed something to some specific bad actor.
Increasingly the concensus in the security community is that tracing hacks by any sophicsticated hacker or nation state is not possible.
Why ? Beecause most of the hackers and nations have access to everyone else’s code.
If you are going to hack some target, you are not going to code your own hack of their system. You are going to take tools that are readily available – the tools used by Russians, Chinese, NK., NSA, CIA, … and use those to hack your target, so that if/when you get caught someone else will be blamed.
DNC was actually hacked – two and possibly 3 times. IT was hacked twice by someone using Russian tools. It was also likely hacked by someone claiming to be “Guicifer2.0”
G2.0 MIGHT have been responsible for the one or two separate hacks using Russian tools – or he MIGHT have used a 3rd hack that CrowdStrike never detected – and there is some evidence of that.
The next question is whether G2.0 was the source of the wikileaks emails.
G2.0 did provide a few files that came from the DNC as proof he was the hacker.
But these few files were already public prior to the DNC hack (though they did come from the DNC).
The G2.0 files were deliberately edited in a way that makes absolutely no sense except as an attempt to “frame” the Russians – which makes it highly unlikely that G2.0 was actually Russian or Russia connected.
Separately G2.0’s emails to the media and some other factors strongly indicate that G2.0 in in the US and in the Central Time Zone.
Next we know that the Awan family copied gigabytes of data from the DNC servers, and we do not know what happened to that.
There is a high probability that the Wikileaks material came from a leak not a hack.
And therefore was an inside job.
What is certain at this point is that the DNC was a sieve.
That material was getting out of the DNC somewhere between 3-5 different ways.
That there was atleast on leak – the Awan’s, and possibly two, that there were atleast 2 hacks and possibly 3. And that the wikileaks material was either leaked or hacked in the US. That G2.0 is in the US and is not the romainian using the moniquer Guicifer2.0.
That the the G2.0 material may be little more than a crude effort to frame Russia.
That the hacks of the DNC used Russian tools but were not likely from Russia.
And that whatever was acquired from those hacks, they are not the source of the Wikileaks material.
There is a conspiracy theory that G2.0 was a plant by CrowdStrike created AFTER CrowdStrike found the DNC hacks to add support to their claim that it was the Russians.
That is possible by unlikely.
Regardless, there is alot we do not know, and likely will never know – particularly about the hacks – it is still possible to discover that the Awan’s were the source of the leak, and the wikileaks dump.
But the probability that Russia supplied the wikileaks emails is near 0.
We also now know that the Obama administration was actually spying on opposition political campaigns.
We know that On two different occasions (prior to Mueller) Warrants were issued to wiretap and possibly surveil Manafort and these extended well into Trump’s presidency.
Carter Paige was also wiretapped, as aparently was Flynn. Reportedly there were 1/2 a dozen wiretaps of Trump surrogates.
This is actually far worse than Watergate. This is not some extra governmental group of burglars. The FBI was doing the wiretaps.
We also know that Susan Rice and Samantha Powers at the least were “unmasking” – aka spying on many US Citizens something like 3200 unmaskings were done since 2012,
That is many times more than the prior 4 years.
Further contra the left, unmasking is unusual.
In the Intelligence community Producers and consumers of intelligence are separate.
The Whitehouse as an example is a consumer. Raw unmasked intelligence does not normally get past the producers. In fact ordinarily only the initial analyst sees the actual identities of US persons. Where those analysts actually see evidence of a crime, they make a referal to the FBI criminal division – because the IC does not involve itself in law enforcement. This means there is rarely if ever a need for consumers of intellegence to know the identities of US persons who are found in spying on legitimate foreign targets.
When a consumer asks to have a US person “unmasked” that is supposed to be unusual,
and the purpose has to be related to national security, not crime or curiosity.
That is not what was going on.
Samantha Powers appears to be responsible for about 1/4 of all unmaskings, and her Role was at the UN, where there is pretty much no need to know, and no national security role.
Blah blah blah.
Both Manafort and Flynn were under surveillance BEFORE Prez LumpAss was elected, Manafort before he was campaigning for the nomination. Their actions had RAISED alarms at various agencies, as they should have. Don’t you think Flynn’s coziness with Russians WAS troubling? A high ranked US GENERAL with intimate knowledge of our security apparatus and military capabilities playing financial footsie with our decades long adversary? And Manafort hiding numerous business relationships with Russians on his security clearance forms?
Both these men may have committed traitorous acts for self interest. US judges thought there was enough evidence presented to them to issue the wire tapping warrants, but you as usual get on your bullshitnaysaying bandwagon and ping pong criticism at the Obama Administration for allowing those security concerns to go forward.
You repeat the facts correctly and do not grasp their significance.
That is right all of these people were surveiled and wiretapped BEFORE the election,
Being suspicious is NOT enough to wiretap someone. Read the 4th amendment.
Wiretapping requires a warrant.
A warrant requires:
Probable cause that an identifiable crime has been committed.
Probable cause that the person being wiretapped commited that crime.
Probable cause that the wiretap will find specific evidence of that crime.
It also must be narrowly tailored – government is not allowed to lay out dragnets and see who it catches.
No they should not have been wiretapped and under survielance or unmasked.
That is actually the point.
It is trivial to claim that someone else is acting “suspiciously” that is not a justification to spy on them.
The Obama administration was actually doing what you claim the Russians were doing.
Lets put this back in the context of Watergate:
The plumbers bugged the phones in the DNC offices.
It is actually known that A prostitution ring was being run by one DNC staffer on the side.
It would have been perfectly feasible to get a wiretap of that phone.
There was more than enough probable cause.
Yet the Plumbers went to jail and Nixon was forced to resign.
What Crime was alleged regarding Manefort – or Flynn or any of the rest of these ?
As you noted this started almost 3 years ago.
If the Obama administration had sufficient probable cause of a crime in 2015 – why has no crime been charged in almost 3 years ?
If being suspicious is enough – why wasn’t Obama wiretaping podesta – he was involved in litterally the same deal as Manefort. If there is sufficient suspicion for Manefort, then there is for Podesta.
Further we already know that information gleaned from these wiretaps was leaked to the press.
What you have is the administration spying on and disrupting the political campaign of the opposite party on a much larger scale than watergate.
A warrant requires specific evidence that a specific person committed a specific crime.
No amount of hyperbole will get you a warrant.
Raised alarms is just hyperole
Coziness with Russians is just hyperbole
I do not know what financial footsie is, but being paid for speeches will not get you a warrant
You also seem to be confusing things. Manafort was not a member of the administration, he did not seek a security clearance.
Treason is actually defined in the constitution.
Regardless, what is it that any of these people did that was treasonous ?
Self-interest is not a crime. It is what assures that you eat.
You spray accusations. Podesta and Clinton are both actively involved in/with Russian businesses – does that disqualify Clinton ? Was she wiretapped ?
I am sure that Trump could get a FISA warrant right now on Podesta and Sanders and Clinton – should he ?
Nixon argued that anything the president did was legal.
Judges have disagreed over the constitutionality of Trump’s EO’s
You can find a judge to agree with you on most anything.
What if Bush was wiretapping Poluffe and Axelrod and Jarrett and leaking things from those wiretapps to the press – Rice was Obama’s NSC should we wiretap her ?
Clearly she was spying on people, certainly her conduct was suspicious ?
The fact is the longer this lasts the less evidence there is of malfeasance by Trump and the more evidence there is by Obama.
“Trump picks fights with anyone and shoots of his mouth using a megaphone, and he has no class or sense of proportion. In other words he is a complete ass____, who is tormenting racial animus and divisiveness.”
Some presidents try to channel Lincoln, some Kennedy, some Reagan, some Eisenhower. trump is channelling Jerry Springer. For every national situation he asks himself not, How can I help, but How can I get a food fight started? Being pissed at trump (and his supporters who have made him what he is!) in natural. Venting is healthy and good, we are stuck with him but we don’t have to like it and we can fight against what he is doing short of Ron’s ridiculous Assassination remark. When even normally level headed people start losing it you know the trump effect is at work.
“Trump has to go!” “Trump has to go!” “Trump has to go!” “Trump has to go!” “Trump has to go!”
Jay has said this over and over and over!!!!!!!!!!! How many times can he say it or dduck say it until it becomes a broken record.
” we can fight against what he is doing short of Ron’s ridiculous Assassination remark.”
How are we going to remove him from office before the next election??????????????????
My comment was total sarcasm in the fact that I do not believe Jay nor dduck combined could find the funds to hire someone. ( I could be wrong) And if they had the funds, then they could do a lot more financially to get the wheels turning to insure he was not reelected instead of constantly saying “Trump has to go!” Yes we can fight against what he is doing, but that is a hell of a lot different than just preaching “Trump has to go!” or calling him names on TNM.
“Trump has to go!” Yes we can fight against what he is doing, but that is a hell of a lot different than just preaching “Trump has to go!” or calling him names on TNM.”
tRump Has To Go … and he is a Dumb Ass.
I’m going to keep repeating the first, like a repeated Secular Prayer, in hope that it is answered before next POTUS election; and the name calling as well, as they are equivalent to cursing the Devil in invocation to Higher Powers Of Goodliness To take vengeance on the named miscreant …
Alabama just picked Roy Moore as the GOP senate candidate. And will likely win.
Purportedly Sherrif Joe Arpiao is looking to run also.
Moore won despite Trump endorsing Strange.
You do not seem to understand Trump is not causing the anger of a great number of american people, he is just giving voice to it.
If you actually manage to take Trump down – you will likely end up with someone worse.
Trump has tapped a raw nerve of tens of millions of americans.
He did not create that raw nerve – the Left did.
It will not go away if Trump does,
and now that it has been exposed, others besides Trump can use it.
Just what the GOP needs another who suffers from homophobia and someone who believes parts of America are ruled by Sharia law. He reminds me of the nit wits that ran a few years ago in Nevada, Delaware and Missouri. Those were sure wins also and the GOP insured defeat from victory. He stands for everything I am against. Total and complete control over ones personal rights.
There is not anyway in the world you get me to defend Moore (or Arpiao).
But Moore won the nomination and is highly likely to get elected.
Trump was elected to gum up the system – if he could do nothing else.
Moore represents more of the same.
I keep trying to get through – I think the electorate is horribly unruly, and this is the Left’s fault.
One of the things people here do not get.
Libertarian is what you should get when everyone “compromises”.
When the left is not permitted to infringe on our rights, and the right is not permitted to infringe on our rights, we get LESS government.
Compromise over government is supposed to be like the hypocratic oath – first do no harm.
In a properly functioning constitutional government, you would end up with libertarian govenrment even if not a single elected official was or beleived in libertarian government.
Government is not supposed to be a compromise in the traditional sense, it si supposed to be only those things that we can all agree – all of your rights protected, all of my rights protected.
People do not consciously understand that.
But they do understand they are being screwed by their government that is listening to others and not them, and when that gets to be too much, they throw bombs.
Expect more bombs, and expect more Trump like candidates to actually get elected until things change.
But there’s a BIGGER RAWER nerve of Americans who can’t stand him.
How is that good for America that close to 60% think he’s a fuckup?
You think Pense would be worse?
How!
No Jay there is not a bigger rawer nerve.
Trump won with higher negatives. than now.
He beats Hillary today by bigger numbers than before.
Polls tell a binary story, reality distributes along a curve.
I do not know the shape of the “anti-trump” curve – but lets assume it is a bell curve – which it likely is.
There is a small portion at one extreme that are a few provocations short of actually assassinating Trump.
At the opposite extreme are people who if asked will say they dislike Trump,
But are going to vote for him again anyway.
There is a huge smear of people in the middle.
We have assumed in the past that no one can get elected with negatives over 50%.
Trump has proved that false.
There are many factors that going into each vote, approval/disapproval among them.
60% of people think Trump was wrong to suggest the NFL fire kneelers.
60% of people think the NFL should fire kneelers.
Both are close to true. Trump should not have said that and if the fans want them fired then they should be fired.
We had this kind of stuff during the last government shutdown.
At the very same time that GOP negatives were going through the roof.
65% of voters thought that the debt ceiling should not be raised without congress coming up with a balanced budget.
Regardless, by the next election the GOP trounced democrats.
You need to be very careful about polls. you are trying to read a non-binary datapoint with a binary measure.
And you do not understand how angry people are with the left.
I think pense would be less inflamitory as a president.
I think that subsequently we would elect someone even more inflamitory than DT.
There are two huge problems right now.
You might slide by if you make huge progress on one of them.
Govenrment is near universally viewed as an F’up.
‘While everyone continues to want all the freebies they get, they are very angry about their perception that everyone else is getting more and they are getting screwed.
The left seems to think more freebies is the answer.
It isn’t.
The left has spent 3 decades atleast increasingly claiming to be more moral than everyone else, pretending that stealing from one group to pay another is highly moral.
And this goes beyond money. You do the same on all kinds of other issues.
The current mess is that you think your demands for racial justice – at a time when most of the country grasps that we have the least racism in our history, should trump everything else. Trump was elected by people who near universally think that standing for the national anthem is important and if you can not do it you should be fired.
By people who do not want to be “taught” about racism from a football player making $12M/year. Who will pay him $12M/year to watch him play the game incredibly well,
but do not want to hear from him how the country where he is making $12M.year is racist and evil.
So – you didn’t come up with any examples of why Pense would be worse as you initially stated- you just keep yapping …
And stop lumping me with lefties on race.
I didn’t like the original footballers stand to NOT stand for the Anthem…
I DIDNT want to see pro sports get politicized more than it was.
But DickBrain Donald had to ramp up the division, making it WORSE!
And his stupid divisive interfearance is WORSE than the divisive player-team-organization interfearance.
Once again, he’s the WORST OF TWO WORSTS!
Discussion of Pense as president is speculation. While there are likely “wrong” answers, there are no right answers.
But most importantly he would not be Donald Trump, he would not act like Donald Trump, and that actually is what many of his supporters want.
Even Trump is on occasion confused by this. He seems to have thought that he could effect the Alabama GOP primary, and get Strange elected. He failed.
Trump voters views are not driven by Trump. They are driven by anger at being called racists, etc. By being third or forth in line for everything. by anger at failed govenrment that they see as hostile to them.
They voted for Trump because he expresses their views and because he lashes back at those who have lash back at them.
They voted for Moore, because Moore was the Trump in the AL senate election, not because he was Trump’s choice.
Pence is not Trump.
Celebrity and politics are inextricably linked in this country.
I did not want Meryl Streep possibly the worlds best actor to go into a political diatribe in her last awards show appearance.
I did not want football players to kneel during the anthem – which is inherently political.
At the very least they should keep their politics off the field. The media provided them plenty of personal air time to express their views.
Their job is sports. Most of us have to be careful about political, religious and sexual expression on the job. We do not have much sympathy if football players must abide by the same constraints.
Trump did no more with regard to division than CK.
The division is already present and real. It got Trump elected.
The resolution to the division requires the left to back down.
That does nto appear to be happening soon.
Therefore this will likely get worse.
Your argument seems to be “if we can hide our divisions maybe they will go away”.
I am not supportive of Players bringing this issue into Football.
But there is a real issue they are trying to address – one that we need to confront.
One that the players are only PARTLY right on. And one they are also wrong on.
The players made the stupid mistake of typing their issue to the national anthem,
and as Scott Adams noted, very stupid mistake, the stronger brand always wins.
The left has gone from calling Trump supporters racist, to calling the entire nation racist.
Because that is really what the anthem protest devolves to.
Anyway, we need a serious public discussion of racism in this country.
And the left is going to have to face the fact that the nation is far less racist than it has ever been, but may not remain so if this continues.
That some racism is unavoidable – or atleast can not be fixed by government.
But the right needs to confront the fact that our militaristic and drug war policing has failed.
It is not the sole impediment to minority success in this country but it is a factor.
We live in a somewhat benign police state. That police state is not political, nor particularly racist, though their are racists in it.
But it is classist. Modern policing is probably on net positive – but it still has many things that are wrong that need fixed.
Those kneeling will be more effective when they disconnect their efforts from issues of race and issues of patriotism.
Many of us are just not interested in being told how horribly racist the country is.
There is far too much utterly repetitive stuff on TNM. But I am totally surprised that anyone could blame dduck for it.
OK if dduck has not commented about Trump in a negative way, I apologize. There are so many comments about Trump and he “Trump has to go”, I lose track.
The issue is make the comment so everyone knows where you stand, then don’t make another comment until something changes and a comment is of some interest. And yes, i am probably guilty of repeating myself, but usually in response to something someone else has said.
Some times the threading gets screwed up.
I responded to something you posted, and I know I clicked reply, but it is attached below something Jay posted where is makes no sense.
Further it is obvious that few of us really read what the others posted.
Jay and Robby can say I am repetitious, but I doubt they could state my views on any specific issue – and get them right.
I treat your comments (so many of them and surely long winded) like unsolicited mail: a quick look at a sentence or two, and if I’m disinterested, into the trash.
Yes jay, it is obvious you do not care to even hear what anyone who disagrees with you says.
Absolutely your right, but it means you live in a bubble.
yes Dave, it’s obvious you’re like the stagecoach passenger who keeps talking and farting day after day, and then complains when other passengers shove their heads out the window for fresh air and silence.
We are not on a stage coach ride.
When you are making choices that do not involve force, you can do as you please, and need listen to no one.
If you use force without knowledge, you act immorally.
Regardless, I am wrong, you do not use ad hominem as a substitute for argument, you use it as a substitute for thought.
You complain because I say too much. But you have clearly listened to none of it.
It cost you nothing.
You complain about having to listen to things you did not hear.
“A fool is made more of a fool, when their mouth is more open than their mind.”
― Anthony Liccione
A fool’s way is right in his own eyes, but whoever listens to counsel is wise.
Proverbs 12:15
Ron, Of course, I am in total sympathy with the principle behind Jays prodigious posting on trump. It (the trump era) is like having bamboo inserted under my fingernails while watching someone torch an old growth Redwood forest. I can understand someone screaming about it, in pain, while trying to somehow keep their sense of humor. Any complaints about Jay’s trump output ring hollow without a proportional complaint about Dave’s millions of words complaining about the left. I sympathize with Jay’s complaint. Perhaps you sympathize with Dave’s complaint.
The 1600 posts is not testimony to a great conversation. Its testimony to a badly broken conversation that got stuck.
” I sympathize with Jay’s complaint. Perhaps you sympathize with Dave’s complaint.”
Nope, do and don’t sympathize with both. Agree with Jay that Trump is and ass. But leave it there as i can’t do anything until 2020 about it. Agree with Dave that government creates many of our problems, but do not agree with his totally government free society thinking everyone will work for the good of others and everything will be fine.
I am right their in the middle, understanding that government plays a role in our society, but when it gets so big that it controls by regulations and not laws, then it becomes a detriment to society.
Can you imagine how many tons of paper it would take today for our government to write a constitution for this country like our founding fathers did?
Your post perfectly expresses your own problem.
Is there really bamboo under your fingernails ?
Are you really watching an old growth redwood forest get torched ?
I know that is just hyperbole, and we all do that.
But some part of you actually believes it.
The left has equated the expression – or worse pursuit of ideas they do not like as actual violence.
Trump’s election has done no violence to you, and little to anyone.
It has taken from you nothing that was yours.
You have not actually been harmed.
I oppose alot of what Trump wants. But I am not hysterical over it.
I am not chanting “trump has got to go” I am not praying some mythical revelation about Russia will cause the Trump presidency to implode.
I can criticise a number of specific policies of Trump’s – if he gets what he wants and I do not – the world will not end, my life will not be altered.
There is no actual violence in his words.
I have lived through 11 presidents. I will live through Trump.
I have lived through Obama – polished and proper, eloquent, well spoken.
And a complete disaster.
I would further warn you, I think he is going to be re-elected.
I know that you can not possibly believe that, and I could be wrong.
I think it is near certain if the economy reaches 3% growth, and I think that is possible.
And ignoring the economy, nothing I have seen since november leads me to beleive that Democrats have a clue why they lost.
You are so fixated on Russia that you can not see what is in front of your eyes.
This recent NFL thing almost captures it in a microcosm.
You think that pissing all over the values of others is acceptable for whatever fake greater good you are after.
Why is the left incapable of understanding that disrespecting the nation is not going to be a winning protest. That pissing over values that others hold dear makes enemies not friends.
MLK and the civil rights movement worked because they were fighting and calling attention to real racism that people could see. Because those watching on TV did not see themselves in Bill Connor.
Whether true or not, if you call the majority of the country racist, you lose.
The conversation is not “stuck”.
We are just debating different permutations of the same issue.
Charolettesville was about the confluence of free speach and violence,
Subsequent events – the same.
The NFL thing – the same issue but viewed from the opposite side.
At Charolottesville you had alt-right protestors, and left counter protestors,
With the NFL thing you have left protestors and right fan counter protestors.
In Charlottesville we have speach in a government forum.
With the NFL we have a privately provided forum that is national in scope.
And with each new issue – you are jay weigh in that the fundimental problem is Trump.
Whatever the issue, whatever the discussion – Trump is the root cause and the problem.
IF only there were no donald Trump, Charlottesville would not have happened.
Harvey Irma and Maria would have fizzled, Ben Shapiro would not have gone to Berkeley,
North Korea would be farting rainbows and the NFL would be quiet.
The real world is messy. Trump is not the cause of that.
At worst he is unique in that he is the first president in a long time that has not reflected progressive pro government values when he spoke.
Obama spoke of people clinging to their guns and bibles. When Trump speaks of those clinging to false ideals – he is speaking about you.
Now you know how the otherside felt under Obama.
The link just goes to nydailynews – there are alot of potentially offensive stories.
If you do not want to stand for the national anthem – don’t. If you want to protest – protest.
As an individual there is nothing anyone can or should do.
Trying to suck your employer and fans into your protest is dangerous and could cost you your job.
Trump is not the root of our problems – not even close.
All he has done is very effectively tapped a nerve. He has found the tens of millions of people who are made as hell and not going to take it anymore. Who are tired of being called hateful hating haters.
It is those pushing identity politics that created this mess, and until they figure out that more identity politics is not going to fix it this problem will remain.
I was alive for the race riots in the 60’s. This is not the 60’s. Racism will never be dead, but if you are a minority – it is the least signifcant aspect of your problems.
Nor do ordinary americans have much interest in being lectured on race by people who can not construct a grammatical sentence, but are paid millions a year.
Be pissed all you want, but this has been getting worse for several decades, Long before Trump, and will continue even if you get rid of Trump.
Sorry, try this, or Google it: http://abc7ny.com/politics/ny-city-council-takes-a-knee-as-a-show-of-solidarity/2460361/
Thank you
I have to think about that.
I think that saying this is about the flag is wrong.
While we venerate symbols, they are symbols for something else.
In this case our country and its values,.
I do not think most of us care alot about the flag as a flag, or the anthem as a song.
We stand to show our respect for “the land of the free and the home of the brave”.
Disrespecting the flag is a powerful statement. It either says you disagree with our values, or you think that we do not significantly live up to those values.
Obviously we do not perfectly dive up to those values.
During the vietnam war, Flag burners were like the KKK – you are free do do as you wish, but do not presume I like it.
Those who say that our soldiers died so that you could kneel for the national anthem are correct, But they are also wrong. You are suppose to respect their sacrifice and what we stand for.
I think that if you are a part of government – it is acceptable to obligate you to stand.
If you do not respect the values of the nation, you should not be in government.
I think if the national anthem is part of the job that you do, you had better be sure before you kneel that your employer is ok with that, and in some instances that their customers are OK. Otherwise you could use your job.
If you are at an event on your own time, you can do as you please.
But you might get boo’d hissed or stared at.
Purportedly these players are kneeling because of “racism”.
I do not have a problem with protests, I do not have a problem with protesting racism – even when I think the racism you are protesting is small.
But I think you risk making a serious mistake when your idea of protest is to challenge a symbol. Symbols stand for something, and if that something is viewed as more important than what you are protesting for, I think you harm your cause.
I do not have a real strong reaction to these protests, – but many do.
I noted before that part of the hysterical reaction to Trump is because he is shitting in the cathedral of the left.
Kneeling for the national anthem is shitting in a cathedral too.
This is a move that is likely to succeed or fail spectacularly.
My bet is fail.
Solidarity is more stupid leftism.
Either you too are protesting racism or go away.
If you are just protesting to support some other protestor, you are so far removed from the issue, that you come off badly no matter what.
I would also suggest something else related to both the left animosity to trump and the reaction to kneeling.
I think you will find that those with reacting strongly negatively are having their “disgust” moral foundation triggered.
Check out Prof. Haidt’s yourmoral.org and you can get you levels for each of 6 foundational moral values – disgust is one of those.
Typically conservatives have the strongest disgust reactions, while progressives reactions are weaker, and libertarians the weakest of all.
When you shit in someone’s cathedral – disgust is the normal response.
But Trump has to work to get the left going, because their disgust response is poor.
Conversely kneeling for the national anthem is likely to trigger conservatives.
When those of you on the left demand to know why I do not think Trump is the devil incarnate. It is because he is not triggering my disgust response – because I do not have much of one. Just as I have to think about those kneeling for the anthem. I do not automatically respond to that with disgust.
None of the moral foundation values are inherently superior or inferior.
Each make you good at some tasks and bad at others.
Screw OB, he is a stuck up player with a giant attitude, not a Giants’ player.
What you are missing, is these so called Council members are supposed to be representing their communities, not to be Al Sharpton wannabees.
NYC is an ultra liberal town, but these schmucks should at try to be neutral.
DDUCK click on the link you provided. There is not one damn thing on it about the NYC Council. It is the headlines of the NY Daily Post. What the hell were you trying to share????
http://abc7ny.com/politics/ny-city-council-takes-a-knee-as-a-show-of-solidarity/2460361/ or Google it.
tRump is a turd.
Does anyone still disagree?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/second-class-puerto-rico-1506467376
Jay, check with DDUCK and see if y’all can hire an assassin to get rid of him. Thats the only way it is going to happen before 2020 unless your willing to do that, you will have that smell coming from D.C. We all know where you stand as you have said it almost as many times as Dave has told us about what rights we have.
Im hoping we can get somebody like this, with a bigger net, to round him up
“Jay, check with DDUCK and see if y’all can hire an assassin to get rid of him. ”
This is a rediculous comment. complaining is legal. You do a lot of it, including about things you know damn well won’t change. dduck is right on target with trump causing no end of divisiveness.
“Trump has to go!”
No one is arguing you are not free to voice your own views.
You are not free to demand that government enforce your views.
Finally, being free to express something does not make expressing it wise.
I do not think Football players taking a knee during the national anthem are evil,
but they are trying to draw attention to just about the least important factor effecting minorities today, and they are doing so in a way that is guaranteed to offend alot of people.
The objective of non-violent protest is to build sympathy for your position not create enemies.
Trump is not causing the division it was already there.
He is just the first major candidate to call out the left for creating it.
BTW the division exists for the same reason you can not have big government.
Everything expansion of government – even those with majority support creates new losers and new enemies for the left.
The more you do the more angry people you create.
The jones act is unconstitutional, but SCOTUS is not likely to see it that way.
That said Trump can not just waive it – that too would be unconstitutional – unless there ar provisions in the act to empower the president to do so.
Congress should just kill the jones act, it has always been a bad idea.
Trump is not a “turd” for not acting like king.
Much of the problem with the Obama administration was Obama acting without constitutional authority.
If something requires congress to act, then the president must wait for congress to act.
RICK!
Start a new thread!
Even if it’s only a paragraph!
It took me 5 minutes to scroll down to post this comment.
Since this flag thing is a big deal that is likely an appropriate topic.
But why are several of you having problems ?
I have abysmal internet service. I am using Chrome under Linux, and I have maybe 40 tabs open, all things that slow browsing down alot, and TNM is about the same as other sites for me.
Do you have autoplay for video’s on mayber ?
Site that try to force start videos give me lots of trouble, or demand flash or ….
But I am not having trouble with TNM.
Since behavior is different for different people, something must be different between their setup.
Dave, each of us that are having problems seem to be having different problems. Jay seems to have to page through all the comments, while I can reply to a comment from my email link and I go directly to the comment box. If I am making a new comment, then I can just drag the cursor all the way down to the comment box. However, when I first access the article and the comments are loading, each time it gets to something like a comment with a link to you tube, I can read at the bottom of the screen, “accessing youtube.com”. And there are many others whenever there is an imbedded meme or picture.
And this is on a computer or amazon fire tablet with little in startup. I still have 80-95% of resources available. It the massive amount of links slowing down the process of loading comments.
My scrolling down problem is a coefficient of the number of posted comments. My iPad doesn’t have ‘bottom of page’ equivalent. I can click on recent comments, but that doesn’t generally link to the bottom, to post new replies.
If Rick would start general new topic posts more frequently – not full articles, but a paragraph on something current, that would solve the time consuming scroll problem.
My other problem is that I’m frequently getting disconnect errors when first bringing up the site, and then again after I post a reply, when the program tries to reload. I only have the problem on this site, and it may be connected to the same ‘overload’ problem above – just too many replies for a particular topic.
Jay, your disconnect is like the same problem I have with my desktop when I try posting something. I am now copying anything I write to word so when it does not make it thought the complete connect phase and does not post, I can copy that comment again, change it slightly and retry.
I think Rick should consider “guest articles” so he does not have to write them all, but has some from others that he could post on a more frequent basis. He would still need to review them to make sure they meet TNM policy standpoint. but would not be writing them.
or he could post a newsstory of Interest weekly, and ask for opinions about it
I was just looking to make suggestions, that might be helpful.
The Fire would be running Linux but with Amazon’s browser, and the Fire does not likely have much memory, but is optimized for its resources.
My Guess would be that video links would be the most problem – they are my big problem with other web sites. Image links should cache with most any browser – you should only have to download the image once, and ever subsequent visit should pull up the cached copy.
I am an embedded software person, not an IT guy. Get past the basics regarding “why is my browser slow” and your past my expertise.
But I can tell you that I am not having performance problems. It takes about 15s or less to click on an email link load the page and drop down to the comment box.
I have lots of sites that take longer.
I am working with a slow internet connection, and a sluggish computer.
That suggests you should be doing better – maybe not on a Fire.
Fear not: it’s coming soon! You guys have shattered the previous record for number of comments.
Subject: Patriotism, descent, loyalty, and freedom of speech: How to use it correctly and how to abuse it.
Interesting fact. California, New York, Illinois and a few other (what some call liberal states) have very high state income tax rates. Other states like Tennessee , Florida, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, New Hampshire and Wyoming have no state income tax. Then there are states like North Carolina, Utah, Pennsylvania and many others that have low state income tax rates. So taking an income of $1,000,000 in a state like California results in state income taxes of almost $100,000 (based on a rate of 13.3% with exemptions). But they don’t pay $100,000 because the federal government allows them to deduct their state taxes from their federal taxable income, meaning these individuals are in the 35% (39% less exemptions) and the federal government refunds them through reduced federal taxes of $35,000. Now why in the devil should people in no tax states or low tax states be required to supplement millionaires in high tax states. There are many more making over a million in California, New York and Illinois than there are in North Carolina, Utah, Tennessee or other low tax states. Its time for the feds to eliminate state and local income taxes from deductions for federal income taxes as part of tax reform, reduce middle class rates and let the millionaires like Facebook chairman Zuckerberg, all the actors in Hollywood and all the hedge fund managers in New York pick up the tab for their own state overspending and stop relying on the rest of the United States to cover their tax liability. For those in North Carolina, lets see where Mark Meadows (R) NC-11, Freedom caucus leadership stands when that “tax increase” is written into a bill. Will he stand for NC and others in low tax states and the middle class, or will he stand for the millionaires in high tax states. How Meadows goes, so goes the 60 or so members of the house in the Freedom Caucus and they will make or break tax reform.
Taxes should never be tax deductible. That is always a subsidy of some kind.
But this is popular and has been that way for a long time.
And there are enough high tax republican states this is going to be hard to pass.
Regardless, do not get rid of the deduction for state and local taxes – get rid of ALL tax deductions. set a zero Tax rate for the first quintile, and a fixed rate for everyone else.
Reduce corporate taxes to zero, and tax capital gains and dividends as income.
Forget trying to make this revenue neutral. We can not work out the +’s and minus’s.
Guestimate, and then specific in the law that if the result is a deficit, that the tax rate will increase automatically by some percent and the government budget will decrease automatically by some percent until the budget is balanced.
You can find some formula that sets the tax increase/spending cut based on the size of the deficit – bigger deficits trigger higher tax increase AND spending cuts, but the formula is also set to have something like a 10 year window to bring the deficit to 0.
Anyway, if you pass a tax plan that does not have fixed rates, and that automatically triggers tax increases and spending cuts based on the size of deficits,
now you can get rid of all the other rules and gimicks regarding programs.
Everyone – including congress and the people know that any future spending increases – will result in tax increases, and any future spending cuts will result in tax cuts.
That also allows congress to separately modify the flat rate, in the future – again as a standalone measure.
If congress cuts the base rate in the future and triggers a deficit the rate will rise AND spending will cut automatically until the budget balances.
I would prefer to see the FED killed – that would completely eliminate inflation and baseline adjustments. But the alternative is dictate a fixed inflation target for the FED – say 1%.
It then becomes the FED’s job to control inflation, and govenrment spending changes YTY can be fixed, aside from legislative changes.
If you want to go farther – get rid of ObamaCare and all social safetynet programs and convert them to some kind of fixed UBI or Negative Tax. UBI’s are a very bad idea.
But safetynets are worse.
Dave, “Regardless, do not get rid of the deduction for state and local taxes – get rid of ALL tax deductions. set a zero Tax rate for the first quintile, and a fixed rate for everyone else.”
You have stated this position many times in many different ways. We understand your position on this subject. But your position on taxes has as less chance of passing (or even making it to the floor) as Jay’s and dduck’s position that Trump needs to be removed from office. At least this could happen in 2020. Your position on taxes may never happen and sure won’t within the next 10 years.
So the reason I wrote my comment was because I will compromise a flat rate tax position for anything that reduces current taxes and make the taxes more fair. And eliminating the subsidizing of millionaires in high tax states by middle income people in low rate states is one way to make taxes just a little bit more fair. Where you will not compromise on your positions and would leave taxes as they are, i will compromise to get something better, even though it is not everything I would desire.
First what I proposed incorporated some new elements.
One of the big problems both parties face is CBO scoring.
We have a score keeper that admits that they can not project, that states it is required to use rules that guarantee it will be wrong – even on the few things it knows,
and yet all legislation, even the number of votes needed hinges on this scores that are ludicrously stupid.
Reconcilliation rules, pay-as-you-go rules, CBO scoring were all worthwhile efforts to bring the budget under control.
But they have failed.
The big new idea in what I proposed is to let go of the entire scoring mess.
Let politicians pass whatever spending bills they want.
But create a mechanism that automatically increases taxes across the board and cuts spending across the board so long as there is a deficit.
Put in such a process and voters will make their own judgements about legislation.
And hold legislators accountable. The idea is to restore the connection between govenrment spending an our pocketbooks.
While the mechanism above can be enacted with any tax scheme, it will work better if:
we eliminate tax deductions, and we simplify taxes greatly.
I really hate appeals to fairness. Every toddler knows what is “fair”, every parent knows not to get into a discussion of “fair”.
If you haven’t seen The Big Short ( presently on Nexflix) it’s worth watching, both for content and for film story telling technique.
I thought it was a good movie. I thought it got aspects of 2005-2009 that it covers right. It was some time ago that I saw it.
It did not address what created the housing bubble, it implied that came from market maddness or speculation and that is nonsense. As I recall it did not address the role of government in lowering lending standards, It did not much address the subprime and Alt-A aspects of the problem. It overstated the responsibility of the ratings agencies – while they made mistakes there is almost nothing they could have done that would have stopped this.
And the biggest issue of all, is that it completely skirted the fact that all of this was about securities. This is a simplification but think of a security as “collateral”.
If I loan you 10,000 on a very risky deal, but you get me a diamond ring worth 10K to hold as collateral – I do not need to care how risky your deal is.
The reason that the financial markets were lax on credit standard – besides government pushing them to be, was because all these loans were secured by houses.
So long as the houses retained their value, the risk to the lender was always small.
The fundimental cause of this was artificially inflated home prices and their collapse. And remember as Friedman noted inflation is always and everywhere a monetary problem.
Further home prices never dropped more than 30% – that is why TARP failed, and why the bailout was unnecescary. Some banks were likely to fail. But the problem with the financial markets in 2008 was not that the institutions were going to collapse.
It was a liquidity crisis. Because MBS’s were used to meet bank capital reserve requirements, and because MTM required the banks to write down their values when the market for MBS’s tanked, nearly all banks were short on reserves and that meant they were not legally allowed to lend. So commercial lending came to a standstill and that seized much of the market – not just the financial market.
Suspending or elminating MTM would have “solved” everything. There would have been no need for a government bailout. A few banks would have failed. there still would have been much the same recession, but recovery would have been swift. There would have been not TARP and no ARRA. and we would might have had 3% growth the past 6-7 years.
Dave, (and everyone else), if I have said this before, I don’t remember. could be a duplicate.
One of the main reason along with those presented by Dave was government. My wifes brother-in-law was a president of a large local bank in North Carolina. It is now one of the largest in the region and almost national. he was there in the early 2000’s until he moved on to a savings and loan in the state. During that period, the government created the Community Reinvestment Act that “encouraged” the lenders to have loan portfolios that matched the demographics where the lender was located. So if they had a 25% minority population, the government regulators looked for evidence that 25% of your loans were for minorities. Now the act itself said “encouraged” that to happen. Where as, the fact was the institutions were deep in do-do if their closed loans did not match the demographics and to keep from being fined, they had to spend hours preparing documentation that proved the loans were risky. And in many cases, what was risky to them was not risky to the government storm troopers.
So he said it was much easier to loan money to those that they knew were very risky and to bundle those loans with good loans, hoping that they would be paid or that there were not enough bad loans to cause a problem. WOOPS. guess what, there were too many of them and along with other issues, and caused the crisis.
But you will never hear a politician blame the CRA for that problem or any other government regulation for that matter.
The CRA has a long and sordid history – it was passed by Jimmy Carter,
It was ammended during Bush I and Clinton,
The biggest changes came after the Boston Fed did a “study” that claimed that minorities were less of a risk than lenders were rating them as that Banks should consider “alternate” factors” as reasons to extend credit. The Boston Fed paper is still available, and it is so bad that most anyone who reads it will easily see – this would result in trouble.
Three things started happening during the Clinton administration.
The Federal Reserve told banks they were going to consider their CRA compliance as part of their interactions with the Fed. Technically the Fed is “private” – it is not a regulator, you do business with the fed. But if you are a bank and you can not do business with the fed you are dead.
The next thing that happened is groups like Accorn would find banks that were not making enough minority loans and they would picket the bank presidents homes.
The last thing that happened was Andrew Cuomo – now NY governor and then head of HUD started suing Banks and lenders. He would “settle” with them for “billions”.
But the “billions” were not fines, they were banks and lenders agreeing to write billions of sub prime loans.
All this was before Bush
The CRA remains in effect, but is not being actively enforced.
Despite its flaws it is not the cause of the recession.
The CRA and other factors determined WHERE the bubble occured.
Not that it occurred.
Absent the easy money policies of the Fed, there would have been no money for bad loans.
No matter what government does – short of a gun, money does not significantly flow to poor risk/return choices until there is too much money.
There is no absolute requirement that banks write home mortgages.
Or that investors put money into banks.
The available money will flow into the investment oportunities in the market filling the best risk/reward options first and going to ever poorer investments until money runs out.
In a normal market the CRA would have just reduced housing loans.
If 25% of your loans must go to bottom market – vet the bottom 25% get the best you can do there, and then write the number of good loans you are permitted based on the bottom 25%. You do not need to write lots of bad loans to conform to the CRA, you just end up writing less good loans.
You write lots of bad loans when there is lots of money available.
The Fed pumped money into the market.
Fannie and Freddie grew their portfolio’s huge.
The transition to “securitizing” loans – MBS’s which is actually a GOOD thing,
made it possible to buy and sell loans much easier.
So banks did not have to hold the “old maid” CRA loans they wrote.
Regardless, the most important point is very little money will flow to bad investments unless there is lots of excess money in the market – and that is the Federal Reserves fault
not the CRA.
There was going to be a bubble somewhere no matter what.
@RonP. I feel like I am sending a message in a bottle from NY to some island in the Azores, when I try to wade through the flotsam of comments on TNM. The comments all all over the place like they swallowed jumping beans, and a reply comment can land anywhere in the thread unless you go to the very bottom of the page.. BTW, I am on a desktop, with sufficient power I think
Anyway, aside from joining the new subject chorus, I would like to say I don’t like to even joke about killing someone, as in assassinate Trump. The only politician I ever wished harm to, and that was that he would lose his power of speech, was a guy named Michael Quill, who would have screwed up the NYC transit system.
I can’t do much in NYC- so liberal- to thwart Trump or get any Reps to try and calm him with cold showers. Our primaries are party only and the candidates are all Dems like the cretins that inhabit our City Council and forget the national elections too, So, I hope some more enlightened citizens in other locales can get the message to their Rep people, that we want less of Trump.
DDuck, what neighborhood do you live in NYC?
Midtown, Murray Hill
In my younger years I lived on 28th St, off 2nd Ave for a while.
Then, a nice neighborhood, friendly bars, not too expensive French & Italian restaurants. Nice central location for walking downtown and crosstown. Sigh – nostalgia.
interesting, everyones WordPress and e-mail must be set up differently. I read the e-mail, click on reply, it shows “reply to dduck12”, I write something, click post comment and it post under the message originally sent.
For first time comments in a new article, i have to click the two boxes under the comment, notify me of XXXXX. After that, i get notification of all comments and never have to go to the actual comments other than the comment box at the end of the comment page again.
The problems I have is when I click the reply button on the e-mail and there are 1500 comments, it has to load all 1500 before I can make a comment at the end of the comment page in the comments box. But I never page through something already written..
Alabama is probably electing Roy Moore
Arizona may elect Arpiao
Michigan may elect Kid Rock.
This is not getting better soon.
Neither the left, nor establishment republicans understand people are pissed.
They will elect dingbats – so long as they are “outsiders”.
They want bomb throwers.
When every effort to get good government fails, we will elect bomb throwers.
A part of this is the inability to repeal PPACA.
The left is celebrating, but does nto understand it should have died when Scott Brown was elected. The fact that we can not get rid of it with a GOP house, senate and president, means that the electorate is going to be more willing to put in extremists.
I have told you before that law can not survive if as little as 11% vigorously oppose it.
I can not seem to get most of you here to understand that majority rule is ultimately totalitarian. What govenrment can do is what we have near universal agreement on – not what you can get a majority to support.
Does anyone think this guy should not be hung by his testicles unless he reimburses the full amount?
Actually, I think he ALSO should also pay a fine of 100%
And promise to donate his body parts to medical science.. 😉
During his presidency Obama’s vacations cost taxpayers over $100M
I think price’s statements that the “optics” were bad.
Lorretta Lynch was obviously flying arround in a government provided Jet – that is where She and Clinton met.
I think Congress should set rules on when ranking government officials must fly commercial.
I think this will blow over because some group will bail price out.
That said there are times with these people should charter or use government jets and times they should not, and it should not be their discretion.
Sandberg is the CEO of Facebook.
BTW Facebook also ran “russian” adds for Stein and Sanders.
I really hate to have to defend Roy Moore over anything
But the most famous paragraph in human history starts
“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,”
and it was written by the same guys who wrote the constitution.
You can disagree with Moore, but our founders beleived and wrote as Moore does, when you pretend otherwise you show yourself stupid, not him.
Unmasking, and spying by the Obama administration.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/lawmakers-sights-obama-unmasking-scandal/
UNDERCOVER IN ANTIFA: Their Tactics and Media Support Exposed!
Antifa violence ‘vitally worth doing,’ says NYU librarian
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9863
Aparently Clinton is hinting that Stein conspired with Flynn and the Russians to collude to elect DT.
And aparently the Kremlin is behind BLM too.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/26/facebook-russia-trump-sanders-stein-243172
And here we have CNN struggle to find some way of claiming that a purportedly Russian and very very popular FB account that was calling out acts of police brutality and organizing BLM get togethers, was somehow helping Trump ? Not Clinton ?
What is really disturbing is that I think Jay and Roby can watch this and come out angry with Trump.
The group was purportedly sophisticated for targeting Furgesson with information on police brutality. Sorry, that is only “sophisticated” if your audience is NBA players that can not write simple gramatical english. The correct adjective would be “obvious”.
Or is the claim that Russia was trying to motivate Blacks to protest and vote, because that would somehow motivate even more racist whites to vote ?
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/28/media/blacktivist-russia-facebook-twitter/index.html?sr=twmoney092917blacktivist-russia-facebook-twitter0108AMVODtopLink&linkId=42899515
So lets get a clue. Future Senator Roy Moore like it or not is correct.
Rights do not come from the constitution.
Even Russians have free speach rights – even in our elections. Because we can not stop them without turning our country into something worse than China or the worst of the USSR. Because rights do not come from the constitution.
Because people we do not like, can say things we do not like and there is not much we can do about it.
Given the “sophistication” or this russian “interference”, facebook is just going to have to ban everything even remotely political, or maybe just everything.
If you are running a pro-choice site, that could really be to inflame pro-lifers and get them to vote conservative, and maybe the creator of the site is either a fake russian, or the kremlin or some poser in the US fronting for a Russian.
We should apply the precautionary principle and just block them to be safe.
Are those of you on the left really this clueless ?
Do you really beleive that Facebook should police its site looking for pages that advocate against police violence that might be created by people outside the US ?
Trump wants to Make America Great Again. Does the left want the US to turn the internet into its own private american walled garden ?
Facebook recently “banned” Austin Peters for 30days.
Peters is a republican candidate for the Senate in Missouri.
He was banned for running an AR-15 giveaway to one of his supporters.
I searched FaceBook and there are over 100 AR-15 groups, that is not users featuring AR-15’s – that number is in the thousands.
These are groups telling you how to build, or buy or use or protest bans on Ar-15’s
There OK (for now) but a Senate Candidate with an AR-15 is not ?
The left is completely bonkers.
But isn’t Facebook a privately owned business, like a newspaper, and don’t they have the right to include or exclude who or what they like?
And haven’t you defended private business from content interfearance?
So why the criticism now?
Are you going to chastise Christian bakers who refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings too?
Yes, FB is private and they can do what they want.
AND I can complain, and/or change how I do business.
You really do not get it. Free speech means you can say whatever you want – and GOVERNMENT can do nothing about it, and no one can use real FORCE against you because of what you say.
It does not mean there are no consequences.
It does nto mean I can not bitch about the policies of others.
Contra the left and so many posters here, what is occurring with the NFL is a great lesson.
It is how things work and how they are supposed to work.
NFL players are free to take a knee during the national anthem.
Coaches, owners etc. can fire them or support them as they please.
The present can bitch and moan about disrespecting veterans – so long as he does not move to advocating the use of actual FORCE,
Fans can support the protestors or they can counter protest as they please.
Sponsers can double down or jump ship.
This is apart of how we test ideas. It is how freedom works.
This is not a bad thing, it is a good thing.
This will resolve itself one way or another – without a rule or regulation in site.
And no matter how this resolves, there is always the possibility it will resolve otherwise the next time.
We might decide the players upset about police targeting blacks are the weaker issue today. A week from now some police officer might open up on a crowd of Black school kids and suddenly everyone is taking a knee.
There is not one right answer for all time.
Government should be small because government should change slowly if at all, and should strive for the one right answer to the questions it tries to address.
Most questions do not have one right answer for all time. Those are questions that should not be government questions.
Clearly you do not read a thing I wrote because you are pretty much wrong point by point here. Partly because you think there are only two answers.
Not a thing I write below should have been hard for you to predict – yet you failed.
All that means is you know nothing about the classical liberal ideology, politics or philosophy, Because these are libertarian 101 things.
No one requires you to pass libertarian 101.
But when you make very stupid remarks about something you clearly have not botehred to learn the slightest about, you make yourself look very stupid.
“But isn’t Facebook a privately owned business, like a newspaper, and don’t they have the right to include or exclude who or what they like?”
Private businesses should be free from FORCE (usually government).
They are not immune from criticism, boycott, or protest.
“And haven’t you defended private business from content interfearance?”
By GOVERNMENT. I am perfectly free to demand the businesses I frequent conform to whatever content standards I please.
“So why the criticism now?”
Nothing new. I have criticised FB before and will again.
What I do not want is laws to constraint FB content.
“Are you going to chastise Christian bakers who refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings too?”
Absolutely – and I have. Just as I have literally marched to protest the KKK, and Nazi.
But I have also fought to ensure they are free from government restrictions on what they say.
This is the kind of crap you get when you decide that you can hand out search warrants like candy and that the 4th amendment is meaningless.
Atleast this is being done somewhat publicly, as opposed to Obama’s unmasking.
What does it take for you left wingnuts to grasp that
Those who live by the sword die by the sword.
We should not be prying into the facebook or other acounts of people absent probable cause that they committed a crime. We should not be doing it with Trump Surogates.
We should not be doing it with Trump Protestors.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/facebook-anti-administration-activists/index.html
More blind rationalization bullshit from a partisan lock step Libertarian, revealed by his proclivity to blame the victims for the victimizations. Right wing Trumpsters are the ones engaging in this fascist inclined behavior, the same resurrected mindset we saw from right wing fascists during the McCarthy era.
Are your Republican Libertarian leaning compatriots in congress speaking out against this invasion of privacy? Why not?
Jay;
Get a clue. Still NOT a republican.
Yes, those few libertarians in congress are speaking out against this and much more.
Where are YOU!!!
What I am also not is a HYPOCRIT.
If I am opposed to something – I am opposed to it, whether Trump does it, or Obama does it or whoever does it.
The efforts of the Trump administration to violate the 4th amendment to use against their enemies offend me – exactly as the efforts of left weenies to do the same to Trump or their enemies.
Regardless, if you are going to allow a milqtoast reading of the 4th amendment that allows you to use if to go after Trump and his cronies, then you must expect that Trump and his cronies will do the same and use that same weak reading to go after you.
The rule of law, means the same law for everyone. Not strong 4th amendment protections for leftists and weak ones for conservatives.
Yes, this is fascist, What Mueller is doing is also fascist.
What Obama did spying on political opponents was fascist,
Not to mention the NSA spying on everyone, that was going on During Obama, and Bush and Clinton.
This type of fascist bullshit has been growing with each new president.
Get a clue. Because you could be the next victim.
Yes, this is MacCarthy era crap – and it is being done as much by the left as the right.
At the moment you are entirely Whigged out because “russians influenced our elections”.
Can’t you just hear Joe MacCarthy saying that ?
They did so how ? By putting up Black Lives Matter type facebook pages and by buying tiny amounts of gun rights adds on facebook.
How is that different from supporting unions and organizations during the 50’s ?
“More blind rationalization bullshit from a partisan lock step Libertarian, revealed by his proclivity to blame the victims for the victimizations.”
Practically every word of that sentence is nothing but ad hominem.
My argument is correct. Insulting it does not falsify it.
I am asking you to abandon your hypocrisy. Either what Trump is doing is constitutional, or what Mueller is doing is not. You can not oppose one without opposing the other.
You can not support one without supporting the other.
No one has challenged Mueller’s subpeona’s and warrants in court, but if they did they would be addressing exactly the same law as this case.
Bank records and business papers are even more protected than the information you put on social media sites. There is a higher expectation of privacy in the former.
Does anyone know how to pronounce this guy’s name?
Corruption derives from power.
The only way to reduce government corruption is to reduce govenrment power.
With respect to your posted tweet – how specifically is this administration more corrupt than prior administrations ?
Is this administration spying on democrats ? That is something I will join you to end.
Regardless, identify some actual evidence of corruption unique to this administration.
“The only way to reduce government corruption is to reduce govenrment power.”
That’s as dumb as saying the only way to eliminate speeding on highways is to reduce the number of cars driving on them.
Have you found some other means of reducing corruption that works ?
I have seen no evidence that you have discovered any other.
Reducing the power of govenrment will reduce corruption – even if your apples to oranges analogy was actually valid.
It is true that reducing the number of cars on the highway will reduce speeding.
But your analogy is flawed in several ways.
Power corrupts.
cars do not cause speeding.
And this is a moderate response compared to others directed at Prez CrapHead for his ASSININE remark about Puerto Rico:
Sorry Jay, but Trump is your creation.
He is the natural result of your identity politics.
Even the extent to which Trump whigs you out is evidence of your own problems.
You care little about what Trump does and go ballistic over what he says.
I do not pay all that much attention to what Trump says. It is not that important to me.
But I do derive pleasure from the extent to which he rattles the left.
He is a fitting punishment for you.
You have been falsely maligning the rest of the country for decades.
Now Trump is there flipping you off and there is nothing you can do.
Trump is not divisive – we are already divided, you did that.
Trump is just not papering over the divide and worse still, he has not picked your side of the divide to defend.
He makes you crazy, and he makes you look crazy.
Dave/Jay. I think this comment is one of Dave’ better comments. Short enough to retain the short attention span for most readers today and offering information that can be supported by some individual personal actions.
WHY???Had the Democrats ran anyone from the “sensible center” and not some “entitled bitch” that they had decided was “her turn” after she lost to Obama or some radical socialist that wants to create government run everything in the country, maybe there would have been a handful of people like myself in Mich, Penn, and Wisc that would have voted for the democrat. It would have taken few in those states to flip the electoral college.
So yes, the Democrats and others like Jay from the liberal left created the Trump presidency.
But the problem now is the further movement left in the Democrat party and the fact that Trump is now creating the highly possible election of an extreme socialist that want government run everything in the country. They may not be as open about it as Sanders, but their positions will be much like his.
And with that election, the division in the country will only grow worse, not better. Race and class division will not go away unless we can somehow find more centrist thinking in the elected officials.
Ron;
Trump was not the consequence of Democrats running Hillary.
Trump is the consequence of the fact that the only political strategy of democrats is identity politics.
Everyone here keeps saying Trump is divisive.
He is not a unifier – that is true.
But he is not what divided us but the result of being divided.
Identity politics is the fixation, on division, it is the deliberate effort to divide us further.
It is extremely hard to build a coalition of gay, transgendered, black, brown, female,
without making it clear to those who are not that you think they are evil and you hate them. It is especially difficult if you run arround constantly telling those you do not include in your coalition that they are hateful hating haters.
What should worry all of us is not Trump, but that if the left continues to be defined by its hatred of those it claims to hate others, we will get more Roy Moore’s and Joe Arpiao’s.
When much of the country thinks you mean them when you are talking about hateful hating haters, then the Moore’s and Arpaio’s do not seem quite so extreme.
Or maybe they just seem like what is necescary to restore balance.
If the left is screaming about racists – maybe we need to give them an actual racist or two.
Dave you keep living in your cave and thinking Trump has not divided us more than we were divided before this election. We have been divided for sometime, but when the President gets involved with issues he should keep his damn mouth shut on, he supports one group against another and makes the division stronger. Some people supported the NFL protest, some did not and some said what the hell, they can do whatever, I really don’t care. But then he comes out with his comments and some who said “I really don’t care” then moved to one side or the other depending on ones view of Trump.
As for the democrats creating the Trump. as I said, if they had run a centrist, Trump would most likely be back in NYC in his ivory tower counting his money and not in Washington D.C. making an ass of himself. The person who comes closest to Trump in personality today that is well known in O. J. Simpson. He has to be in the news, he can not allow anyone to seem to up stage him in anyway and he can not understand the consequences of his actions and why people do not love him when he does or says something. And he can not take criticism at all.
Regardless of what you might beleive on any issue that divides us – that issue predates Trump.
Further regardless of what you beleive – to the extent there is a difference related to Trump, it is which side he has taken. Not that the president has taken sides.
“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Obama.
Obama is more well spoken.
But he is appealing to a different audience.
I believe that the best of our politicians project in the way that is calculated to appeal to specific segments of the population.
Trump is not divisive merely because he has chosen to stand up for a different side of our political divisions than Obama.
Trump’s mere presence as president is inflaming the left – and he is often prepared to ratchet that up.
But the insanity and division is driven by the left.
I can understand the wish that Trump would shutup.
But if he did – what would really change ?
As an example, NFL players would still be kneeling for the anthem.
Fans would still be upset.
Maybe the issue would take longer to come to a head.
Maybe it would not and people would just seeth for a while.
Trump stepping into this brought the debate to the fore.
The players got the opportunity to make their case for why they were kneeling.
That argument has proven inadequate to sway fans.
The left has been actively seeking a national conversation on policing and race.
And we are having it – and thus far they are losing.
Not because bad things are not happening to black people.
But because the large pervasive systemic, institutionalized racism that is being claimed does not exist today.
Because ordinary people are not accepting that violence in Baltimore, NYC, Chicago, and LA is the consequence of white racism.
No one is saying that all racism has been exterminated.
But the overwhelming majority of the country is past the argument that everything bad that happens to a minority is the consequence of institutional hatred.
That is also the fight that was central to this election.
And it is why Trump won.
Trump is wrong about many things.
He is not wrong about the fact that we need to let go of this concept that all failures of minorities require a government solution.
He is not wrong about the fact that we are entitled to be proud of our nation being the birth place of freedom – regardless of the myriads of sins we have committed.
He is not wrong about the fact that we can not redress historical wrongs all the way back to Adam and Eve.
While I think your argument is wrong – democrats could not run a centrist.
But even so – they did not, and as you said, had they we would not have Trump.
We have Trump because the democratic party is veering strongly to the left.
We have Trump because the modern left has mostly recast socialism onto a foundation of intersectionality and identity rather than class (there are still strong class elements).
If Trump did not exist, or had not won this election – someone like him – likely worse than him would be coming.
Roy Moore did not get the GOP nod in Alabama by accident.
The electorate is still unruly.
Significant portions would still rather have bomb throwers than those who will roll over for the left.
There are some interesting permutations – Hayek did not foresee the intersectionality and identity politics, but we are still following the path of Hayek’s “the road to serfdom”.
Trump is the natural consequence of the failures and character of the left.
You are too heavily fixated on the offensive elements of Trumps persona.
They are just the wrapping paper.
Regardless, you are pretty close to “blaming the victim”.
Trump is speaking up for the victims of the left’s identity politics.
He is saying we are tired of being called hateful hating haters.
And if you are getting in our face and lying about us, we are getting back in yours.
This does not end until the left ratchets down, and I am not seeing that happening.
If Trump did not exist, he would have had to have been created specifically for this role.
There is nothing wrong with being divided on issues.
We are a huge diverse country – we are not going to agree on everything.
The key issue is that where we are deeply divided, we can not demand that govenrment act.
The root of our current division is the belief of those on the left that and the basis of some concept of righteousness deriving solely from their unshared feelings, that the left may impose its wishes on the rest of us by force.
That is wrong, that is actually immoral. You can not impose what you beleive to be good on others by force.
Regardless, the answer to our divisions is the liberatian answer – we can not do what abridges the rights of some.
Democrats do need to move to the center – they are doing the opposite.
That is bad for democrats and bad for the country.
But identity politics not leftism is the cause of Donald Trump.
I am not sure how the democratic party can move forward as it has ideologically burned its bridges to the center.
The most likely future democratic candidates – the Sanders and Warrens are inextricably linked to identity politics.
Communists and socialists in other countries succeeded using class as their wedge, in the US the wedge is identity. Modern socialism particularly in the US, is not about labor vs. Capital – though we get a bit of lets pitchfork the 1%, it is about the oppression of blacks, gays, women.
Well its which came first, the chicken or the egg. Identity politics is where group(s) of individuals come together based on some issue(s) that are not aligned with a specific parties platform. So when Obama, Sanders, Warren, etc moved the party further left based on their support of and promotion of issues that were not specific to the democrat party at the time. their “identity politics” moved the party to where main stream voters began moving away. That resulted in a very small percent of voters changing the election in favor of Trump.
No chicken egg problem.
Actual justice is individual.
Regardless, the aspect of this that created the serious conflict was not the democrats appealing to specific groups – as problematic as that might be.
But in turning on purported oppressors.
You can accuse Nathan Bedford Forest of lynching blacks. He almost certainly did, but was your accusations become more general – as they must to discredit an entire political party, then you lose credibility and you become the oppressor yourself.
The turning point – which started before this election but determined the outcome of this election came when large portions of the electorate felt that accusations by the left targeting “hateful, hating haters” meant them.
At that point the facts no longer matter – though the facts do not support the left.
When you accuse the majority of people of something – whether true or false, and the majority unifies as a result of that – you lose the election.
Nor can you fix this by doubling down.
Nor is this about a very small percentage of voters.
Maybe it is about a small percentage CHANGE in voters.
IT was critical to the election results that those identifying themselves as a target of the identity politics came close to reaching a majority.
But the immorality of left’s politics would be the same – even 1/4 of people felt they were being falsely identified by the left as hateful hating haters.
I do not seem to be getting through to you the importance of minority rights.
We somehow grasp that blacks as a minority can not be singled out for criminal prosecutions, but you do not grasp that the same is true of any minority group – including entrepenuers, the rich, white males.
Even “group” identity is not critical. You can not violate the actual rights of one individual for the greater good. That is what it means when you say that something is a right.
Anyway I am trying to walk you towards understanding that our government may only use force to abridge the rights of individuals (or minorities), where it can justify that use of force.
In this particularly instance the failure of the left is its efforts to infringe on the rights of many because of some claimed harm to a collection of named minorities.
Our election tipped because the size of the targets grew large enough.
But even if the victims of the left were 1/10 the numbers, the wishes of a minority do not exceed the rights of others.
I am directly attacking the paradigm of majority rule as a justification for infringing on individual rights.
The specific way that has been playing out recently is relevant to the fact that it created Donald Trump, but not relevant to the overall immorality.
The fact is that hundreds of people didn’t turn up in Charlottesville, Virginia to carry out a peaceful protest, they were there to aggressively assert themselves and in doing so to intimidate others. What they didn’t bank on was an equally strong group of counter protesters turning up. While most of the first group saw which way the wind was blowing, some became frustrated and fought the counter protesters. One as we know decided to attack the counter protesters with a car, mowing people down in a terrorist act.
The failure of President trump to condemn the original group of protesters for seeking to incite hatred and violence was unfortunate but, not unexpected. However, two months later Trump decision to condemn straight away an act of violence by an Islamist extremist has demonstrated a clear contrast in his responses to two virtually identical attacks.
https://newspuddle.com/trump-waited-to-see-the-facts-after-charlottesville-now-he-wants-the-death-penalty-asap/
Hundreds of people did show up.
They were there to aggressively assert themselves
and that might have intimidated others.
All of that is not merely legal, but desireable.
Women showed up in washington in their pink pusy hats to agressively assert themselves and intimidate Pres. Trump.
Gay pride events routinely have marchers aggressively asserting “we are here, we are queer, and we are not going anywhere”.
The counter protestors at Charlottesville are not distinguishable from the protestors in any way – except that they had not sought a permit.
You admit the counter protestors were there to intimidate.
Your freedom to protest, or counter protest, is only as secure as the right of those you most loath to do the same.
You have some of your facts wrong.
The protestors, had a police approved venue and marching plan, which they did not deviate from. Outside of the car incident which took place after the event was cancelled by the governor, all the other violence took place inside of the space alloted to the protestors.
That inherently makes it the responsibility of the counter protestors.
You do not get to respond to speach you do not like with violence – not even the speach of Nazi’s.
You can not seem to distinguish between words and actual violence, and you seem to think that because one side comes expecting the other to be violent, that they are responsible for the violence.
Mr. Fields motives have not been established at this time.
We know what he did not why.
Further he has asserted he is not guilty, Actual terrorists claim to be justified.
I would compare mr. Fields actions to the uber driver in NYC a few days ago.
There is significant difference.
There is no obligation to condemn others – you are litterally channeling the worst of the USSR and Peoples Republic of China under Mao.
There is no crime of inciting hatred – the protestors at Charlottesville are free to hate whoever they please – just as your are free to hate them.
The legal requirements for incitement to violence quite explicit and the protestors at Charlotte did not meet them. Further legal incitement to violence NEVER means using speach to make those who disagree with you do angry they attack you.
If the counter protestors were incapable of remaining civil despite verbal agression and intimidation – they resorting to violence makes the counter protestors criminals.
Condemning the uber driver in NYC is trivial. There is no question of facts, there is no question of intent, The driver is not claiming innocence, he is claiming justification.
Mr. Fields is not claiming his acts were justified – because Nazi’s are justified in killing others. Mr. Saipov is claiming ideological justification.
Everytime a car kills someone it is not an act of terrorism.
Even every mass killing is not terrorism.
Sometimes we do not know – we still know little about Las Vega except that it was an intentional mass killing, We still do not know why.
We do not even know if charlotesville was intentional – much less what the motive was.
But in NYC we not that the act was intentional, and that the motivation was islamic terrorism. This is not secret. The perpitrator – like most actual terrorists wanted that to be known.
These incidents are not close to identical in anyway except that they involved cars and someone died. Drunk driving fits that and most of us do not think drunk driving is an act of terrorism.
Trump should not have been commenting on Charlottesville – it was nto a federal issue.
He should not be commenting on the indident in NYC – certainly not demanding that the perpitrator get the death penalty or go to gitmo,
But president’s have been commenting on things that they should not for a long time.
“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Barack Obama.