Taking a Knee for Polarization
We live in a viral age. When a sound bite, an internet meme, a cat video or a symbolic gesture captures the public imagination, legions of copycats help it spread like some fashionable latter-day plague.
Colin Kaepernick, the biracial journeyman quarterback whose refusal to stand for The Star-Spangled Banner catapulted him to fame and infamy last season, has unleashed a delayed virus among NFL football players and other pro athletes this fall. Suddenly, with the start of the new football season, refusing to stand for the national anthem has become a thing — a rapidly spreading contagion — a potent new tool in the ongoing polarization of America.
Few of us, with the exception of congenital miscreants like President Trump, would deny Kaepernick or his former colleagues their right to protest. But what exactly are they protesting? Why all the knees bent in sullen solidarity while the traditionalists among us still stand and strain to hit those nearly unattainable high notes?
It all started as a statement about the killing of unarmed black men by mostly white police officers. We know that several of those killings were plainly unjustified: think of Walter Scott, shot in the back while running from the North Charleston cop who stopped him for a broken tail-light, or 12-year-old Tamir Rice, fatally wounded without ever having been given a chance to drop his toy weapon. Others, like the much-lamented Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri, almost seemed to be asking for it: the “gentle giant” reportedly assaulted officer Darren Wilson, attempted to grab his gun, walked away, then made the fatal decision to turn around and charge the officer again. There’s innocence and guilt to be found on both sides.
Do American cops use their guns too freely? Afraid so — at least a trigger-happy minority of them. Do they too often manage to elude proper punishment for their actions? Yes again. Our urban cops risk their lives daily, but they need to be trained more effectively in subduing suspects without killing them. Nobody deserves to die over a broken tail-light. Do the cops have a special vendetta against African American males? Here’s where it gets complicated.
Take a look at this FBI statistic and try to digest it: in 2015, an American cop was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was likely to be killed by a cop. And then this: black males, who account for six percent of the U.S. population, represent 42 percent of all cop killers over the past decade. Could it be that urban police officers have learned to develop hair-trigger reflexes when they confront uncooperative black suspects? Surprisingly not. American cops killed just 16 unarmed black men last year from coast to coast — 16 too many, but still a microscopic percentage of black homicide victims, 93 percent of whom were killed by other blacks.
And yet we all know the prevailing narrative promoted by left-leaning media outlets and advanced with such righteous vigor by Black Lives Matter: racist white cops routinely (and almost exclusively) shoot unarmed black men. Yes, it happens… yes, it’s sad… and yes, it’s too often unjust and avoidable. But as the statistics above point out, it’s hardly an everyday occurrence — and, just as important, it’s hardly the whole story.
The banner headlines and week-long TV coverage granted to every unarmed African American shot by a cop conceal the fact that our police kill roughly twice as many whites as blacks. Surprised? Why, you might ask, don’t the media reveal this relevant statistic? It’s almost as if they want us to go on believing that black people are perpetual victims of racist white people — a narrative both insulting to whites and patronizing to blacks. Unfortunately, narratives catch on. They sell. They go viral.
Much of Middle America seemed to reject that narrative after watching seemingly endless waves of pro footballers drop a knee to the ground during the playing of The Star-Spangled Banner. The kneeling looked almost reverential, but they knew that reverence had nothing to do with it. They wondered why these pampered young millionaires would disrespect the national anthem and the American flag (our anthem, our flag!) over the actions of a few rogue cops. Were these predominantly black athletes using the overpublicized killings to vent their hatred for America in general and white people in particular? Come on, hadn’t Middle America swallowed enough black resentment over the past half-century? Why should these upright folks — only a minority of whom are virulent racists — have to suffer the slings and arrows of mandatory guilt? (And indeed, why should they?)
Just as African Americans grew angry and alienated over their perceived vulnerability on the streets, white conservatives (and yes, even moderates) were growing alienated by the almost compulsory need to kowtow to every black grievance, legitimate or not. The compulsory nature of this kowtowing, as usual, was heavily promoted by the mostly white progressive media. (Some white progressives seem to enjoy wallowing in masochistic guilt; others exempt themselves and cast aspersions on those other white folks — the dimwitted “deplorables” in flyover country.)
The end result of all this racially tinged pushing and pulling? More tribalism. More “us against them.” More tit for tat. In short, more polarization.
We Americans are already polarized to a degree unseen since the Civil War. We’ve endured three consecutive polarizing presidencies. We’ve effectively evolved into two separate and mutually loathing sub-nations: the red and the blue, the conservative diehards and the leftist wavemakers.
Whatever happened to the sensible middle? Beats me. We’re out there, but nobody wants to hear us. These days, the world belongs to the polarizers — and the polarizers are driving us toward an irreparable rift.
President Trump is a prime specimen. Never one to mince words when a sledgehammer will do, he brayed that when a football player disrespects our flag, he’d like to see the team owner shout, “Get that son of a bitch off the field right now — he’s fired!” (Note that he didn’t actually call for the firing of disrespectful players, but the damage was done.)
More outrage on the left. More patriotic whoops on the right. More kneeling by Kaepernick’s disciples. More dueling insults on Internet message boards. Still more polarization, thanks to our president. Maybe Trump should stick to what he does best: threatening North Korea and the world with nuclear war.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate. He’s the author of Extremely Dark Chocolates and Lifestyles of the Doomed, available wherever e-books are sold.
THE NEW MODERATE 
Rick, Excellent comments. You just left out one important tidbit of information that started this whole kneeling situation.
http://www.snopes.com/kaepernick-wears-castro-t-shirt/
How can one take another serious when he sides with an individual that has done more damage to human rights than most any other individual on earth? But you don’t hear anything in the news about this because it does not fit their narrative.
I would also dispute your claim about us being more divided today than anytime since the civil war. I think the 60’s showed we were much more divided then than now, it just was not communicated as well then than it is today. (Watts Riot?) Remember, it was not until the 60’s that blacks became accepted in white southern colleges. That is why they had black colleges. Charlie Scott was the first black basketball player at UNC in 1967. Tom Payne was the first at Kentucy in 1969.
But yes, we have a president that is doing all he can to perpetuate the division. Jay will say “Trump hasta go!”. Maybe he will in 2020 if the democrats will come to their senses and run a moderate and stop their perpetuating the division. It takes two to tango.
Thanks, Ron. Well do I remember the polarization during the peak of the Vietnam era; I was in college then. Student rebels and black militants threatened revolution, so in a way the anger was even more strident, but (unlike now) the whole country hadn’t taken sides. We don’t really have a silent majority these days; in the internet age, everybody can sound off — and unfortunately, most of the public seems to be choosing me team or the other. Very few of us “Yes, but…” thinkers in the middle. I’ve said this before, but I don’t think our country can survive another polarizing presidency in one piece. We need somebody the vast majority can support.
That’s “ONE team or the other.”
Trump is a symptom of the polarization in the nation – not the other way around.
Trump was elected BECAUSE of the polarization.
And sorry the root cause of that polarization is the Left.
There is alot wrong with the political right, but they are not seeking to impose their thought on all of us by force.
I would also note that both the left and right evolve.
The left today and the left of the 60’s or the 90’s are NOT the same.
The right today and the right of the 80’s or 2000 are not the same.
Some – many of the people are the same.
Bot the left and right of the present trace themselves back to their anti-cedents.
We are fighting about race today – as we were in the 60’s but in a radically different way.
More so that ever before the left is anti-freedom.
Antifa is not an existential threat to the country. The fact that nearly all of Antifa’s values except the speed with which Antifa will resort to violence are shared by atleast 25% of the country. – that is the threat.
Divisions in the 60’s correlated better to age.
Today our left right divisions are more geographic – the blue parts of the country – the cities are deep blue – 70% or more progressive.
Further those on the left have so demonized everyone not on the left, they have no idea what others think.
That is even evident here – and those posters here on the left are not as deep in the bubble as the left as a whole.
I have noted something else, Rick,
You are less and less favorable to the left.
I have in the past identified you as a closet lefty.
I do not think that is true now.
Partly because you are less friendly to the left,
Partly because the “left” is fracturing.
They are no longer making an effort to appeal to or even respect the middle.
My point is not about you. I do not think you have changed so much as the left has alienated you more.
Dave: You nailed it: I’m less sympathetic to the left these days, not because my views have changed, but because their extremism has alienated me. See my longer comment under Roby’s post below.
I get alot of complaints about the volume and frequency of my comments here.
But these are a form of thinking out loud.
Sometimes you can argue something 50 ways before finding the way that is succinct and to the point.
Roy Moore’s election scares the crap out of me. As does the prospect of electing Arpiao
It is not specifically Moore and Arpiao that bother me, but what they mean for the nation.
When Trump was elected I argued that if he grows the economy republicans will do well in 2018 and Trump will be re-elected in 2020.
But Trump was elected on more than the economic failure of the past 16 years.
He was elected for much the same reasons as you are shifting right – because the left is alienating you.
The polls were wrong for Brexit, there have been doing badly in european elections, they were wrong in our election,
I think the left is expecting a blowout in 2018, and that could happen and it will not end the world. But I think the opposite is possible. Democrats are moving left.
The “great sorting” is nearly complete. I am not sure than congressional districts are not close to baked in. Based on demographics, Republicans are still short Senate Seats and likely to pick up in this election.
I am not a big fan of one party rule. I am mostly happy that it is difficult to get things through congress. I just wish that difficulty had stopped TARP, ARRA and PPACA.
I also use you as a sort of canary in the coal mine.
I disagree with you on many issues.
But your views on many issues are strongly reflective of “middle america”.
And right now I think that the left has lost middle america and does not grasp it.
Republicans – even Trump tend to be easier to vote for, because outside of a few issues, republicans are not much of a threat. Republicans are not going to imposse single payer on us all, or other massive government programs. As a voter you can disagree with a republican and still know that electing them will not change the status quo much.
The point is the more extreme the left gets the easier it gets to voter for republicans – even bad ones.
RonP said it right. 60’s and I’m sure other periods have been worse than now (so far).
The media and the “muddia” (social, internet, blogs) routinely vie for any story or trend, and blow it up like the giant blow-up rat you can rent for your next protest or strike.
(Kids down in stricken PR now have to be taught how to play.)
just can’t be moderate when it comes to innocents killed by police…it is not sufficient to say it isn’t an “everyday occurrence”…no one who is not a lethal threat should ever die at the hands of the police….unless you agree to be a police state under martial law…which we are apparently…
and “progressives wallowing in masochistic guilt” is quite biased…describing the two sides and “conservative and leftist” also shows your bias…the two sides are the duopoly and the rest of the populace…
You are correct – but that is not a racial issue.
Further, it is one that have been improving for decades.
We are more conscious of many of these issues at the moment because of the widespread prevalence of smart phones among poor people.
We see today what we did not see 40 years ago.
Anyway, there are many, many issues we need to address regarding law, crime and policing. Racism is among the least important, and the least likely to garner sympathy.
A part of the message of Trump’s election is that a large swath of the citizenry is quite tired of being called “hateful, hating haters”, racist, mysoginist, homophobes etc.
The left has developed this religion of intersectionality and much of the country is ignoring them.
@RS. You are absolutely correct, we can’t ignore those killed, including 146 law enforcement personnel in 2016, 63 by gunfire. The count for 2017 is up to 98 with 34 due to gunfire.
https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2017?ref=sidebar
Still ignoring even one unnecessary death doesn’t help. Fewer deaths of black people would lead to fewer deaths of law enforcement personnel after a while in my opinion.
Yes, better training should help.
Rick, I think I have made this comment long ago and forgot to include it in the first comment I made concerning this issue. There is a huge problem in many parts of the country that results in rogue officers killing unarmed men and our kids being educated in a less than desirable environment. When we look at the people that are the most important people in our lives, other than our doctors, ministers and parents come those that protect us and those that educate us.
We are not paying the people that educate our kids or the people that protect us at a level that attracts the most qualified for either of these positions. Both of these professionals have starting salaries somewhere between 7% and 10% less than the average starting salary of college graduates in all fields, and that includes the liberal arts degrees that have lower pay than police and teachers.
So maybe we need to look at where our tax dollars are going. I have said for along time that teachers, police and firemen need to be paid at the level commensurate with the importance and difficulty of the jobs they perform. Maybe then we would eliminate some of the “bubba’s” that want to kill black kids and maybe a few more black kids in the projects would get a better education so they could escape the violence that surrounds.them.
But what the left needs to stop doing is blaming “the police”. That includes all police personnel and only a few are bad apples. And maybe the right needs to stop looking at all blacks as bad apples as most blacks are good people. And maybe those that are demonstrating need to look back at what MLK did and copy his plan to bring the races back together. Rosa Parks, the Greesboro five and all the other blacks that demonstrated in some manner took on the issue directly. Parks sat in the bus where she was forbidden. The Greesboro five sat at the Woolworth lunch counter where they were forbidden. How does demonstrating against the flag and anthem tie into police brutality?
You are making sense Ron. Wish more people were.
All good points, Ron. It would be a better world if everyone would see individuals with distinct personalities rather than interchangeable representatives of a “tribe.” We definitely need to work on getting poor black kids through school with a decent education. And yes, one of my complaints about the football protests is the disconnect between what they’re protesting and their chosen method of protesting it. I think blacks should realize that the flag belongs to all of us, not just white folks.
Rick, you speak of small fractions causing discord for the greater good, then make a horrible generalization about blacks. I have to call you out on this for two reasons.
You do not speak for black people.
Statements like this fuel division.
Try to picture how that statement reads to a black person, regardless of the protests.
I’ll give you a hint: Thanks, but no thanks for lumping us all together into a single ignorant group.
I had to reread Rick’s entire post because of your comment.
I could not find anything that I would have called “a horrible generalization about black people”
I could not find anywhere Rick chose to speak for black people as a distinct group.
However, much more accurately than you Rick did identify what is fueling our division.
This country is not perfect on matters of race. But many of us here were alive during the riots in the 60’s. We know how far the country has come.
And we now that the failures of the left and the failures of govenrment have far more to do with the problems of minorities today than things that happened 200 years ago, or than police violence to minorities.
Most of these police killings are occuring in cities with democratic and often minority governments.
The cure is not more of the hair of the fog that bit you.
What is creating division in this country today is the social justice warriors telling us all that we are hatefull hating haters.
You do not speak for all non-black people.
Try to picture how your statements come off to people who are not black ?
Race is one of the least of the problems in this country today.
But go ahead and fixate on race, and you can make it more important.
Nia, I am going to take up for Rick on this one as his comment was in reply to one I made. I think if you re-read his comment, I don’t believe he was lumping ALL black kids into one group when he said ” We definitely need to work on getting poor black kids through school with a decent education.” His point is spot on when you look at all the information on line concerning the division between the education that suburban White kids get compared to the inner city poor Black kids. There are many reason for this division and when Rick said what he did, it did not preclude any child from any background getting a good education, but the statistics show from pre-school all the way through high school, there are differences in the educational opportunities of Black children. We had segregated schools, then we had busing and then we went to “school choice” in most all areas where parents could choose the school they wanted their kids to attend. In the suburbs, parents have the time and money to take their kids clean across town everyday to get the best education. I ask you, do the inner city kids have those same resources.
Can you truly say you believe a child for a poor family in the inner city of Detroit, NYC, Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta or any other big city is getting the same quality education as one from the suburbs surrounding those same cities?
Our beliefs on education are both self contradictory – though in a plausible way and have nothing to do with racism.
I do not think ANY of us think that poor black inner city children should get a crappy education, or an inferior education.
Any disagreement on that is purely about how to accomplish the goal of providing the best education possible to all.
At the same time I have never met a parent that did not want the best possible education for THEIR child. I do not know a parent that would not take most any opportunity available to them to improve their kids education. And that includes paying or acting to get their kid a better education than other kids.
Those on the left historically leave the cities and start shifting right when:
They get married
Have kids
and start those kids in school.
At the top of nearly every parent of school age kids criteria for home shopping is the quality of the school district. We will pay more to live where the schools are better.
We will do it whether we are white or black, republican or democrat, conservative or progressive.
Young adults on the left will decry anything that moves funds from traditional inner city schools to anything else. Until they have kids in school of their own.
Then suddenly like all the rest of us the needs of THEIR child come first.
Some of us are better able to afford advantaging our kids educationally.
But none of us are going to refuse to do whatever we can afford to give our kids a better education.
I am sorry Ron, but I have to disagree on some things.
Many things are not zero sum – but some are.
Employment and jobs are one of those.
One of the reasons government should have little role in the economy is we do nto want government deciding whether police or teachers are more needed than doctors. and engineers.
From a given population we have only some many highly qualified people.
If you through whatever means manage to get better teachers and police – you will have diminished something else.
Further, I am sorry – police and teachers are important. My grandmother was a teacher, and I have enormous numbers of friends who are police. They are not professionals.
We should not treat them as such and we should not expect them to be.
One of our problems with police today is that we think of them as professionals and they think of themselves as professionals – and they are not.
You also repeat the myth that throwing money at problems somehow solves them.
Government has been doing that for decades with no success.
Teachers are paid better today than 50 years ago. The cost of education has more than doubled, while the quality declined.
The problem is not a shortage of money, nor wages that are too low.
Much of our public discussion is polluted with this nonsensical myth that we want the best people for the job.
No we don’t – we want the best people for those jobs that have the greatest impact on all of us. We flip out today over the fabulous wealth of the top 1%.
But the fact is that a very small portion of us are responsible for creating the future, and making sure it is better than the present. That is where we want the best and brighest
Past that we have a larger layer in the pyramid – these are the builders. They are not necescarily the people who are going to change the future – atleast not in a big way.
But they are going to build it, our highways, our homes, our bridges, our networks. our hospitials. These are the “professionals” – doctors, engineers,
And we can build ever larger layers as we move down the pyramid, and each layer down we are looking for less and less skill – until we hit burger flippers at McD’s.
No one would think – we need to treat the fry cook at McD’s like a professional and pay them as such. It would be bad for us all to have people who should have been doctors and engineers flipping burgers.
This is also why we do not want to central plan things.
If we keep government out – we will get people distributed through the pyramid just about right.
Further, though I have described a layered pyramid – we do not want that layering perfect.
We want a few of our better people that should have been in upper layers, to choose to work in lower ones, because these are the people who drive up the quality of the rest of us – whether doctors, or engineers, or teachers or police.
Dave, your comments about what people are paid, that teachers and police are not “professionals” and they have very little impact on the future of this country is total and complete bull shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tell me someone who sits in the ivory tower in a health system that spends most of their time politicking with local business or spends the other time in wasteful meetings making 2 million a year is more important than a teacher.
I am not saying teachers should be paid 2 million, but the “good ‘ol boyz” network takes care of those that are true examples of the Peter Principle, while the ones that make a difference are being left behind.
I think you are getting offended about teachers or police and missing my points.
We have to make a society with the people we have. Not the ones we wish we had.
This is a factor in nearly every issue we debate here.
I get accused of being utopian – because I want a govenrment that can work with the people we have.
Whenever you say – things would work better if we only had better teachers, police, politicians …… You are being utopian.
We do not have those things and possibly can not at all. But if we can, it would only be at the expense of other things.
We have a system that matches up what we want with what we have. It is called the free market. It does not work perfectly – because the world is not perfect.
But if left truly free it does better than anything else at assuring the best allocation of resources – including skilled people to various undertakings.
We need parents to pay for education – because that is what will assure that teachers are paid what they are worth. It is also what will assure that teachers are worth what they are paid. And when I say teachers are paid what they are worth – that includes each of us deciding how important the education of our children is compared to all our other wants and needs. There is an approximate answer to what teachers should be paid – it is what the market settles on. And it can change over time.
The fact that our highly government regulated health system might be more screwed up than our government run education system – is not an argument for either.
The price of anything – including teachers, is what a willing buyer and a willing seller freely agree on.
That is the only real price there is of anything. That is the only means that allows buyers and selloers to independently weigh all their other wants and needs.
The lack of such a price system is what Russian and Chinese socialism failed.
And why Venezuella is failing right now.
Price controls always fail because they destroy that arrangement.
It is this system that translates how important things are, and the resources we have to purchase them into prices for each and every thing.
We do not want the best and brightest teachers and police we can get.
But we do want to structure teaching and policing to make use of the people that we actually have.
If we quit thinking of police as professionals, we will seek to figure out how to alter their job so that the people we have can do it and do it well.
This BTW applies throughout the market.
I am a software developer. I am extremely good at it. Much better than most.
But we have far more software tasks that we need people like me, than we have people like me. The challenge of software – and this has been true much of my life, has been how to best use the people like me, and how to use the rest of software developers to do tasks that should be done by far more skilled people.
Nor is this unique to software.
The point is we must make the world work with the people we have.
50% of the population has an IQ below 100 (by definition).
16% has an IQ below 90.
16% has an IQ above 110
Excellent, Rick. I agree with almost everything.
I would counter on two points.
First my normal:
“Doing the right thing” does not always mean doing the middle thing or compromise.
The entire racism and policing issue is multifaceted.
Racism is not dead in the US and never will be, we will always be freindlier to those at less distance.
We will favor our neighbors of the next community. Those in the same church over those not. Those in the same profession of others. those in our nation over those not.
and those of our race over those not.
But the strength of that favoritism regarding race has become much weaker.
There is racism in policing, but it is not sufficiently strong to be evident except in rare cases.
Our most racist policies – such as those in the war on drugs, were initially advanced by minority leaders.
We have myriads of problems with our policing.
The militarization of police increases violence.
The policing for profit as in ferguson is vile – whether it is racist or not.
Asset forfeiture which was supposed to be a tool to bring down drug kingpins,
is now a means for the police to profit off the poor.
We have lots and lots of issues with policing. And we should address those,
When we frame those issues as racial issues, 3/4 of the country no longer cares.
At the same time we should recognize that aside from recent spikes in a few major cities overall violence is way down – and has been trending down for 40 years.
I am not so sure that is specifically attributable to policing, as that trend is global, and aside from a large spike in the US in the 60’s it is part of a global trend that is millenia long.
In the past couple of centuries human violence has reduced by 1/2 with each century.
That is a good thing and we should celebrate.
We do have a problem with those at the bottom.
Though again we have to start by being honest.
The standard of living of the bottom quintile has doubled in the past 50 years.
Regardless, the past 50 years have also reflected the destruction of myriads of institutions and norms. What is sometimes being called the bourgeoisie virtues.
Many of these changes are legitimate responses to problems.
Women should not have to remain married to spouses that beat them.
Regardless, the destruction of families and family values, has harmed the future prosepects of many particularly those in the bottom.
If you are born poor, get an education avoid involvement in crime, do not marry until you are ready, maintain a stable relationship with your spouse, do not have children until you are ready, your future is far far far brighter than those who do not do so.
Life is not perfect. We make mistakes.
It is outside the role or the ability of the state to save us from the impact of our own mistakes, and a poor idea for it to do so.
Dave: Thanks, and I couldn’t find anything in your comments that I’d disagree with. There’s been a very recent spike in crime due to police exercising more caution post-Ferguson, but it’s probably not a long-term trend. As for inner-city blacks (and all poor people, for that matter), someone — can’t remember who — advanced the idea that if young people want to avoid disaster, they must follow these four steps in this order: education, job, marriage, children. The theory (and I agree) is that changing the sequence in any way is a recipe for failure. (Of course, they’re free to omit the last two steps.)
I liked that one of Dave’s too. WHEN Dave isn’t arguing with someone and posts only occasionally I have about a 50/50 chance of agreeing with his points. That falls to about 2% when he gets going on an argument or produces a deluge.
This guy is fairly effectively presenting the “trump” side of this issue.
I do not agree with him entirely.
But being wrong on a few issues is not being racist, and does not mean he is not right on many others. Further calling him a racist MIGHT shut him up, it will not change his vote.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/26/black-america-blames-white-america/
Yes, Russia sought to interfere in our country.
No it did not favor Trump.
No there is not much of anything that can or should be done about it.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/28/america-is-obsessed-with-identity-politics-so-russia-exploited-it/
Rick trying to stick to your ” division” theme of this article and not all the other crap that has ben discussed to the limit on your previous article.
This ties into my comment about qualified people in positions of importance. When did Dr. Seuss become racist and why wasn’t it racist when Michele Obama read from his books?
There is as much hate on the left as theremis on the right, but the right gets 75% of the credit.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/21711/melania-trump-fires-back-librarian-who-rejected-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
God, yes, you are right again! My beloved Dr. Seuss a racist? Such stupid, stupid people. This makes me ill, its disgusting. The Alabama right wing nut election makes me ill and the Loony left makes me ill. If I pay any attention to the news I am guaranteed to be ill.
Politics is a cesspool.
That’s precisely why we moderates need to bump the extremists’ heads together and make them look ridiculous while (somehow) we start building bridges. But yes, sometimes I just throw up my hands and ask myself, “Why bother? Western civilization is in its death throes.” Is it worth delaying the inevitable, or should we just let history take its course?
I am waiting for National Review to have at that wretched Seuss-bashing librarian, but good. Conservatives actually miss really using all the golden opportunities to really put a dent in PC. Maybe they will catch the wave this time and ride it. Instead of persistently going after things like the Dartmouth BLM riot, the Middlebury Murray riot and now this foul PC librarian with endurance and stamina, they jump right off these kinds of things after a short run and find other stories that show that they are just as bad, finding their inner Coulters, Bannons, and Yiannopouloses. One set of idiots at war with another.
Totally agree. We need to express more honest outrage without pushing a mean-spirited agenda.
Those unhappy with the creeping socialism in our nation have given up on moderates right or left as the means to restore sanity and an increasing number are electing bomb throwers to send a message.
I consistently make the argument that you may not infringe on the rights of a minority without consequence – merely because you can get the support of a majority of voters.
“bomb throwing” is one of the tools available to minorities when they are otherwise powerless.
The Tea Party gained power and prominence because it quickly made it clear that it was prepared to challenge establishment republicans who were unwilling to take a strong stand against creeping socialism. The Tea Party was prepared to see republicans lose, and democrats win, if it could not get republicans that supported its values.
That threat gave the Tea Party a great deal of power.
The Tea Party has lost cohesion since 2009, but the insurgency against creeping socialism has not.
Trump is not Tea Party, but he is the penultimate bomb throwing insurgent.
But as the election of Roy Moore in Alabama demonstrates, Trump does not own the insurgency.
This insurgency answers to no one – not even Trump.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/next-republican-uprising-underway-n805356
There is a 50/50 chance of an article V convention by 2020
https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21729735-if-it-did-would-be-dangerous-thing-america-might-see-new-constitutional-convention?cid1=cust/ednew/n/bl/n/20170928n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/NA/68110/n
And this addresses polarization, police brutality and disrespect of national symbols HOW?
And this too addresses Ricks article HOW?
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/school-librarian-rejects-melania-trumps-books-dr-seuss-is-a-bit-of-a-chiche/#.Wc1ybFz24wo.twitter
And here is a picture found on the web of that librarian
https://www.cato.org/blog/it-banning-reject-book-first-place
What is wrong with malthusian apocalyptic thinking – whether that of the left or the right.
https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/nsa-snooping-conservative-precautionary-principle?utm_content=58917650&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
More counter protests to the protestors.
http://newschannel9.com/news/local/cleveland-businessman-calls-nfl-protests-unpatriotic-pulls-ads-during-games
America The … Inept.
And I ask you also, how does this apply to Ricks article ?
I thought I was posting to the previous thread: didn’t realize this new one had been posted until a few minutes ago…
Well, it was bound to happen someday. I’d give this one a 2.5/5 Rick. Those people are protesting something, its not something you get, but its something real. I agree with Ron that they are doing it in a way that hurts their cause, but they do have a cause, statistics or no.
I prefer Mona Charen’s take on this. An excerpt:
“…You think it’s easy to maintain national cohesion? It isn’t. That’s why demagogues since time began conjure external enemies and scapegoat minorities — which is not to say that enemies are always imaginary. In our time, the things that divide us are all too obvious. We are increasingly self-segregating by income and education. Due in part to choice and in part to history’s overhang, we continue to live in racially distinct enclaves. Democrats and Republicans despise one another to the point where they avoid living in the same neighborhoods or dating each other. Many parents now frown on their children marrying “outside the faith” — by which they mean not Catholic or Protestant, but Republican or Democrat. And speaking of faith, in actual houses of worship, things haven’t changed much since Martin Luther King Jr. called 11 a.m. Sunday morning “the most segregated hour” in American life.
So it would seem downright reckless to tamper with football — the one cultural touchstone that unites us, however tenuously.
Reckless is our president’s calling card. Or perhaps that’s too generous. He didn’t just suggest that the black players who knelt during the national anthem be fired, he called them “sons of b*****es.” Football had some troubles before, but now we have a national concussion. Who could blame people for noticing that when it came to Tiki-torch neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Trump strained to stress that some were very fine people, but black athletes who protest police brutality get this treatment?…”
This from a Mona Charen, a person of impeccable conservative credentials. I try to hang on to the little bits of sanity that appear as ship wreckage floating in this sea of madness, bits of stuff that once were a culture that more of less worked I thought, hoping that someday they will congeal and form a new political continent.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451970/nfl-football-protest-controversy-trump-poisons-cultural-unifier-divisive-rhetoric
(Sniff)… sorry to have fallen short in your estimation — and you know I respect your opinion. Mona Charen focused on Trump’s follies (no argument there). I focused on the prevailing narrative about the virtual genocide of unarmed black men by thug cops. Why? I was startled by the stats I came across — from reliable sources like the FBI and even the Washington Post — that practically demolished the BLM narrative. I’ve long thought it was a distorted narrative, but I had no idea just how far off base it was. (I only used a few of the stats in my column.) So I might have come across as unsympathetic — although I made sure to mention a few individual police shootings that were indefensible. Where black people really get a raw deal is inside the criminal justice system: the arrests for minor offenses, and the irreparable harm to their post-prison lives. But that’s the subject of a future column.
Rick, everyone here has had their turn at not agreeing with one of your essays. You have written so many and so many are appreciated and praised. Its natural that no one can please all of the people all of the time. I just never have agreed with you on race. I am the outlier here on this subject.
You did a fine job on the statistics of the body count. But its not the body count, its the entirety of the experience of blacks in America, not one thing, not just the shootings of innocents by the police. That total weight of experience does lead black Americans to react with sadness and anger to every killing of an innocent black person by the law. That is what generated BLM, which is not the entirely violent and sadistic movement some see it as. It has its violent sadistic gonzo element who have now become its face to many white (and some black) people.
I have the idea that you have been badly battered in conversations with unreasonable black extremists, Mumia abdu Jamal types, and you have just had it with the whole issue of the black complaints with their experiences in America.
Every cultural group feels that they have been treated unfairly, even the ones that have had it the best. Even animals have a well developed sense of fair treatment, there are some damned funny videos on line on their reactions to being slighted. A people that has been subjected to abduction, murder, slavery, treated as animals and property, whipped beaten separated from their families, lynched, segregated, sent to the back of the bus, disproportionately wound up in poverty and inner city ghettos, subjected to racial profiling, had their Dr. King hounded by the FBI and then assassinated, and on and on has got some deep reasons to take that normal human characteristic of feeling abused pretty deep and far. Its not necessarily helpful or productive in 2017 when things have changed in many ways, but I don’t blame them.
If you ask a large number of normal, hardworking, non impoverished blacks how they feel about this you may be surprised by how deep the anger and resentment runs, even in people who have managed to escape from the worst of the race related indignities and hazards. I do get the sense, over time, not just this post, that your are not much believing that they have reason to feel like a distinct subculture that is still foreign and not accepted by many that faces discrimination and prejudice. Why don’t they just relax and count their blessings, its 2017, seems to be the majority conservative view on this. We liberals see it differently. Its probably the main reason I still call myself a liberal. My family history taught me to be something of a chip off the old liberal activists peace marching block and to be pretty sympathetic to black feelings of general disrespect. It’s a family tradition and it goes back far and deep. By no means have all my experiences with blacks been pleasant, I met the militants when we moved to Princeton in my senior year and had a fight once. But then, I also worked in a chemical factory where I was one of two whites and that blew up many of my fears and replaced them with an image of decent normal kind people who wanted to be accepted as such.
Well, this is one of those “fatburgers” that as dduck notes take up a lot of space, but some things are too complex to express in a few words, at least for me.
The “body count” contradicts a central thesis being pushed by race warriors today – that of systemic racism by police.
Further that thesis and those pushing it alienate the rest of us.
You want my sympathy at the killing of innocent blacks, fine, but those are quite rare, and then you owe sympathy at the killing of innocent whites.
Further police shootings are an extremely rare event. Like mass killings – which you also fixate on. When you elevate lightning strikes to sufficient importance to drive policy, you get bad outcomes.
When you fixate on lightning strikes you make yourself indistinguishable from the extremists that you claim to disown.
When you fixate on lightning strikes you blind yourself to the real causes and real problems.
When you posit racism as the root cause of everything, when you posit that america is inherently racist – you alienate those who might otherwise agree with you.
You say that policing is systemically racist. Maybe some of us MIGHT be willing to buy that in rural alabama. But these deaths are in Chicago, Baltimore, Atlanta, NYC – major american cities. Blue bastions. Minority majority political districts, with blue minority governments.
You are trying to sell the rest of us that the police and the country are systemically racist yet the evidence you true to use is present if not clearly at its worst, where minorities control the cities and the police.
We have many problems with our policing – problems that you and I could agree on, if you were not trying to argue they were all about race.
We have many problems with our justice system – again that we could agree on, if you were not trying to argue they were all about race.
Toddlers have a well developed sense of fairness – and every wise parent on the planet will avoid making family decisions based on the toddlers perceptions of fairness.
Our subjective conception of fairness has been historically the most bloody force in human history.
The US revolution was deliberately rooted in liberty. The french in fairness, and resulted in the guilotine and blood through the street.
From each according to their ability to each according to their need is the core guiding principle of marxism, or communism, of all forms of socialism. It has ended in blood pretty much everywhere it has been tried. If you are incapable of seeing the failures of socialism in the past – you can look at Venezuela today.
Elsewhere I cited Freidman.
A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither.
A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high of both.
That simply states the past 250 years of world history.
You are right that issues of race in this country are complex.
Complexity is not an excuse for egregious error.
Worse still, and at the core of the current failure of the left,
Co-opting the feelings of inequity of different groups, lying to them about the causes, blaming their plight on spurious notions of hatred by “others”,
using that false notion as the mortar to build a hopefully winning political coalition rooted in greivance and anger, and hatred for those who do not hate you,
is divisive and destructive.
It creates hate where it does not exist.
It creates division where it did not exist.
It creates racism where it did not exist.
You want to claim the what the left is doing is laudable – but for a few extremists.
It is evil and the extremists are just the logical end of the path you have started down.
Donald Trump is a creation of the left.
The inevitable consequence of labeling everyone that disagrees with you as “hateful, hating haters” was that eventually that label who have no impact.
It was inevitable that someone would create a persona around the carciture that you attacked, endure your slings and arrows proving them ineffective and false and shouting back for those tired of being called racist, homophobes, mysoginists, ….
Get real Roby;
Wow, you worked at a mostly black chemical plant.
Few of us today live a life of cultural and racial homogeneity.
Most of us live in a world of different races and cultures.
Most of the people in my life are minorities of one form or another.
The last place I was employed, I was one of two whites in a division of mexicans, and blacks, and indians.
I might be the only straight person in my church. I am certainly one of only a few pasty white males.
Further we have cultures beyond race and sexual orientation.
My children are internationally adopted – one of the things I have learned from that is we have created our own knew culture. My kids and my family do not identify with chinese or koreans, but with other mixed families. Our problems and our shared experiences do not come from the race of my children but from the mixed cultural nature of my family.
Further, though I do not want to pretend to be an expert on race, and I do not know your circumstances that well, but I would be shocked if your intimacy with people of other races and cultures is a fraction of my own.
One of the earliest things I noticed after coming home from China with my daughter, was that minorities treated me differently in public when she was with me.
If I went grocery shopping without her, people of other races did not meet eyes, did not smile at me, did not casually engage me in public. I was the white male, the other.
But when my daughter was with me, these same people would meet my eyes, smile, exchange pleasantries. because I was no longer potentially dangerous.
That change in relationship with the rest of the world goes beyond race. Even other groups says as gays and lesbians are more comfortable and open with mixed race families.
Today the overwhelming majority of people in my life are NOT straight or white. Almost everywhere I go – I am the minority – except not really. Because I am not the unknown straight white man potentially invading their space, but atleast in some ways one of them.
Some of these relationships are shallow – we can not be friends or best friends with everyone, but some are extremely deep. My families closets friend from long before we adopted, from relationships with her mother, is black. We have raised each others kids, vacationed together, been there for each other through deaths, and illness, and disease and other conflicts.
H. and Dave: Yes, I’ve gotten into some heated discussions with black friends and their friends. Although the tone is always civil, they keep throwing white privilege in my face — that it’s my white privilege that keeps me from agreeing with their insistence that all whites are privileged. It drives me nuts. I try to argue that class privilege today is more of a factor than white privilege — for example, that a white boy raised in a trailer park is less privileged than the black daughter of a doctor who gains preferential admission to Yale. But they won’t hear it.
I tried to convince them to see us all as individuals, but the collective mentality always seems to prevail. It must be their Marxist view of society — individuals matter less than the collective. Good grief, I’ve even drawn criticism when I sympathized with blacks after the church shooting in Charleston. (A black acquaintance who never interacts with me online unless he spies some remark on race chastised me for being “patronizing.”) And of course, the totalitarian nature of some of those BLM and antifa demonstrations — not to mention extreme PC nutjobs like that anti-Seuss librarian — has driven me a little more to the right on social and cultural issues. I feel obligated to balance the tipping boat.
Do I think black people enjoy complete equality today? It’s complicated. Inner-city culture is clearly dysfunctional, so they start with a few strikes against them. Blacks still get a raw deal in the criminal justice system — and too often in real estate and banking. Inner city schools are mostly hellholes (although disruptive black students have a lot to do with that). On the other hand, blacks benefit from all those diversity initiatives and the one-way street of racial dialogue today. Blacks are allowed and even encouraged to criticize whites, blame them collectively, and defame white heroes from the past; they control the conversation. White people aren’t allowed to say boo in return — or they find themselves quickly expelled from polite society. I’m a stickler for fairness, and this is clearly a double standard.
Rick;
I do not end up in heated discussions with minorities.
In a few specific instances I will not dicuss certain topics arround specific people.
That is as often whites as minorities, but even when it is minorities – my reaction is no different from others in those groups – including other minorities.
When I end up in conflict over politics – particularly race – it is with progressive whites.
With respect to “white priviledge”.
We are NOT EQUAL. Get over it. Absolutely being born white and male and middle class give you a leg up in the world. Just as merely being born in the US also gives you a leg up.
I can have a small amount of sympathy for Colin Keapernick as he was born black.
He was also born with far more physical talent than I, and has transformed that into a multi-million dollar career.
We are not equally smart, or equally talented or pretty much actually equal in anyway.
That is life – get over it.
I can be grateful for the benefits I have, try to make the best use of them, grasp that some of my success (or failures) are the result of my own efforts, and still grasp that I have benefited from talent, place of birth and even race.
None of that changes what I must do to succeed, nor does it create a duty that government can impose by force upon me.
What I owe to others for my own privilege is between me and my god.
In 1820 race was a major factor with respect to the prospects of a person born in the US.
In 2017 it is a very small one.
Rick;
Heather MacDonald has done an excellent job of demonstrating that end to end our justice system is NOT racially biased.
While there is racial disparity, it is because there are racial differences in crime.
Asians commit crimes at 1/2 the rate of whites. While blacks commit them at about double.
This is true of crimes where there are subjective factors, and crimes where there are none.
Murder statistics are particularly useful, because dead is dead. We are not covering up thousands of white on white murders. We are not manufacturing fake black murders.
Through most of the justice system there is little disparity in the handling of murder.
It is unlikely that the criminal justice system is more racist elsewhere.
Further crime reporting tracks investigations, arrests and convictions.
Where we have more crime reported, we have more investigations, more arrests and more convictions.
Unless you beleive that blacks are more likely to report black people for committing serious crimes, there is no racial consequential dispartity in criminal justice.
Further the racial demographic patterns in the US hold true in other countries.
Asians are less likely to commit crimes – wherever they live, and hispanics and blacks more – wherever they live.
There are many things wrong with our criminal justice system.
And there is some racism. But that is small compared to many other issues that need addressed.
Issues with respect to lending and banks track class, not race.
If you are in the bottom quintile you are going to have a difficult time getting a loan.
White black or whatever.
I have addressed schools before.
If anything we are spending more on inner-city schools than suburban white ones.
And they are still disasterous – though education quality has declined even in white suburban schools.
But we actually know some things that work.
Charters work. I know alot about cyber charters – my kids each spent a decade in cyber charters.
These are a godsend to poor minority students.
Minority kids do not typically do well in cyber charters. But they do far better than they did in their brick and mortar schools.
BTW a for profit cyber charter costs about 75% of what a traditional school does.
They are not the answer for everyone. There really is not a single answer to education, and in fact any single answer is inherently the worst choice.
What we need in education is exactly that – choices. Partly because one size does nto fit all, and partly because competition drives improvement and lack of competition leads to failure.
Roby;
I would pay attention to what Rick is saying – not so much because it is the truth – though I agree with much of it.
But because I think Rick if he had made the same remarks 10 years ago would have shaded them much more to the left.
My point is that the rhetoric of the left is driving people right.
All of us are not becoming as Jay would put it “Trumpanzee’s”,
but anger at the left is rising.
It is not the consequence of Trump getting his message out and understood,
it is the consequence of the left alienating people.
The modern left made or atleast severely amplified the division in the country.
Trump merely recognized it and capitalizes on it.
This is long but it covers such an incredible number of issues.
Further it is Rubin interviewing Candice Owen and Rubin is excellent at addressing controversy in a polite and respectful way.
The world is getting better – freer
http://humanprogress.org/blog/good-news-the-world-is-getting-freer–faster?utm_content=buffer78b8f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Rent control – still has not worked for any city ever anywhere.
Latest fail – toronto
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/09/water-runs-downhill-toronto-edition.html
1984
Rick I loved your kneeling piece, and glad to see alert readers have put some icing on the cake.
I watched Bill Maher last night and for me John Heilermann said it all: the owners, players fans were saying f—- you Trump. I can’t find the actual quote but you get the idea.
In order to be politically correct, nowadays, you have to half kneel, place your right hand between your stomach and heart and link your left arm with some other schmuck.
Trump sure knows how to Make America Great Again- circa the 60’s.
BTW, even with a two day old thread, it is like swimming in the old East River trying to get through the verbal fatbergers with a comment.
Thanks, dduck! I’ve grown so weary of racial strife that it’s turning me into a curmudgeon. (Of course, the folks on the left would just call me a racist for questioning the holy narrative, and I’m fed up with that, too.) And, for that matter, I’m fed up with Trump. I used to go to bat for him occasionally because he was under constant attack from CNN and other righteous liberal media outlets. But the man brings it on himself… I really think he’s a sociopath.
As for the density of comments here, I’d just scroll straight to the bottom and hope for the best — unless you’re really determined to respond to other people’s comments.
I love Glenn Greenwald. He is strongly on the left. But he has integrity.
When he opposed something during the Bush administration, he remained opposed as Obama continued doing it.
Greenwald is heavily involved in the Snowden story. He is among the most knowledgeable journalists on tech issues.
While Greenwald is not ready to assert there is nothing to the Russia/Collusion story.
He is strongly stating that most of it is made up.
Aside from the fact that even the attempts to hack voting machines is now going down the tubes, Greenwald points out that the Twitter stories are all being sourced from newly formed anti-time neocon groups – not established cyber security people.
And that these groups are deliberately obfuscating their methods and sources.
i.e. They do not identify the accounts they claim were “russian bots” so no one can verify their story.
I have a different objection to the FB/Twitter stories memes – and that is that unless you are going to convert the internet into a US walled garden you can not stop what you are claiming happened – and you should not.
Further I do NOT want Twitter and FaceBook policing their accounts. I have accounts on both FB and Twitter and other places that are not “verified”.
The Supreme court long ago decided that the right to free speach included the right to speak anonymously. That government could not require the identity of a speaker.
Facebook and Twitter are free to do as they please.
But Government is NOT permitted to force them to do as government wishes.
Some here are rightly upset about Trump’s suggestion to the NFL that players who kneel be fired.
Senators demanding that FB and Twitter investigate Russian interferance and shutdown accounts is WORSE. Trump does not have the power to compel firing players.
Congress can Compel FB and Twitter – multiple ways.
Letting the free market work these things out on its own – means not putting your fingers on the scales.
If Twitters customers want these types of accounts “investigated” and eliminated, they will be. And those of us that have a problem with that will move elsewhere.
But the internet (or anything else) should not work as govenrment wishes it to, but as consumers choose.
Go Milt.
You can pollute a small body of water even faster than a small one.
-than a large one.
SNL taking on the PC millennials straight on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adPXDTvADD0
Good one — the 180-degree zipper cracked me up.
like
“My warmest condolences and sympathies to the victims and families of the terrible Las Vegas shooting. God bless you!” (Trump)
Hopefully this is all he will say about this tragic event. There will be enough people dividing this country even more after this took place that they will not need his help furthering the crusade.
Ron, One of my first thoughts this morning was to just pray that the shooter belonged to no ideology so that this could not be used to further divide Americans.
In the internet era there will be no shortage of people trying to use this for their own purposes, I don’t even need to read the news to find that fake news, hoaxes, conspiracies, etc. are in full swing this morning.
I cannot do anything about a nut committing a massacre somewhere, any more than I can do anything about a model getting a tattoo on her eyeball and suffering the consequences or a woman electing to die of cancer to have her baby and then the baby dies as well. I cannot do anything about any of these news events. I will send my modem away for the day, in my wife’s car as she goes to work. There is so much for me to do today other than obsess with news and politics.
I can only try to be as positive in my real life as possible and have good interactions with people. If anything can dilute the misery that comes in the news each day in some form its common sense and common decency. Good people living the most positive lives they can, not getting sucked into the madness.
Roby;
The vast majority of violence that gets blamed on ideology – is just violence.
Broken people lashing out.
In a world with 7.5B people that is going to happen occasionally.
Someday maybe we will become much better at dealing with mental health issues.
We are not today.
Still these events are extremely rare. they are not ordinary life and that is why they are reported. It will only take a month for Chicago to rack up a matching toll and that will not get much attention.
What is normal – even violence goes unreported, What is unusual makes the medias attention.
Whatever attention you direct to the media will be rewarded with reports of something going badly wrong somewhere – because there is always something going badly wrong somewhere. The media’s role is to deliver misery. They will not change unless we change what we want from them. While the world as a whole is constantly improving.
Our divisions are real. They are not manufactured.
But I would ask you to make a list of the top 10 problems we have today.
Which of those is not better now than a decade or two ago ?
If you are honest with your self, you will note that if there is anything on your list that has actually gotten worse in the past couple of decades, it is a government failure.
Whatever you wish to say about racism – it is better today than a decade ago, and certainly then the 60’s.
The same is true of every other form of discrimination.
People still went to jail – in San Franciso, when I was young, for being gay.
Now they are marrying and adopting.
I can think of nothing that is not intrinsically tied to government that is worse today than in the past.
What has declined ?
Our GOVERNMENT is rushing towards a fiscal cliff, it is still in the distance, but we are doing nothing about it.
Our economy is stagnant. That is either the new norm, or another government failure.
Our educational system is in decline. We are neither educating people to be productive or to tolerate dissenting views. We are not teaching the classical liberal views that produced the society we have today, that the rest of the world has sought to emulate.
Maybe we can do better – but nothing in the agenda of modern progressives addresses something that has gotten worse.
We are facing a massive meltdown and hissy fit on the part of the left – why ?
Because at worst Trump is going to move the country in a progressive direction more slowly ?
If all the lefts problems with Trump were true, it still would not amount to anything.
American Moderates Should be American Nationalists.
In this note I’m going to attempt to explain why American Moderates should be American Nationalists. I don’t mean White Nationalists – they’re racists and bigots; I mean ALL American citizens! To use an analogy, we’re not all in our own little boat, that either floats or sinks by itself; we’re in one big boat that either floats or sinks. In the Vietnam War, the race or creed of our foot soldiers didn’t matter; they either protected one another or they died. In this increasingly competitive world, if all Americans don’t work together, our nation and its people aren’t going to survive and prosper. To help our country survive, American Moderates need to accept that they also need to be American Nationalists. Social Nationalism that fosters mutual tolerance is not enough! Economic Nationalism that saves our jobs and provides more economic equality is necessary, Manufacturing jobs are almost ‘magic;’ they provide our individual communities to buy the necessities that we don’t produce locally. As it’s been said, we can’t make a living cutting one another’s hair. We need economic treaties that protect our jobs. Also when manufacturers want to export our jobs and factories, they need to file an ‘Economic Impact Statement’ justifying the move (e.g., they will go bankrupt otherwise). In summary the altruistic and pragmatic approach for American Moderates is for them also be American Nationalists!
Humans are tribal, and out tribes work outward from the family. Race, nation, class, national origen, religion are all just larger tribes we are part of.
All other things being equal we will favor our tribe.
This is just ordinary human behavior.
Even the left is not looking to extend AFDC to China.
All that said – economic nationalism is total complete bunk.
Please read Adam Smith’s “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” it is not only free, but there are several really good condensed free versions, including one written by PJ ORourke.
Free Trade is a win-win. Even unfree trade ALWAYS favors the nation with the LOWEST trade barriers. The arguments for free trade are so compelling that nations should shift to free trade unilaterally.
To the extent that some modern trade deals have been problematic – that is OUR fault.
US politicians and US businesses have used trade legislation to mangle our laws in their favor – treaties do nto require approval by the house of representatives.
The US used to have the most reasonable copyright laws in the world. Today we have the worst. Our industries – particularly the entertainment industry have used the treaty process to force our country to adopt the most protectionist copyright practices in the world.
We have borrowed every bad idea from the rest of the world.
With respect to jobs – particularly manufacturing jobs.
It is neither the role of government or the economy to “produce jobs”.
Standard of living rises when more value is produce for less human cost.
The nature of a free market is to constantly reduce the human labor necescary to produce anything. In other words to make people more productive and to use fewer people to produce ever more.
Just as the early weaving machines replaced spinning wheels and later machines replaced earlier ones, with each step resulting in fewer and fewer people needed to produce the same value. So it is today and always will be.
The destruction of jobs that is a natural function of the market , frees labor to be used for more valueable purposes.
More simply in an actual free market there will always be plenty of jobs.
Unemployment beyond a small portion necescary to keep the labor market from seizing, is a function of government drags on the economy – such as regulation.
The US BTW manufactures more today than ever before in history by a long shot. ‘
It just does so with a few high paying jobs, not alot of low paying ones
You can win the emotional war on economic nationalism, just are roby can win the war on ObamaCare, on the basis of emotion. You can not win it on the basis of fact.
And like the left, you seem to think that you have the ability to dictate the laws of nature and economics.
Creating barriers to preclude companies from outsources, always fails catastrophically.
Have we learned nothing from Smoot-Hawley ?
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
“The Mayor of San Juan, who was very complimentary only a few days ago, has now been told by the Democrats that you must be nasty to Trump.”
7:19 AM – Sep 30, 2017
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
“…Such poor leadership ability by the Mayor of San Juan, and others in Puerto Rico, who are not able to get their workers to help. They….”
7:26 AM – Sep 30, 2017
(Finishing the previous tweet)
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
“…want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort. 10,000 Federal workers now on Island doing a fantastic job.”
7:29 AM – Sep 30, 2017
Donald Trump can not stand anyone getting more attention than he gets, so even if the attention he promotes is negative attention, he is happy with that. He is #1 in the news.
He can not understand that this is further dividing an already hugely divided country and is doing much more damage than even a marshmellow brained liberal SCOTUS judge would do.
Jimmy Carter has to be thankful for Obama and Trump. He will no longer even be considered for the worst president in history, And GW Bush can rest easy. It took him 6 years for his Katrina. It only took Trump 8 months for his. Now they can reference Maria and the aftermath when talking about piss poor administration responses to catastrophes.
With respect to Puerto Rico – there is alot of good and bad information.
Here is some feedback from a Naval expert in this type of operation.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-01/trump-s-new-puerto-rico-tweets-in-same-old-war
The gist is:
The navy had much of what made sense in place BEFORE the storm.
The Hospital ships are an extremely poor choice – this is not a mission they are suited for.
Ships already on the scene are far better suited.
Puerto Rico’s infrastructure was in a significant state of disrepair prior to this hurricane,
and therefore easily damaged and unlikely to be quickly repairable no matter what.
The military is already doing most of what can be done,
—-
Elsewhere the military is airlifting in food and water for approx. 1.4M people every day.
That is a bit short of current needs – about 1.5M but is about all that can be delivered by air.
One of the big deals – which should start to be resolved is clearing the ports because ships are able to deal far more material than an airlift.
There is alot of conflicting stories about the Mayor of San Juan. What appears to be certain is that drawing any conclusions requires more than here input.
Dave, you seem to be incapable of comprehending what others post. My comment had nothing to do with what was right and wong with PR news. My commet had nothing to do with the actions of our government in the recovery. No one can argue with what Trump tweeted unless they claim his account was hacked.
My comment was directly related to polarization in the country and the impact Trump is having with his need to be the leading news no matter if that is positive or negative.
Stay on subject or start a new comment when it does not address the subject at hand. Trump tweeted negative comments about the mayor and I addressed that issue.
So whats yourbtake on that. Is he helping to cure the divide with these words orpromoting the divide.
Ron,
Just because your post has one point, does not mean I can not make a different one in response.
Absolutely Trump seeks the spotlight. That is not new, he has been that way his entire life.
We knew that when we elected him.
Frankly that is ALSO true of most of those who attack him.
The San Juan Mayor aparently had time for 5 media interviews but none to meet with FEMA.
Politicians stand infront of cameras all the time and say things they hope will make the news. To the extent Trump is different, he has gotten elected president and bypassed the
media filters and just tweets at us all directly, and the media must respond.
A brilliant – if very narcisistic tactic.
Regardless, since your point is polarization:
SORRY, our polarization is not caused by individuals. It is caused by groups.
Trump or even a few in the media or the democratic party acting badly would not polarize the nation.
Our polarization is the direct result of the fact that the nations is itself divided on big issues.
Those divisons predate Trump. At most he used them to get elected.
He did not create them.
It is an undisputable fact those divisions predate Trump.
To the extent there is an argument – it would be what caused them.
My argument is that it is the overreach and radicalization of the left, combined with their bullying approach to all who disagree.
again all of that significantly predates Trump.
Lots of us do not like Trump’s style, many of us like Obama’s style.
But in terms of substance – Obama has some real culpability in creating our divisions.
Trump does not.
The divide is not going to be cured by words.
The divide was not caused mostly by words – though the bullying of the left did nto help.
Frankly the divide dates atleast back to Woodrow Wilson, but it grows and shrinks.
The divide is over the extent to which govenrment should dictate our lives.
It can be cured only one of two ways:
A huge increase int eh number of people willing to tolerate significant governemnt involvement in daily life.
Advocates for more government backing down.
Ultimately the latter is the only viable approach.
Unless miraculously future government interventions succeed far better than PPACA.
But back to my response.
Saying the right things is a step – but only if followed by doing the right things.
The left is not saying the right things, and they are the ones who have been both saying and doing things that have failed.
Trump is frequently saying the right things – in the most inflamatory way possible.
He is also to a much lessor extent doing some of the right things – often to the ranting and raving of the left.
But Trump could have a heart attack tomorrow, and we would likely recreate him or someone like him. Because that is necescary to balance the bullying of the left.
Trump is not responsible for the fact that Berkeley Burned last year when Milo Yanopolis tried to speak there. He is not responsible for the fact that it cost 600K to provide security for Ben Shapiro. He is not responsible for the fact that a number of relatively begnign – and even sometimes left leaning academics such as Haidt, Peterson, Summers, and Murphy are being shutdown by hecklers veto’s.
Ron;
Absolutely Trump is a publicity seeker.
He made a relatively big Show of dealing with Texas,
But for the most part he has been relatively quiet about FL and PR – until he was attacked for purportedly botching them.
I am more concerned about REAL issues in PR rather than Trump or the media and the left engaged in a sparring contest.
This is likely to turn into a windfall for PR. The island has been horribly mismanaged for decades, and is teetering on Bankruptcy. Puerto Rico’s power has been crap for years.
It is my understanding that daily long outages were common throughout the island prior to the huricane. Regardless, PR is likely to get a shiny new electrical system curtesy of the rest of us. Disaster aid – if not thoroughly wasted could be sufficient to significantly address much of PR’s fiscal problems.
Carter was actually a pretty good president overall.
We frequently get confused by party labels.
Nixon as an example was incredibly progressive, the Bushes were relatively Progressive, while Carter and Clinton were actually conservative.
Carter got hit with some specific problems, mostly not of his making – the oil crisis and the Iran hostage situation.
The first he actually handled admirably – but it was outside his power to do better than he did, the 2nd he managed relatively badly.
Carter nearly ended Amtrak, deregulated freight rail, deregulated trucking, deregulated air travel – all other deregulation in US history combined is less than what Carter did, and all of it worked out well. We went from near bankrupt railroads of all kinds, to the best, cheapest and most profitable Freight rail system – that almost entirely subsidizes Amtrak infrustructure. Trucking changed in pretty much the same way.
Airtravel has gone from something mostly only business could afford to cheaper than any other means of transporting humans long distances.
Carter is responsible for making Volker Fed Chair.
Further Carter endorsed Volkers radical program to bring inflation, unemployment and interest rates back under control, despite the fact that Carter knew it would cause a serious recession and would likely prevent his re-election.
Reagan is typically given credit for this – and Reagan was wise enough to continue what Carter started, but Reagan’s presidency is a continuation of Carters with 3 specific exceptions:
Star Wars/Defense spending – Carter aggressively cut defense spending.
Reagan was aggressive about confronting (and negotiating) with the USSR.
Reagan cut taxes and simplified the tax code.
Reagan also accomplished much of that with a democratic congress.
Carter was actually at odds with a democratic congress.
Regardless, Carter gets little credit – and his handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis was poor,
but otherwise he was actually a great president.
Obama was a far better Orator. He would never have delivered Carter’s “malaise” speach.
But he was a pretty bad president.
Improvements to education.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-dam-holding-back-school-choice-will-soon-collapse/article/2636152
Maybe some of you will find my arguments more compelling – if the Washington Post makes them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/01/why-the-rule-of-law-suffers-when-we-have-too-many-laws/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_term=.57b6ca9a44a0
“If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing, I’m actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans are often republican gun toters.” Hayley Geftman-Gold CBS Vice President
Good example of polarization. One can make up their own mind as to how many others think like this well educated attorney in NYC.
Kristoff proposed 8 things that should be done in response to this.
Yet, not one of the 8 would have had any effect on this event.
Here are the gun death rates for various countriess per 100K or population.
Aa we learn more something may change but thus far this event is inexplicable.
The killer was wealthy, not in apparently financial difficulty, no record of mental health issues, no criminal record, no record of violence. Not even a record of gun ownership until recently. No strong religious ties we know of.
It is however disturbing that it took Police more than an hour to stop this.
On the one hand the scenario the shooter created pretty much ensured that no one was going to shoot back.
On the other, this was a near perfect arrangement for a SWAT team – a shooter completely separated from innocent people making it easy for them to go in.
I would also note, this is only the 2nd time ever that a SWAT time has ended an active Shooter incident. The other is SandyHook. In both instances the shooter killed themselves when a SWAT response was inevitable.
At columbine 5 SWAT teams were on site and never went in.
Yet SWAT teams are used every day over 200 times to serve drug warrants.
More than 1/3 of SWAT raids find NOTHING.
The justification for SWAT is that the person being searched might have a gun – less than 1/3 actually do.
BTW you are more likely to get killed by a police officer than by an active shooter.
That is not an indictment of police officers, just noting that both events are rare.
American Moderates Should Be American Nationalists.
In this note I’m going to attempt to explain why American Moderates should also be American Nationalists; I don’t mean White Nationalists – they’re racists and bigots – I mean a Nationalism that protects ALL American citizens! To use an analogy, we’re not all in our own little boat, that either floats or sinks by itself; we’re in one big boat that either floats or sinks. In the Vietnam War, the race or creed of our foot soldiers didn’t matter; they either protected one another or they died. In this increasingly competitive world, if all Americans don’t work together, our nation and its people aren’t going to survive and prosper. To help our country survive, American Moderates need to accept that they also need to be American Nationalists. Social Nationalism that fosters mutual tolerance is not enough! Economic Nationalism that saves our jobs and provides more economic equality is necessary, Manufacturing jobs are almost ‘magic;’ they allow our individual communities to buy the necessities that we don’t produce locally. As it’s been said, we can’t make a living cutting one another’s hair. We need economic treaties that protect our jobs. Also when manufacturers want to export our jobs and factories, they need to file an ‘Economic Impact Statement’ justifying the move (e.g., they will go bankrupt otherwise). Globalization is the opposite of Nationalism. Economic Globalization (the favorite of the conservatives) and Social Globalization (the favorite of the liberals) both result in lost American manufacturing jobs and increased US economic inequality. In summary the altruistic and pragmatic approach for American Moderates is for them to become American Nationalists!
I find myself planning to start pontificating at about 1:30am here in Texas. What could possibly go wrong? What does the NFL sell that makes so much advertising revenue? It sells the second most popular entertainment attractions in the nation. The first most popular attractions is sex. Sex sells everything, but whatever the opposite of “monopoly” is, that is how spread out sex is in the market place, toothpaste, car washes, hamburgers, all advertised with undertones of sex. So, moving on to number two, violence. Violence is the number one attraction to the NFL, the smashing hits, overpowering opponents, speed velocity, impact. A monopoly on violence? Certainly not, but dare I say, the NFL has a heavy share of the market. So if you would compare sex to violence, just for a moment, if some adult entertainers refused to stand during the playing of the national anthem before a show, how many people would give up watching porn, in protest? – Mike Hatcher
I am not sure what you intended, but I think you capture things perfectly.
Maybe people would give up porn if adult entertainers refused to stand during the national anthem, maybe they would not.
Regardless, the consumers of adult entertainment get to decide what they expect out of entertainers, and entertainers get to decide whether they will do that for what the are paid.
The NFL is no different.
Nor is Chick-a-filet.
I am not a big proponent of the bill of rights. I think that the anti-federalists were correct, the bill of rights leaves the presumption that those are the only rights we have.
Worse still we have lost many of those.
We have free speach – not because of the constitution, but because it is a natural right and prohibiting it is extremely costly and dangerous.
But free speach, like all of our other rights, does not mean that everyone else must quietly go along. It only means that it can not be infringed on by force.
Nothing prohibits responding non-violently to the free speach (or any other freedom) of others.
If you are sufficiently angry about players kneeling – do not attend or watch games.
If you feel compelled to express solidarity and support for players – watch or attend games.
You can also write the NFL or advertisers. But I would bet they are paying much more attention to what you do than what anyone says.
Good column, Rick. I think that the NFL controversy has been a political win for Trump ~ that doesn’t mean that it’s been a win for the country, but the fact that the NFL players chose to disrespect the flag and the national anthem, just to protest something that Trump said, shows the level to which they ~ and so many others ~ have given in to the notion that “resistance” is somehow more effective than reasoned opposition.
“But Trump could have a heart attack tomorrow, and we would likely recreate him or someone like him. Because that is necescary to balance the bullying of the left.” ~Dave
I agree with this. For some time, I’ve wondered why it is that many people, often including me, are willing to put up with Trump’s often belligerent Twitter storms and impolitic, sometimes rude, remarks. And I think that Dave has identified the reason.
For many years now, really since the second half of the Bush administration, the left has used its near monolithic control of the media and academia to openly mock and slander conservatives and Republicans, in a way that has become increasingly detached from, not only decency, but truth. Show business awards shows have become parades of beautiful millionaires, accepting statuettes from their peers, deriding half of the country, in the name of “speaking truth to power,” when, in reality, many of them are an ill-educated, entitled bunch of ignoramuses, who use their spotlight to bully people, from presidents on down to voters. Most of the news networks routinely feature panel discussions of “experts” who explain conservative policies as racist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, misogynistic, and other deplorable adjectives, with not an iota of evidence to support those slanderous charges, and often in the face of evidence that indicates that the truth is exactly the opposite. Universities are quickly becoming indoctrination factories, charging small fortunes for the privilege of having one’s child taught that America is a racist country. And now we have the sports media, once an island of respite from the politicization of damn near everything, pushing the nonsensical premise that because a largely washed-up quarterback, who wears socks depicting cops as pigs, and tee shirts proclaiming his admiration of Che Guevara, sits and/or kneels in disrespect for the most important symbols of unity and patriotism that this country has, he is a hero of sorts, and an example to be followed.
So, when Trump says ~ and I’m very glad that you pointed out that he never “demanded” that anyone be fired, simply expressed the view of many that, in most other jobs, this sort of thing would be grounds for immediate dismissal ~ that players like Kaepernick should be fired, he was expressing what many “normal” Americans believe, but do not have the pedestal from which to say it. He is, in short, using his bully pulpit to bully the bullies.
So, when Trump said, after his election, that he was the voice of the “forgotten men and women of America,” this is what he meant. And it’s the reason why his supporters stick with him ~ they believe that, if they turn on him simply because he is rude, they’ll no longer have any powerful champion at all.
Obama did much the same thing as Trump is doing, when he routinely attacked Fox News and said things like “if I had a son he would look like Trayvon.”
In most ways, Obama governed as a moderate ~ an unconstitutional moderate to be sure, but still. Yet, he never missed a chance to consolidate his base, by using what could be called dog whistles to the left, the black community and other minority identity groups. He never did much to actually help them (and a good case could be made that blacks are worse off because of his policies), but he existed as proof that they could win the presidency, and he was much smoother and snarkier than Trump, who is rude and bombastic, but both of them are masters at throwing red meat to the base, and exemplary culture warriors…..
The most disturbing aspect of the war on Trump has been the revelations of egregious political corruption within the Obama administration.
Fast & Furious, the VA, BenGhazi, are all relatively ordinary examples of government failure. To the extent they are corrupt, they are either bad policy or coverup.
They do not represent the use of the power of government for specific political advantage or to punish ones political adversaries.
The IRS scandal was the exception. The IRS scandal did not get the attention it deserved, nor develop leggs, because it appeared to stop with Louis Lehner – or atleast no serious effort was made to follow it into the whitehouse and DOJ.
The handling of the Clinton investigation, the tarmac meetings, the president publicly exhonerating Clinton, the unmasking, the wiretaps, the FBI involvement in the Steele Dossier, the clearly political and poorly done claims regarding Russian interferance in the election, and the political leaks of classified intelligence – as well as the false leaks, all represent political corruption. Further they have the strong appearance of organized systemic political corruption. Each of these feeds and interacts with others.
A conspiracy is often one of the most difficult things to prove. But the more independent peices there are and the more they all move towards the same goals and are interdependent for success to more probability shifts from random and unrelated to organized and coordinated.
Through 2016 my views of Obama were favorable – even if I disagree with most of his policies. I am increasingly of the view that his administration may reflect the worst political corruption we have ever seen.
We have not seen or heard everything yet. Aside from the IRS issue the evidence of political corruption has been focussed on Trump and Clinton.
But there are claims of unmasking and political spying going back to 2010.
There are senators who have stated they have seen evidence that they were spied on.
Nor does this appear to be confined to republicans.
Calling Obama a moderate is only a reflection of how far left progressives have gone.
Obama is absolutely a strong progressive statist.
ObamaCare may not have been as socialist as Single Payer, but it certainly not Moderate.
On policy after Policy Obama is at best half left of center, rather than lunatic fringe.
He is not moderate.
Priscilla: If muddying the political waters is a victory, then Trump had a “win”.
I will go with what John Heilemann said (paraphrased): the players, owners and fans said f—– you Trump.
He was put down.
P.S. I don’t agree with Kap’s knee, but it is a free knee unless management says don’t do it.
So I am saying the U.S. won this one.
And, I don’t think Obama did much of the same thing. Apples and kumquats.
I hear you dd12, but that’s not exactly what I meant.
Personally, I did not think that Trump should have inserted himself into the kneeling controversy. My opinion was based on the fact that he is the president, and I don’t think that presidents should pick one group of citizens against another, particularly when it comes to issues like this.
It’s the same way that I felt about Obama when he openly supported BLM, by inviting its leaders to the WH, and praising them, despite the fact that they were openly advocating against the police. He also openly sided with Occupy Wall St, against the very banks and large corporations that his administration had bailed out.
I don’t like it when either side does it, but that’s the way that the political game is played these days, and that’s why I said that Trump won politically, even though the country lost.
Trump’s poll numbers have gone up, the NFL’s ratings have tanked, and 95% of the players are now standing for the anthem again, because they realize that they alienated the majority of Americans. There is no doubt that it was an F— you to Trump, but what did it get them? A bunch of people burning their jersey’s and booing them? Big win……
As long as we continue to allow politics to divide us to the extent that it does now, there will be no stopping this….Because it HELPS the politicians to consolidate their base. As long as we cannot discuss our political differences calmly, or even listen to people who have a different opinion than our own, the “debate” will rage on, like Groundhog Day, everyone saying the same thing over and over again, and nothing changing, except the names of the politicians.
Politics only divides us for TWO reasons:
We are far apart,
The results of political choices are the use of force.
You can want a traditional colonial saltbox house, and I can want to live in a Phillip Johnson glass box. That is unlikely to cause conflict – because as far apart as we are, no force is involved and we are each free to strive for what we want.
When government steps into something – like healthcare, there is going to be a winner and a loser, even compromise is still one solution for all.
The larger government gets the more frequent conflict will be. That is inevitable.
The more diverse our country is the more frequent conflict will be.
This is also why I say the left is responsible for Trump.
It is the left that seeks bigger govenrment, and to do ever more by force.
Backlash is inevitable.
” Trump’s poll numbers have gone up, the NFL’s ratings have tanked, and 95% of the players are now standing for the anthem again, because they realize that they alienated the majority of Americans.”
I offer another alternative for them now standing. They share 50-50 in the revenues generated by the league. The revenues received each year determine the salary cap for the following year. Each year players sign contracts for millions more than the previous year and those escalate each year of the contract, with singing bonuses where cash is paid out this year prorated over the course of the contract. Even when the player is cut, that bonus goes against the total salaries paid for the year it covers. So now they see their actions are impeding TV viewership and TV viewership drives commercial revenues. Already DirectTV has given refunds for the NFL package and when viewership is known after a couple more weeks, most likely the NFL will be sending refunds to vendors based on guaranteed “eyes” on the games.
So with the huge contracts based on projected revenues in the future, when those revenues do not pan out, the next group to renegotiate contracts get screwed because the previous group is taking “their money”.
So are they standing because the American people do not agree with their positions or are they standing because they see kneeling hitting themselves directly in the pocket? If it were not the 50-50 split, i think they would be doing more.
And why is everyone so upset with Kaepernick and kneeling, but nothing comes of his love of Castro?
Ron;
Are you saying this is the state of current NFL contracts ?
If it is, I am surprised that players are not pressuring other players to stand.
Players and owners can negotiate whatever contracts they wish.
But contracts that mean players have “Skin in the game” are likely to have a strong impact on player conduct. Not merely in this, but in anything that impacts their paycheck.
https://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html
Dave I think this explains the salary structure better than I can. It is basically what I said except whoever said on one of the sports talkvshow that it was 50-50, this says its about 2/3rds to tha players. Knowing contractual language it could be either or between the two once all the figuring is done.
But yes, the players have skin in the game. What the article does not cover is TV contract with multiple gaurantees which always includes “eyes” watching, no matter which sport it is.
Thank you.
I was unaware of this.
I am not sure how much the details matter.
But the general structure – the fact that the players have significant skin in the game, means that the players are essentially part of ownership.
They will likely be pressuring their own.
So in addition to a lesson in how the free market works one way.
We may be getting a lesson is capitalism.
And players self interest as producers rather than as “employees”
Obama and Trump have radically different style.
But both of them were elected atleast partly because of their style.
No matter the outcome the NFL issue was a win for Trump.
It shored up his position with his supporters immediately after he had taken several steps that were outside their expectations.
It made his opponents look bad.
Even if this remains unresolved and seeths till 2020, it is still a Win for Trump.
Ron, I agree that it’s absolutely because of the threat to their very lucrative NFL contracts. When I said that they were standing because they realized that most Americans disagreed with them, I didn’t mean that they regretted the error of their ways, but that they realized that it was not in their best financial interest to figuratively spit in the face of their fan base .
When Marshawn Lynch showed up with an “Everybody vs. Trump” tee shirt, and subsequently sat for the anthem, a small army of Raiders staff surrounded him, so that photographers couldn’t get a good picture of him. The rest of the team stood.
I don’t think these guys are anti-American, they’re just anti-Trump, and many of them have bought into the false BLM narrative that there is an epidemic of racist police shootings. There are plenty of ways that they could have protested Trump without disrespecting our national symbols of patriotism and unity, but they stupidly chose to insult the country because they don’t like the president.
The left’s control of the media goes back farther than Bush.
The media leaned left when I was in elementary school.
It has just slowly moved farther left.
Academia has also leaned left for a long time, but it has shifted ever further left to the point where outside of STEM fields academia is essentially marxist.
The attacks are not limited to conservatives and republicans, but anyone – including moderates, and those not sufficiently left. The internecine campus conflicts we have seen on campus has been lunatic left students eviscerating left wing professors for not extreme enough.
So much of modern life resembles. Alice in wonderland, Brave new world, 1984, the Matrix and other dystopia’s where we are all expected to believe an enormous collection of things that are demonstrably not true. Everyone has taken the blue pill and is living in a leftist dream world oblivious of the constant incongruity and cognitive dissonance.
The classical liberalism I present here, should not be the least controversial. While aspects date back to the greeks atleast – or possibly further in China, this is the philosophy, economics, politics that created the west, and ultimately the United States.
The past 200 years conclusively demonstrates that it works.
Yet, the prevailing cultural political philosophy is has failed everytime and everywhere it has been tried. Further it can not work. Those workship the state, or even moderate agnostic statists, can not answer when is the state large enough. A constantly growing state will always reach one or another of the known forms of statis failure.
But these views are controversial and must be assailed with tremendous vitriol.
Trump and Trumpism are NOT conservatism, or republicanism (or libertarian).
Trumpism is the rejection of leftist wonderland.
Trump must be destroyed because too many people are taking the red pill.
I would also not that though alot is made of Trump’s “errors”, that an awful lot of the purported “errors” are nothing more than demands for false precision from a Tweet.
As an example – thus far it does not appear that Trump was “wiretapped”, but clearly his campaign was. And it is near certain that Trump was recorded as a consequence of those wiretaps.
Another dumb comparison observation.
See if you can figure out why.
(hint: what do all highly addictive high profit drugs have in common?)
“Another dumb comparison observation.
See if you can figure out why.
(hint: what do all highly addictive high profit drugs have in common?)”
Nope, a perfectly apt comparision.
Banning things that people want, does not make them go away.
It did not work for alcohol,
it does not work for drugs,
it does not work for prostitution.
The average street drug dealer makes less than minimum wage.
I would not call that “high profit”.
Marijuana is by far the most common illegal drug, it is neither highly addictive nor high profit.
This is a silly picayune observation to criticize the media.
Wounded knee was the site of a battlefield massacre, by 500 US Cavalrymen.
This IS the largest mass terrorist shooting by an individual (or individuals) in American History. Your dumb post trivializes the Las Vegas victims.
Wounded Knee – battlefield right.
Comparing the Las Vegas shooting to wounded Knee trivializes Las Vegas Victims ?
I am sure the Lakota concur.
Regardless, if you add enough qualifiers you will eventually be able to make it unique.
We can add Waco – our Government killed more people than at Las Vegas – was that a “battlefield” ?
Or OKC if you wish, or WTC, no guns lots of dead people.
Las Vegas is horrible, not trying to “trivialize” it, but lots of horrible things have happened.
They are rare.
1,260 people have been killed in “encounters” with police thus far in 2017.
We can mourn Las Vegas without pretending it changes anything.
This is an older article, but it is rooted in myriads of studies.
The first part of the article notes that conservatives are significantly happier overall than “liberals”.
But midway through the article it confronts, the issue of extreme vs. Moderate – and counter intuitively extremists are happier than moderates.
This travel nonsense should be resolveable.
It should be possible to establish rules for the use of private or government aircraft by ranking government officials.
There are clearly conditions that warrant it, and clearly those that do not.
Even rules that are imperfect, still provide guidance and bright lines.
We should not be arguing over who is more of a spendthrift – Price or Pelosi, or which administration flew private jets more frequently.
We should be arguing who Broke the rules.
http://dennismichaellynch.com/report-pelosis-travel-costs-taxpayers-millions/
BTW apparently Obama’s vacations cost over $1M
This sort of came up in the Clinton email server mess.
Most federal laws – including criminal laws do not have a Mens Rea Requirement – i.e. they have no requirement that you know what you were doing was wrong (not the same as knowing it was a crime).
Sen. Paul and Sen. Hatch among others have been trying to add a Mens rea requirement to all federal law where there is ambiguity regarding intent.
Interestingly this does NOT apply to 18cfr793(f) – one of the laws Hillary violated.
As that law explicitly adopts a negligence/recklessness standard.
If Clinton had actually had intent, she would have been guilty of violating 18cfr793(e).
Comey’s claim that Clinton did not violate the law because she had no intent was the same as saying 18cfr793(f) does not exist.
Until modern times Intent, guilty mind, Mens Rea was ALWAYS a requirement for a crime.
One of the distinctions between criminal law and Tort law is mens rea.
If you are merely reckless or negligent and the consequence is harm – it used to be that was a tort. but if you intended harm – that is a crime.
https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/dr-rand-paul-supports-legislation-to-increase-criminal-intent-protections
State efforts to end discrimination and oppression result in more discrimination and oppression – the results of studies in India.
Freed from british rule, India adopted a socialist government model with the expressed intention of wiping out the caste system and discrimination. The result was more discrimination – albeit with a patina of friendly paternalism.
India subsequently moved to a more free market model, following China’s early successes and this radically reduced discrimination and oppression in india and expanded opportunity for the oppressed.
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/markets-destroy-traditionalist-oppression?utm_content=58592997&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Does the First Amendment say anything about ‘a well regulated Press?’
But those who owned guns were supposed to be well regulated.
It certainly is Constitutional to regulate the use of guns, not used for militia purpose.
Doesn’t a literalist like you agrees with that.
We have had this stupid debate before. It is no better this time.
Here is the text.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Now change the text to
“The sun rising in the east, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
Does not change a thing.
The first clause doe not constrain the 2nd. That is a simple matter of grammar.
BTW there is a great deal of history to this – during the constitutional convention.
The language was actually deliberately deceptive.
The south explicitly wanted a right to armed militias,
and the north and west were looking for an individual right to arms.
The language was fought over several times.
The final language left with south with the fig leaf that the right was about militias.
That happens quite commonly in legislation. We often get deliberately deceptively written laws so that the left can claim the law means one thing and the right that it means something else. While those passing the law – right and left knew when they passed it that it was unclear – because it could nto have passed if it was clear.
The right word is not literalist – though that would do.
In this context the correct word would be textualist.
Regardless, litterally or textually, the first clause is a justification.
It does not in any way constrain the second.
To the extent it might have meaning at all, it could be construed to require militias as well as providing an individual right to arms.
If you wish to change things – amend the constitution, then you can write whatever language you want.
Believing that trump and his movement are an effective answer to protecting us from “the left”, PC, the media, etc. is magical thinking. Sure, politics is going to end with this administration, game over, trump and the right won. Right.
The idea seems to be that the way to beat a bad idea is to be its mirror reflection. Bzzt. Wrong!
Seriously, trump and all his enablers are only breeding the next generation of super virulent PC, media, academia, etc. Everything you guys hate is only going to be more powerful in the not very distant future. Yeah, you all are “doing something” about PC all right by supporting trump; you are guaranteeing that the next round of everything you hate from the left will be worse.
In time it will be clear that trump and his version of the GOP was the best thing that ever happened to the loony left. At some point the Seuss hating crowd will discover that Monty Python was sexist and racist, the Beatles were misogynist, and blah blah blah and they will have far more power than they have today. This will be 1) because they are idiots and 2) because the absurd excesses of cultural depravity under trumpism pissed off the upcoming generations of voters and set them on the path to being the opposite of trump and his followers in turn, with a vengeance.
Since I have as much interest in seeing a super PC world as I do in having all my teeth removed without anesthesia all I can say to the superbly naive people who think that supporting trump is the answer to PC and the other excesses of the left is thanks, thanks so much, may you all live long enough to see what the pendulum swing back looks like. And have fleas.
Can you please stop trying to decide what I think, believe or feel ?
I have said little or nothing about whether Trump is an “effective” response to the left.
There is a great deal of ground between Trump is a natural consequence of Left, and Trump is a good or effective thing.
I think it is near automatic that the response to a strong stupid shift one direction, is an equally strong stupid shift in a different direction.
Trump is not a “good thing” but he is a counterbalance of sorts. Not a perfect counterbalance.
Nor have I claimed that Trump is somehow the end of politics.
But one way or the other the left must change. Not because I want them too,
but because the left is failing.
It has alienated voters, and as it is currently constructed will continue to alienate voters.
Progressivism is proving a self destructive ideology.
To paraphrase a theme from MacBeth and the Arthurian legends
Progressivism bears the seeds of its own destruction.
You keep trying to make this about Trump.
It is not. The things that created Trump significantly predate Trump.
“Seriously, trump and all his enablers are only breeding the next generation of super virulent PC, media, academia, etc.”
You have to be joking ?
It took more than a century to transform Academia in the the post-modern marxist domain it is today.
We could replace 50% of academia with Ann Coulter Clones and it would still lean left.
The media is at best less extremist than academia.
Regardless, you still seem to think that our choices are between some mythical homogenous conservatism that even Trump does not reflect and Progressivism.
I am not a moderate – in the sense that I think the answer is some kind of compromise.
But the answer is something different from what any faction of the right, and the monolithic left are offering.
The answer is freedom. They answer is that we we can not get nearly all of us to agree, then we can not act through force/government – regardless of the issue. Regardless of whether we are talking right policies of left.
The “private sector” is the voluntary sector and the “public sector” is that of force.
We must have super majority support to use force.
We will see what Time brings.
I honestly do not know.
I think the evidence of the past few years suggests that polling is not showing us very well where the people are. That its binary nature does not reveal the relative strength of views, nor how they compare in importance to others.
My sense is that not merely the US but the world is shifting away from the left.
I do not know whether it is shifting towards something authoritarian, which is the danger, or towards something libertarian. Both threads are present.
One can cheer Trump on when he shits in the left’s catherderal’s without supporting him.
I do not think that Trump represents the future. He is merely the millstone that is destroying the left.
“I do not think that Trump represents the future. He is merely the millstone that is destroying the left.”
As the years goes on, you will find that the left has not been the least bit “destroyed.” You are believing your own fantasies. Which is just part of your wiring issues, so I can’t even blame you for it, I simply can watch your wondrous naivete in amazement. Others without your particular wiring issues are also being similarly naive, they think these reverse PC antics are going to defeat “the left” in the long term. I’m not sure of many things in politics, but I am sure that all the lefty things that trump is supposedly sending to the grave are very much alive and well and that he is a sort of super fertilizer for all that.
I wish the loony far left really Would be made powerless, I see zero sign of it. Bernieism is rising.
To some extent you are correct.
We have 100M deaths in the 20th century at the hands of collectivists.
No real example of a working collective society that does not significantly underperform a freer one. And few that do not degenerate into bloodshed and totalitarianism.
Yet after that history the left can still seriously talk about more collectivism as if it is not the most revolting ideology that has ever existed.
But at the moment the left is engaged in seppuku, and hopefully it will be a while before it rebounds again.
My “wiring” is facts, logic, reason – atleast with respect to the use of force.
What I find amazing is that there are so many like you that actually beleive nonsense that we know to be untrue.
And yes, the left will likely return – for exactly that reason. Progressivism is like Crystal Meth, no matter how badly it F’s people up, they keep coming back for more.
Sanders is one the rise – at the expense of the democratic party as a whole.
That is what happens when you move every further left.
The right has fought similar issues, but is less homogenous then the left, so it is harder for it to go for ideological purity.
The assumption that the pendulum will swing back presumes there are two poles.
The swing towards “the left” has past, where the pendulm will go as it returns to the center and beyond is not clear.
I accept that there is a small amount of racism in our policing. The tribalism of human nature will always result in atleast minor racism.
I do not accept the claims that our policing today is systemically racist.
But I do accept that it is unjust.
This is the natural consequence of giving people power without accountability, and of giving them power and an impossibly large task.
The following is just an example. It is a minor offense, and yet, the officer clearly lied.
I do not beleive our legal system is systemically racist, but it is systemically corrupt.
This incident is not unusual.
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5199
Ok, Mr. Fatberger, now that you have gummed up this four-day old thread with your endless comments, some of which are even intelligent if one is masochistic enough to wade through the sewer to read them. Yes, this is a personal attack and I am not discussing an issue with you so feel free to whine about that and how crass critics of your hogging the chow line are as you cruise down the highway weaving from lane to lane.
No, Trump did not win me or any of my moderate rep friends who just cringe at his non-linear, spastic attacks on anything that moves or has a pulse even his own cabinet members (ask Tillerson). And that includes denigrating politicians of all stripes and parties. Obama at least was just backing his race most of the time. Trump is all over the place and should have a broken arm from patting himself on the back.
I think some of his more moderate “base” will think twice before voting for him or another clown like him, and I hope it will occur BEFORE he ruins the economy.
Until americans are serious about third party candidates,
we will have only two choices each november.
Trump does not need everyone to love him to win. In 2020 he will have the power of incumbancy and presuming he manages to bring the economy to 3% he will near certainly win, and likely big. Conversely if the economy is still at 2% he will almost certainly lose.
The rest of your rant is a critique of Trump’s style. Fine, lots of us do not like his style.
Trump fired Price. I do not hear you ranting about that.
Obama fired no one of consequence – and there were lots of serious errors that required someone fired.
Trump is difficult and demanding of his staff – including his cabinet.
I do not have a problem with that.
I would be surprised if any CEO of any significant enterprise was not the same.
There is no right to be Sec. State. Deliver or get fired.
Thus far I think Tillerson is doing a good job.
Unlike you I also think Trump gets the credit and the blame for his administration as a whole. Price not merely embarrassed himself, he embarrassed Trump. He is gone.
I also think that Tillerson and Trump has a good cop/bad cop thing going on with the world.
And I think it is working.
I have zero problems with denigrating politicians. I can only think of a few that do not deserve it.
I am not that interested in Obama’s style or sympathies.
I care about his corruption, and his failure.
I wish I could say I care about his success and observance of the rule of law, but those did not happen.
I think Trump will ultimately be judged based on his success (or failure) not his style.
Regardless Trump is not an end. The weakening of the left is an end, and one that I think the left is acheiving on their own.
Style? LMAO.
You have a “style”, too.
Yes, I do have a “style” as do you.
With respect to the president, you might prefer one style over the other, but it has nothing to do with effectiveness.
I am not enamoured of Trump’s style.
But I am more concerned with what he does than what he says or how he says it.
“economy to 3% he will near certainly win, and likely big. Conversely if the economy is still at 2% he will almost certainly lose.”
Nonsense.
If Trump manages sustained 3% growth my 2020 he will be canonized.
mean growth since 2000 has been 20%. That is compared to 3.5% for the 20th century.
I keep telling you that an increase in growth of 1% sustained for a generation will have more impact on those at the bottom than all social safety-net programs ever.
I do not know it Trump can sustain 3% growth.
Obama has several quarter of 3% growth, but he could not sustain it.
I expect that Trump will do better than Obama.
Though he could do better still.
Actually Killing PPACA would have helped – economists estimate that is atleast a .8% drag on the economy.
Tax reform might help if they get it anywhere close to right.
I am not hopefull.
If the GOP really nailed things sustained 5% growth is possible.
But there is no way you are getting the changes needed to do that through congress.
During the 19th century average growth was about 7.5%
Every 10% of GDP that government spends reduces growth by about 1% – that is robust accross the US, the OECD, the EU and the world,
It is robust accross the past 50 years.
and to the extent we have data it appears to be robust through the 19th century.
Of developed nations the growth maximizing scale of government is under 20% of GDP.
Based on 19th century data – the optimal size of govenrment is more likely about 3% of GDP.
There won’t be any meaningful gun control legislation Coming out of this massacre.
If it didn’t happy after all those children were killed at Sandyhook, it won’t happen in our lifetime. Or our children’s.
Not likely in ours, Jay. But in our children’s it is very possible that American exceptionalism on this issue may finally make some concessions to sanity. Lets hope.
Silencers! (they Would be a win for the left, all those who don’t like to hear guns wouldn’t have to! <– little joke) Armour piercing rounds! The NRA-GOP were going to try for that level of idiocy. Now they are not.
Hope you’re right.. but not optimistic…
God, no, not the stupid hillary Silencer remark.
Outside of the movies silencers are primarily used in single shot situations.
The best silencers “burn themselves out” and do not work after a shot or two,
The rest at best take a few db off the sound level.
And you can not silence an automatic weapon.
Silencers are most effective with subsonic rounds – i.e. NOT rifles.
Had Paddock used subsonic rounds – ignoring all the other problems,
at the range he was shooting he probably would not have killed anyone.
A supersonic round is going to have a “sonic boom” just like a supersonic jet.
It will arrive AFTER the bullet, but it will still arrive.
Ultimately you are dealing with a problem of physics.
Sound is a form of energy.
In a gun sound energy is created two ways – by the firing of the cartridge and by the passage of the bullet through the air.
You can not silence the later,
Silencing the former requires converting the sound energy to some other form.
The most likely would be heat, so after a few shots you are going to have a tremendous amount of heat to do something with.
I can find no data on the number of people killed by silenced weapons in the US per year.
Probably because it is so terribly small as to be meaningless.
Anyway, can we get past stupid ?
Jay, if the 113th senate would not pass assault weapons ban in spring of 2014 after the Sandy Hook shooting, it will be years before it ever happens. 15 democrats voted against the ban, so the vote was 40 yea, 60 no. To pass would require the exact opposite.
One thing about this, it is bipartisan that gun control will not pass.
But it would be nice to have an honest discussion on how any proposals to change existing laws and make them tighter would have changed one thing with this shooting. He had illegal guns already. How did the law banning fully automatic weapons not stop this from happening. And when you ban certain products used in this type of shooting, how do you stop them from hitting the streets coming in from Mexico? Once it becomes illegal, the Mexican cartels take over the market.
I want to know how to change the environment that creates the need for people to buy more guns. I have a (forgotten by intelligent family members) brother-in-law that anytime something comes up about weapon bans he is at the gun store buying whatever they propose to ban. And there are many just like him doing the same thing. WHY??? Other than saying “no jack booted government thug is going to take my _________ (fill in the blank) from me without a fight, why else do they feel compelled to continue buying guns for protection. One or two yes, but why an arsenal?
One big problem is that gun control is always brought up by liberals immediately after a horrific shooting, and before the bodies of the dead are cold. They try and inflame emotions that are already raw, and it’s obvious that they are exploiting tragedy, so gun rights advocates become immediately defensive, and for good reason. Other people, who may be relatively agnostic on gun laws, also wonder why the gun-banners are so quick out of the gate to want to take guns from law abiders, before they’ve even discovered the motive/motives of the criminal.
Another thing is that reasonable people know that doing something just for the sake of doing something often leads to doing something pointless or stupid. And that many of the politicians who start spouting off about gun control are only doing it to virtue signal and rile up their base. When the initial shock of a mass murder is over, those politicians do nothing to further the conversation.
Finally, the death toll from the Las Vegas massacre was about the same as September’s gun death total in Chicago (57)….except that, in the case of Chicago, it happens every single month (year-to-date more than 500 killed), and none of the Democrat politicians say a word.
So, yeah, it would be great to have a discussion about gun violence. An honest one.
One of the problems with discussions of “gun violence” is the false presumption that it is about guns.
Austrailia famously banned guns almost completely.
They have had almost no mass shootings since then.
But the homocide rate is unchanged, and the deaths from Mass Killings are unchanged.
Though mass killings from Arson went up.
In the US more than half of all homocides are committed by blacks.
If you compare homocide rates in the US by race to those in the EU by race, we are about the same as they are – even though much of the EU bans guns.
In scottland – nearly all white, the homocide rate is higher than the US – in scottland murders are committed with knives.
The 9/11 terrorists did not use guns.
Nor did Timothy McVeigh.
Nor did the Weathermen or the red brigades.
Even the IRA mostly used bombs.
Mr. Paddock appears to have planned this, and sought to kill a large number of people.
That is pretty common among mass killers, though Paddock seems to have thought this out better than most. Shooting into a crowd of 20000 from the 32nd floor of a hotel is well planned. No matter how well armed people in the crowd are or how good the security is, they are just not shooting back.
Mr. Paddock was not being stopped until the police stormed his room, and he knew that.
What is surprising is that it took them a full hour to do so.
Had Mr. Paddock tried going into a country music crowd with even an automatic weapon, he would have been pinned down and killed fairly quickly.
Further much of what is known thus far sugests that Paddock was not experienced with guns. This was a means of compensating for that. Accuracy is not needed firing into a crowd.
This guy had something like 20 Guns – oh my god!!!!
I was the executor for a friends estate. He had 3 guns that needed to be sold.
We sold them to the mayor. This is the mayor of a town of about 100,000, in a county with nearly 1M people. In his basement our mayor (I do not actually live in the city) had almost 20,000 guns.
Elsewhere he has about a dozen cannons. In fact his cannons are featured in most every revolutionary or civil war movie made int he past several decades.
For 35 years he and some friends provided over 20 cannons for the 1812 overture for the Fourth of July celebration.
Boston has a couple of howitzers from the military.
My city has had 20 revolutionary and civil war cannons for the past 35 years.
The so called “kentucky rifle” was created by a gunsmith whose workshop still exists, about 2M from where I grew up. The middle school I went to was named after him.
The pennsylvania rifle was the “ar-15” of the revolutionary war.
When our founders said that people had the right to bear arms – they were talking about “military arms” the longest range and most powerful sniper rifle of the time.
Also good for hunting deer.
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson,
Jay, according the various sources that use extrapolated data from company data, government data and other available data, there were 3,750,000 assault rifles in the hands of Americans in 2011. Due to increasing calls for government to legislate tighter controls on weapons, assault rifle sales rose 50.4% in 2012 to a level of 500,000 to 700,00 per year and has held steady though 2016. Using the 500,000 level for 2012 to 2016, that means an additional 3.5 million assault rifles were added to the 3.7 million in 2011 for a total of over 7 million. No one knows the exact numbers since once they are sold they are not tracked and 2017 data is not available yet, but given this latest call for tighter laws, one can assume gun sales will surge again through the end of the year.
My point? How do you control the movement of this many weapons even if you can ban the sale of new ones. Once you ban the sale of new ones, the price for the old ones sky rockets, making the black market larger for existing weapons and ones coming in illegally. And all of this holds true for large magazines which I did not research. I doubt there is any info available on how many are in use today.
I view any laws that may come to pass will be as effective as prohibition during the 20’s and 30’s.
That was 2.5 million added not 3.5 million. TYPO!
In 2014 – the most recent year I can get broken down data from the FBI for,
there were 8,124 homicides by gun.
Of those 248 were by rifles – including all assault weapons, and 262 by shotgun.
Further the long gun deaths have been trending down for a long long time.
Outside of Miami Vice rifles are extremely uncommon in crime.
In my city in my lifetime only 3 “assault weapons” have ever been used in crimes – no one was killed, they were used in the same crime, and all the perpitrators went to jail for a very long time.
The right to bear arms was not for hunting.
It was because an armed populace was viewed as an important balance against potential tyranny. Hamiliton explicitly addresses that in the Federalist papers.
You can find founders from Madison, Washington, Lee, Henry, Paine, Mason, Franklin and Jefferson asserting that americans bear arms for protection against govenrment.
We have obliterated the 4th amendment, but early 4th amendment cases required law enforcement to visit a home during normal hours and to knock first.
Because an officer breaking in could get shot by a homeowner defending their home.
Today if you shoot a cop who breaks into your home at 2am with a no knock warrant, if you are lucky enough to live, you are going to jail.
That would be good.
Because there is not a single possible proposal for gun control that would have had any effect on this.
Everytime something like this happens, the left whigs out and recycles stupid ideas.
From what I understand Paddock had 1 fully automatic weapon – those are already not legal. and 3 semi-automatic weapons with bump stocks – not only legal but impossible to stop.
You can currently buy from Distributed Defense, the Ghost Gunner for about $1000 that will allow you to make an AR-15 receiver – that is the part with the serial # that the BATF tracks. The “ghost gunner” is merely a convenient package – if you want you can buy an ordinary CNC machine and do it all completely yourself.
Are you planning to ban CNC machines ?
Distributed defense deliberately avoided modifying the AR-15 receiver for Fully automatic operation, but it is pretty simple to do.
Further there is no reason that they could not provide an M16 Receiver or any actual fully automated weapon.
We are well past the point where govenrment can control guns.
Here is the effect of the Australian near total gun bun on both gun deaths and homocides. http://www.gunsandcrime.org/murder.gif
Typical left wing nut – something happens you do not like, and government must do something about it.
Should we ban tornado’s lightning, huricanes, volcanos, floods, and earthquakes while we are at it ?
It is unlikely to happen ever, because it is a stupid idea that will not change anything.
“But even many Democrats are hesitant to pass legislation to restrict access to guns. In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., famously pulled consideration of a gun bill, and said the Senate needed to take a “pause” on the legislation. Reid said the Senate would return to the bill, but never did.”
What’s Harry saying now?
Moderate Dem Schaffer For Prez
http://schiff.house.gov/
That’s Schiff
Jay, your kidding right???? Schiff is ranked 401 out of 449 by govtrack in political positioning. #1 is most conservative, so there were only 39 members more liberal than this goofball. (440 because individuals like Sessions was included and his replacement was also included).
really??How MODERATE is that?
Heh. I suppose that Schiff is a moderate by California standards. And he makes Hillary look like a dynamo.
Schiff: boring and dry as a week old piece of toast.
Rep or Dem, you need charisma, for want of a better word, to win.
Toast better than arsenic.
God, noi, Schiff is a partisan idiot flacking for Obama.
He has seriously interfered with the investigations into unmasking.
He is only able to see red and blue. Not facts.
Obama?
Are you stuck in another time warp?
How to defeat the loony left: We will let Elizabeth Warren be its symbol.
Elect her. That will be the end of the loony left, she will be terrible and all the progressive plans will be rolled out and die one by one like trump care, as they get analyzed. Progressive will go back to running some Ralph Nadar every so often and the dem party can be freed from them.
The answer to defeating the loony left never was having trump F up the country.
Elect Warren and the looney left will die with all her proposals dieing?
Except with Trump destroying his tepid moderate support who may well set out the next election or vote democrat, she could well have the same support as did Obama and get her socialist!ust programs passed. Remember how many GOP members voted for Obamacare.
Ron, I don’t believe it, the country is evenly divided. 2008 was a fluke due to the costs in blood and money of the Iraq war and the financial crisis that put a party in nearly complete power that did not actually have the support of the country demographically. As well, I am being tongue in cheek when I say elect Warren because I agree with Rick that the country can’t afford another in this series of divisive presidents and a loony left president would preside over dysfunction and rebellion of the red districts. We can’t afford it.
All the same, I Am being serious when I say that actually electing a loony lefty is the one thing that would do the loony left in as a political force. That benefit would come at a huge cost, so I hope to hell that the trump effect does not result in an actual replay of 2008. I want a moderate dem or GOP president (ha, ha) and a split congress.
Its very likely that some time in the future there will be a loony left POTUS, in my kids lifetime.
What I find so interesting today is the number of times we hear a conservative mention JFK’s name when in support of some program, and not just tax relief. Given his response to the Cuban missile crisis and a few other things, he is mentioned much more now than just a few years ago. JFK would have a hard time getting the nomination in this day and age since he would be more in line with a Joe Manchin and that is not what the democrats are looking for. And I know I will get backlash on this statement, but I do not really think RR would ever get the GOP nomination since his form of conservative politics are no where near the conservative level of politics today. Just look at the last candidates standing for the GOP nomination this past primary season and one can see how the rigid right has consumed the Republican Party.
This is not about Warren or Trump.
The fundimental issue is that democrats response to the 2016 loss has been to move further left and to go into full bull moose loon mode over Trump.
To some extent they are succeeding in making Trump’s relationship with the middle worse. But they ruin their own relationship at the same time.
If 2020 becomes another contest over who is the least evil. Trump will win.
Particularly if the economy is stronger.
The question is not whether democrats will run Warren in 2020.
It is if they will move towards or away from the center.
I think it is highly unlikely that democrats will see the opportunity they had in 2009 any time soon. But in the unlikely event they did, should they push more social garbage they will just bankrupt us faster, and destroy themselves.
The estimate for Bernies SP plan is a cost of 32T/decade. That is almost as much as the entire current federal budget.
Vermont dabbled with SP and could not make it work fiscally.
California did so recently to the same effect.
Why anyone is even discussing such stupidity is beyond me.
It can not be made to work, and it will cost almost as much as the entire federal budget. That is just not happening.
What does it take to get truly stupid ideas to die ?
But then the left remains committed to socialism.
Strange answer.
You do not seem to be able to distinguish between what is planned and what happens naturally.
The left is destroying itself. I doubt they are doing so deliberately, It is the natural consequence of the flaws in the ideology.
Trump is not a planned scheme to destroy the left.
Just as the left’s shift even further left is not a planned scheme to destroy the left.
But both are still working towards that end.
Regardless, there is more than one way for the left to self destruct, just as there is more than one way for it to recover.
I have no idea whether electing Warren would destroy the left.
There is no single Elizabeth Warren. How she would run as a presidential candidate, how she would govern if elected are not necescarily the same as her persona.
Nor is the issue who Warren might be.
The issue is that democrats seem to think that moving even further left is the root to recovery.
EW, yup, that would show them.
The issues of easy access to all kinds of guns and the resulting violence in America are obviously as complex as anything can be and may or may not be an insoluble problem. Any “solution” would be partial, slow, and consist of many many different approaches of which some form of gun control is only the most obvious. But, All too many on the right do not even believe there is a problem with easy access to too many types of guns and the ensuing violence. So, I’ll have to go with the dreaded left in this case, who at least think that there is a problem, even if they are naive about solutions.
Of all the urgent business that needed to be done for America in this congress why was anyone even considering introducing a bill or bills on silencers and armour piercing rounds? Because the GOP depends on NRA fanatics like the dem party depends on its single issue fanatics. Sure as night follows day someone here, or two someones, will deny that hotly. How could I possibly believe such a wild idea.
If Adam Lanza had not had access to those guns he would have burned down the school instead? Really? If Sandy hook had not occurred America would not be a better place? Really?
When Muslim extremists commit an atrocity members of the right are not making emotional arguments before the bodies are cold? Really? Then they have at those who believe in gun control after Sandy hook type slaughters?
These sad post massacre moments in America are the ones that reinforce in me that I am still a liberal. My disgust with the right overwhelms my disgust with the left.
The problem will never be be faced while conservatives protect the NRA-GOP vote getting machine. If the problem is ever faced it will be because society changes little by little. I believe there is a chance of that.
“Caleb Keeter, a guitarist with the Josh Abbott Band that performed at the Las Vegas country music festival targeted in a mass shooting on Sunday night, said Monday that he has changed his position on gun control following the attack that left 58 people dead and over 500 others injured.
“I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd Amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was,” he tweeted on Monday. “We actually have members of our crew with CHL [concealed handgun licenses], and legal firearms on the bus. They were useless.”
Keeter said his fellow band members didn’t dare take out their weapons in self-defense as bullets rained down on the crowd “for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us.”
“A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power,” Keeter wrote. “Enough is enough.”
One mind at a time.
Roby, I agree we have a problem in this country. I am not sure its the number of guns. But find and read my response to Jay about just the number of semi automatic weapons already in the public and tell me how any law will change anything.
Ron, I read your response and I do not argue that you have put your finger on the most difficult point. Over the period of my kids lifetimes I believe that things could slowly change.
Things won’t change by pretending there is no problem or by throwing up our hands and saying that working to improve the situation on many fronts is just futile.
You are not one of those who pretends there is no problem, so, as usual, I consider your point of view sane and thoughtful. Would that you were the model of the conservative point of view.
Roby, you are correct, there is a problem with gun violence.
But the problem is much more complex than the anti-gun people would make us believe. For example, about 2/3 of gun violence deaths in this country are suicides, many of them middle-aged white men.
The questions we can ask about this fact ~ and it is a fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html?_r=0 ~ include the following:
1. Would these people have killed themselves if not for guns? Did they purchase guns for the purpose of suicide, or did they happen to be gun owners to begin with?
2.Had these people been diagnosed with any mental illness or substance abuse issues prior to killing themselves? And if so, how did they obtain firearms?
3. Did these people have access to mental health care prior to shooting themselves, and if not, why not?
3. Are the rates of suicide rising in any other demographic group, or in general, and is this related to gun sales?
Perhaps new or different gun laws would reduce the numbers of suicides…perhaps not. But, we need to look at the facts on the ground, and determine what our priorities should, rather than rely on knee-jerk reactions to acts of mass murder. And right now, we don’t know what the motives of the Las Vegas killer were. It is clear that he was mentally ill in some sense ~ certainly no normal person would do such a thing ~ but was this an act of terror? Of vengeance? Was Paddock psychotic, and, if so, how was he able to legally purchase any guns? Had he been radicalized in some way? Did he have accomplices before, during or after the shootings?
My point is that calling for “something” to be done, in the heat of high emotion and in the chaos of tragedy’s aftermath seems irresponsible.
“Roby, you are correct, there is a problem with gun violence.
But the problem is much more complex than the anti-gun people would make us believe. For example, about 2/3 of gun violence deaths in this country are suicides, many of them middle-aged white men.”
This is not the issue that “anti-gun” people have on their minds this morning. The issue is mass shootings, large and small, and easy access to far too much fire power for the legitimate purposes of hunting or self defence.
“My point is that calling for “something” to be done, in the heat of high emotion and in the chaos of tragedy’s aftermath seems irresponsible.”
Well, how about a call for nothing to be done? Is that responsible? Seriously, I am going to continue to believe that somehow in the future, 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, from now there is going to be progress towards an America in which getting one’s hands on a high capacity magazine is damned, damned difficult along with its matching weapon.
When exactly IS one supposed to be allowed to press for removing “access to an insane amount of fire power,” as country musician and former 2nd amendment believer Keeter wrote. “Enough is enough.” According to the GOP-NRA alliance, never, never is the time when one is supposed to talk about such things. And if someone does, they are met with derision by a conservative hecking squad. Perhaps the NRA can send a crack brainwashing squad to get Keeter to recant on his apostasy.
Seriously, this Onion piece seems to be close to the actual viewpoint of the NRA.
“Americans Hopeful This Will Be Last Mass Shooting Before They Stop On Their Own For No Reason
WASHINGTON—Expressing a sense of guarded optimism that the latest incident of gun violence that left 58 dead and 500 injured in Las Vegas would be a turning point for the nation, Americans across the country confirmed Monday they were hopeful this would be the last mass shooting before all such occurrences stopped on their own for no reason at all. “After something as horrific as what happened in Las Vegas, we’re all just hoping that now these terrible shootings will stop once and for all without circumstances changing in any way or any of us taking even the slightest amount of action in response,” said Harrisburg, PA resident David Snyder, echoing the sentiments of tens of millions of citizens from coast to coast who told reporters they were confident that, after living through the most deadly mass shooting in modern American history and taking no material steps to change gun laws, reevaluate safety standards, increase access to mental health care, or even have a national conversation about how mass shootings could be avoided in the future, tragedies of this kind would at long last come to an end. “Having seen acts of violence like this happen over and over again for years now, I’m really holding out hope that, despite every single factor that allowed them to occur remaining exactly the same, we won’t have to live through another day like today. I know everyone’s praying this will finally be the time this issue just disappears forever entirely by itself without anyone doing anything.” At press time, Americans nationwide agreed that years of taking no measures whatsoever to prevent mass shootings may finally be paying off.”
I’ll go with the liberals and sensible people of all ideologies on this one, when Madison put the bill of rights through, a gun fired one bullet at a time, after which one reloaded manually. That is the firearms they had in mind.
Roby, I will accept your position on changes to the second amendment when changes to the first amendment are also included in that change, and I would want this made as an amendment to the constitution and not some law that could be changed by whim of the congress whatever way the wind was blowing. Just look at the silencer bill and cross state carry permit laws that have been tabled because the wind is not blowing in the right direction.
Lets do it the right way and change the constitution like they did with prohibition. One made the drug illegal, another made it legal..
Now when I say amend both the 1st and 2nd amendments, they are both tied together. One creates death and injury. The other is a major element that creates the environment that allows the first to happen. Guns are only the tools used by psychotic people to carry out their goals. Free speech is the environmental element that creates much of the psychosis.
Why can’t people commit suicide if they want to ?
In many instances I hope people do not. I hope they get help, I hope they can come to want to live and live a good life.
But it is still your life, and your choice. I think all of us would be happy if Mr. Paddock had committed suicide alone a couple of days ago.
Regardless, in many many instances suicide is a reasonable choice, or atleast one we should not interfere with.
In my community recently a elderly man took his wife who had alzheimers and in her few lucid moments begged him to kill her, home for an afternoon. put them both in the car in the garage and started the engine.
When he did not return to the “home” as schedule the police were sent. They found the couple, managed to revive the man who spent two weeks in intensive care. He has subsequently been tried and convicted and will spend the rest of his life in jail.
I have watched my parents, inlaws and other relatives die. I can live with dying as most of them did. But some of their deaths were tortuous and cruel. If I have the slightest choice, I would end my own life before dying that way. I would end my wife’s life if that was her choice and hope she would do the same for me.
I agree. Rational adults should be able to legally take their own lives.
How many suicides and attempted suicides are committed by rational people?
Are people with severe treatable depression rational?
What about children/minors? Should they be able to kill themselves?
Some stats:
“In 2015 (latest available data), there were 44,193 reported suicide deaths.
Currently, suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States.
A person dies by suicide about every 11.9 minutes in the United States.
Every day, approximately 121 Americans take their own life.
Ninety percent of all people who die by suicide have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder at the time of their death.
There are 3.5 male suicides for every female suicide, but three times as many females as males attempt suicide.
494,169 people visited a hospital for injuries due to self-harm, suggesting that approximately 12 people harm themselves for every reported death by suicide.
Suicide was the second leading cause of death for adults between the ages of 10 and 34 years in the United States.
Depression
25 million Americans suffer from depression each year.
Over 50 percent of all people who die by suicide suffer from major depression. If one includes alcoholics who are depressed, this figure rises to over 75 percent.
Depression affects nearly 5-8 percent of Americans ages 18 and over in a given year.
More Americans suffer from depression than coronary heart disease, cancer, and HIV/AIDS.
Depression is among the most treatable of psychiatric illnesses. Between 80 percent and 90 percent of people with depression respond positively to treatment, and almost all patients gain some relief from their symptoms.”
I think that there are definitely times when doing nothing is better than doing something. Bad law is often worse than no law. We can debate that if you like.
It’s already illegal to own automatic weapons, and it should be illegal to manufacture and sell anything that allows a semi-auto to be converted into a automatic-firing machine gun. I think it probably is in most states, maybe federal law needs to be changed, if it isn’t in all. But, I don’t think that it would prevent mass murders. And it wouldn’t prevent prevent people from coming up with illegal modifications, just like it doesn’t stop people from buying guns illegally.
I think that Ron is correct in saying that the only way to make any significant changes to the current gun laws would be to amend the Constitution. And, I recall from our last thread on gun control, that I said that I think it would be a good idea for anti-gun politicians to pursue that, because it IS the only way, and it would show, once and for all, who means what they say about guns and who is just showboating for political gain.
I know that you are genuine in your desire to limit gun ownership for the purpose of protecting people from madmen. But asking when is the “right time” is like asking when is the right time to outlaw anything ~ the right time is when you know it’s the right thing to do, and you are willing to take the political hit that might come from doing it the right way (I’m referring to legislators of course, not you personally). Just standing on the graves of victims of high profile mass murders and screaming “Do Something Now!” is not the way.
I note that Jay and Dave have agreed on something, and discussed it in a calm and rational way. Huzzah.
I don’t know how I feel about suicide. I’m not in favor of allowing people to blow their brains out with guns. But using a lethal drug cocktail? I don’t know….maybe.
And euthanasia is a whole other ethical question. My daughter was in a serious relationship with a young man who was hit by a car while riding his bicycle. He was 25. He suffered catastrophic brain damage, and ended up in a vegetative state…after a year and a half, he contracted pneumonia and died. It seemed a blessing, since he might possibly have lived in that state for many years, and it was awful. I might be in favor of euthanasia in extreme cases like that. But I think it’s a dangerous and slippery slope.
Jay;
Given that we have decided that there is no rational reason to commit suicide, I am not surprised that we find that everyone who commits suicide has a psychiatric disorder.
I do not have the answer to every question.
Kids are always a problem for nearly every issue.
And they remain a problem no matter how you choose.
If you decide kids can choose for themselves – they make poor choices.
If you decide parents can choose for them – we have lots of bad parents.
If you decide government can choose for kids – the results of that have been atleast as bad as parents or kids choosing for themselves.
Walter Block – and actually pretty extreme libertarian, wants kids choosing for themselves. I can not go that far.
Mostly I think parents get to make choices for kids.
But I will accept SOME government oversight in that.
But I think the conduct of parents has to be incredibly egregious for the state to step in – because the states record as a parent is worse than abusive parents. Charles Manson is the product of state parenting.
But skipping kids. For the rest of us.
No I do not think that the state gets to step in and decide if your decisions to kill yourself is rational.
The fact that men succeed when they try strongly sugests they are serious – the mean it. The fact that women don’t suggests they aren’t.
Just as I think you are free to commit suicide I think you are free to fail.
Further with extremely few exceptions we are very bad at treating mental health issues.
I do not have a problem with people being perscribed mind altering drugs.
Nor do I have a problem if they choose not to take them.
My mental health is excellent. In my entire life I have only very rarely experienced serious anxiety or depression. But I have in very rare instances had each. Even so – I think many people have had worse anxiety and depression. I can feel very sorry for that.
About 2 years ago as a result of the only serious bout of anxiety I have had in my life – one that had very legitimate causes, my doctor perscribed an SSRI. I took that for a week. That was the worse week in my life.
I very quickly found that my anxiety could get far worse.
I am told if you can get through a couple of weeks to a month they work.
Nothing would make me take an SSRI for a month.
My point is that if others have mental health problems and they do not want to take the drugs they are told will help – I think that is their free choice.
I would prefer that people made choices like drugs and suicide and …. by some perfectly rational standard – but they do not.
I have no right to dictate how you live your own life – so long as you do not harm others.
I do not have a right because you are anxious or depressed.
I do not beleive in utopia. Life is not perfect, and it is not the same for each of us. Others are allowed to make choices I do not like – so long as they do not harm me.
I would do all kinds of things short of force to prevent those with depression from killing themselves. But in the end their depression, and my perception that their choice is not rational does not allow me to force them to follow my will, rather than their own.
Further I am consistent on this through other things.
I have never used an “illegal drug” in my life.
But no drug should be illegal.
If you wish to smoke pot, drink alcohol, or shoot heroin – I may think that is a poor choice, but it is yours and not my business until you harm others.
I do not expect that legal prostitution, suicide, or drugs, or… will make the world into utopia. The evidence is that it will have absolutely no effect on the underlying problems. But it will have major effects on crime.
And it will result in less government, and less government doing things that are not its business.
I understand that others feel differently.
I even understand that some of have been rescued from suicide attempts have subsequently lead full and happy lives and regret having done so.
But I do not have the right to intervene by force in the life of another merely because they might regret their choice later.
Priscilla;
The freedom of people to do what they wish with their own life – provided they do not use force to actually harm others does not presume a position on the choices others make for those who can not make their own choices.
I do not think that mental retardation, or mental health issues should take from us the right to make our own life choices.
But committing suicide is NOT the same as the rest of us chosing to terminate life support for someone in paid who is unable to make choices for themselves.
The most agonizing thing I have had to do in my life is stand in for my father as he became increasingly less able as a result of frequent strokes and TIA’s. The standards for making choices for others – when they absolutely can not make them for themselves is quite different from the freedom we have to chose for ourselves.
My father was sufficiently cognatively impaired that he needed a legal guardian a full year before he died. His impairment started atleast 3 years before that. But a year before he died was the point at which he could no longer manage his own affairs. And his mental abilities declined rapidly even from there.
A few months before he died he had a massive bleed that nearly killed him.
His doctors told us that he needed a transfusion or he would die within the next few months – of course with the transfusion he could still die in the next few months, or maybe live a few more.
While he was still cognatively able to Dad made it clear that to the greatest extent possible he wanted his medical treatment to focus on preventing mental deteriation. When the issue of the blood Transfusion came up, he adamantly refused. But legally at the time the choice was mine and my sisters. We chose to do as he wished. That was one of the hardest choices I have ever made. My family had problems before, but that decision tore the family apart. One brother and sister on the west coast were convinced there was nothing serious wrong with him – despite being provided copious medical records otherwise, and convinced we were killing him for our own benefit. Ultimately the courts became involved, and the District Attorney and police and the office of aging and nasty allegations.
My father was removed from his home by force kicking and screaming against his will. He experience more harm from the state intervening to look after his interests, then he ever did in our care. Things still ended up a mess because even after my sister and I were removed as his POA/MPOA the doctors and hospitals refused to force on him the care he did not want even though the court and the office of aging and my other siblings were trying to force it. And exactly a month after the court took Dad from his home (one that he had designed – he was an architect) and put him into a home, he got pneumonia and died.
My sister and I did not fight the court intervention – because we knew he would not live long enough for it to matter.
I have since paid more and more attention to other similar instances.
I eventually concluded that in most instances – even instances where relatives were actually stealing from the incompetent elderly people they were caring for, we were better off keeping the state out of it.
There was a local case where a woman went to jail for embezzling 150K from her invalid mother, over the course of 5 years. The care the older woman got would have cost much more without her daughter stealing from her. This woman went to jail and had to repay everything she took – which ultimately went to a nursing home. I do not see the world as better off.
Regardless, the state is extremely bad at the jobs that only the state can do. The jobs that are purportedly its bread and butter. we should not keep expanding what we expect of it.
I can assure those on the left that whatever they intend, they can be absolutely certain that is NOT what they will get.
Nope,
The problem is quite simple.
Guns do not kill people – people do.
There are myriads of ways to kill people. There will always be.
Sure you can reduce gun deaths – though even australia did not manage all that well in that.
I do not know about you, but I do not care all that much about the specific method used to kill others.
We have seen in Europe that Terrorists can find other ways to kill people.
Mr. Paddock could have rented a large truck and driven through the concert and done about as much carnage.
Or loaded it with explosives.
Are you planning on banning fertilizer ?
Yes, really if Lanza did not have access to guns, he would have done something else.
That is precisely what happened in Austrailia – where mass shootings declined, but mass killings remained the same – mass killers shifted to arson.
I can think of a half a dozen ways that do not involve guns to kill and main large numbers of people. McVeigh did fine, as did Kazinsky and Rudolph.
The IRA managed to terrorize England for almost a century.
Most of the mass killings in Europe do not involve guns.
Regardless, the argument you are making is deceitful and stupid
It is entirely possible that some combination of laws would have resulted in Lanza choosing a different method or target. There is no law that you could pass that would magically transform Lanza into someone who did not wish to kill alot of people to live in infamy.
Absolutely Mr. Paddock picked a method of killing that minimized the value of defensive handguns. Had he tried to stride through a country music concert with an automatic weapon he would have been killed the moment he had to reload.
I would also note that he very effectively forestalled the police from acting.
It took over an hour for the police to find Paddock.
The amount of firepower Paddock had was not a factor in preventing Police from acting.
Paddock confined himself to a room. The moment the police identified the room, he would have been stopped as he would have had to switch to defending his entrance rather than attacking the crowd.
Further Paddock could easily have been taken out relatively quickly by a single trained police sniper. Even if he was not taken out, he could have been driven back from the windows.
We have innumerable SWAT teams in the US that are purportedly for exactly this type of event – yet they were useless.
The reason that no one took out their handguns in this was not because the police would have shot them, but because a handgun is useless at 300yd. Even trying to use one was more likely to kill innocent people in the Mandalay.
Paddock planned this quite well. He was not skilled with weapons, but he found a scenario where his skill did not matter, and neutralizing many of the advantages of those trying to stop him.
If he was smart enough to do that – why do you think he would not be smart enough to thwart whatever crazy laws you concoct.
The NRA BTW is a bit player. Planned Parenthood makes more political contributions in one year than the NRA does in a decade.
“Guns don’t kill people… “
Jay;
Are you saying that the North Korean Nukes are going to launch themselves ?
I think most of us are worried about Kim Un Il with nukes, not nukes.
Are you daft?
That little détente didn’t last long, lol.
Jay;
Putin has nukes, Theresa May has nukes, Pakistan has Nukes, India has nukes, China has nukes. France has nukes, Israel probably has nukes.
Iran has or soon will have nukes.
Thus far only the US has used a nuclear weapon in anger.
I am from the duck and cover generation. I never expected to live this long.
I certainly never expected to experience serious nuclear anxiety a second time.
Regardless, the problem is WHO has nukes.
In fact one serious school of thought is that the sole purpose of NK’s nukes is to forestall US action when NK eventually attacks SK.
Even if Kim un Il does nto suck us into a nuclear war there is a very high probability that something else very very bad will occur.
It is not the nukes that are evil. It is not the thousands of artillary barrels that are evil. It is Kin un Il.
Mr. Paddock killed and injured alot of people.
He alone is responsible.
I think there are a number of errors in this article, but the central point is true.
If the left continues to call Trump a racist, he will likely win in 2020,
because in doing so they are calling those who share Trump’s views if not his rhetoric racist also.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/robertrobb/2017/10/02/donald-trump-nfl-protest-race-democrats/717896001/
This is an assessment for the NYT. that practically makes it like reading DailyKos.
Still it raises some of the issues facing democrats.
Bruni may be right that Moore means the GOP might be more prone to nominate unelectable candidates.
But he also may be wrong. Trump was supposed to be an unelectable candidate.
Republicans may well win in 2018 with candidates even less palatable to democrats.
I tire of the constant gerrymandering nonsense. Real credible computer simulations are indicating that absent deliberate gerrymandering to favor democrats, that there is less than 4 congressional seats nationwide that might have changed as a result of gerrymandering.
34 states have republican governors – that is more than double the states with democratic governors, it is reasonable to presume that Republicans would have the lions share of senators and representatives from those states.
The article notes that Democratic proposals – such as free college are a non-starter – because the moment costs are discussed support evaporates.
Just as in 2016 democrats have a serious campaign problem.
They have no issues. No means to inspire voters.
The problems that the country faces, that will be on the minds of voters, will be issues that tend to favor republicans. Fiscal issues, reigning in government.
These are issues that bring republicans out to vote, and do not bring out democrats.
It is likely that democrats will make the election a referendum on Trump.
That might be a winning strategy, but it also might not.
Trump’s current approval is above what it was on election day.
Republicans have won the special elections thus far – despite the Trump strategy.
I am sure that Roby and Jay will tell me that Trump is so hated that Republicans are going down in flames. That is entirely possible.
But by the same logic Trump was supposed to lose by 50 points.
My sense is that the electoral anger that elected Trump in the first place is still out there and still strong, and that democrats and the media continue to fan it.
Moores nomination reinforces that.
Democrats continuing as they have the past year is unlikely to play well.
The anti-Trump rhetoric is wearing thin.
Democrats have to be about more than AntiTrump.
I will be happy to watch his movies, but the video is stupid.
How many places in the country have you seen sink holes large enough to swallow 5 or six cars. A clue that you are being played should have been that the cars were from the 50’s. We have more than several hundred thousand bridges in this country – when was the last time one collapsed that was not an earthquake.
There are 194 democratic members of the house – nearly all of them come from districts that are 70% or more democratic.
Do you really expect that Berkeley, DC, or almost anywhere in NYC is ever going to elect a democrat to congress ? Is it gerrymandering that the people who chose to live in ubran areas are 73% democrats ?
Would it be politically wise to move democratic voters from urban districts into suburban and rural districts where their interests and the interests of voters in those districts are at odds ?
There is no such thing as a “non-partisan” redistricting commission. This is just a load of crap. We have the same problem when we kick close elections and recounts into our courts. The very last thing we want is to create more purportedly non-partisan political jobs for people who are going to be subject to intense partisan forces.
BTW there are two different ways to “gerrymander”.
You can create safe seats or you can try to increase your parties majority.
You can not do both. Whichever you increase they other automatically decreases.
If as is claimed Republicans in Wisconsin have artificially increased their majority in the Wisconsin house and senate, they do so by risking that a very small swing in voting will put democrats in near total control of everything.
So get a clue:
You are never ever going to remove politics from districting.
There is no “fair” or right way to create districts.
Any set of rules you create have two effects.
They can be gamed
They have winners and losers.
In noted that many democratic districts have in excess of 70% of voters as democrats.
These tend to be urban districts.
Is it “fair” to spray these voters into rural and suburban districts where voters have completely different values and interests – or visa versa ?
If the voters in a given square mile of the US are 70% one party and 30% the other, then they should be part of a district that is also approximately 70/30.
We should not be trying to pretend that people are interchangeable that they choice of wear to live does not matter, that a congressmen can as easily represent the interests of ranchers as urban apartment dwellers.
Rather than have our courts decide what the rules for districts must be,
people should decide where they want to live.
This Vegas massacre is troubling.
So far, the only explanation I have for the shooter’s actions – he possessed by evil spirits.
Who knows what will turn up.
No matter what one side or the other will spin it.
But virtually all of these are mentally disturbed people.
It is extremely difficult to stop a fairly intelligent seriously disturbed person intent on violence.
We can want to be able to stop it, but that does not mean we are able to.
Jay, it really is strange. I’m sure that much, much more will come out. I’m somewhat fascinated by a couple of things: 1) the fact that this guy’s father was once on the FBI’s Most Wanted list, his sons didn’t know that he was a psychopath and a bank robber, until he was finally captured in Vegas. 2) The fact that there were 2 windows broken out in his Mandalay Bay suite…they are theorizing that he wanted to shoot from 2 different angles,and maybe he did, but, at that height, would it have made much difference?
Even the ACLU is aparently too conservative to speak on campus
http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/04/black-lives-matter-students-shut-down-th
Thanks for the link.
Colleges should only invite mimes to satisfy both types of snowflakes and sensitives, right and left..
that meme reminds me of when I was in college and the road leading around the college had speed bumps. They did not put in any barrier in the dirt on each side of the street, so instead of the 25 mph (and slower over the bumps), it was 35+ on the road and on the dirt around the bumps.
Make a law, many people will find a way to break it. Most people will only break the ones that they do not believe endanger others.
Dave, thought you might be interested in this. Bet they don’t mess with anyone in this restaurant!!! I bet they don’t mess with many in that town. Interesting map of the USA with all the green where open carry is allowed without a permit. Did not know that, Goes with the stats you shared.
Bet MSNBC would not do this piece today and if they did they would be attacking the need for open carry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSy4OAB_nbI
I don’t know who posted this, but whoever designed it and posted it on the internet has about as sick a mind as the person pulling the trigger.
Is there any laws that one could be charged with for being “brain dead”
I would note that certain aspects of Trump’s ideal economy – regulated trade, protectionism, the political if not actual nationalization of industries,
are ideas that originated with the LEFT.
“It was written to protect your right to shoot tyrants if they take over the government”
Well just another example of our crappy educational system. Only nine states as of 2012 required civics or some form of American government education, those being Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. It was found in a recent study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the Washington, D.C.-based educational think tank found that 28 states failed completely in teaching the content and rigor” and “clarity and specificity” of basic American governmental systems and American history. Anyone surprised that most believe the right to own guns is based on hunting and not what it was really put there for in the first place.
Their comment: ““No wonder so many Americans know so little about our nation’s past,”
And this is a huge problem. If you do not know the failures of the past, you are doomed to repeat them.
I would also add that most anyone asked about the constitution can not answer even the most basic question that everyone should know. I also wonder if you asked one of the kneeling football players some 9th grade civics questions taught in those states that still require civics if those football players could answer any of them. I have my doubts.
I read or heard somewhere that only 40% of students, when asked, were able to identify all 3 branches of the federal government.
I have not heard a credible 2nd amendment argument for silencers.
But then I am not fixated on constitutional rights.
Rights come from nature, not paper.
But the left’s silencer argument is fascinating in its stupidity.
We have been buying ever more silencers recently – and Clinton’s tweet has near certainly driven the purchases of silencers through the roof.
But silencer have never played a role in any mass shooting.
I have never heard of a silencer being used in a homicide.
They feature only in spy and crime novels where they tend to behave magically.
Though I beleive that Clancy covered making a silencer in greate detail in one of his novels. Pointing out that an effective silencer works ONCE, for a single bullet and then is useless.
Regardless, the left is up in arms demanding legislation on silencers – because people have died and we must do something.
We need not do something that would have prevented this.
We need not do something that would have prevented any mass murder ever.
We need not do something that would have prevented any killing ever.
But we must do SOMETHING. We must be able to stand up at the funerals of the victims in Las Vegas and pledge to do something completely fruitless to show that we care.
Why should anyone take the left credibly ?
Either clinton and those supporting her are:
Extremely under informed – in which case it is goof that she lost the election, because we certainly do not want a president who waxes eloquently about things she knows nothing about.
Know that what they are proposing will do nothing, in which case they are duplicitous and pandering.
or finally, just stupid.
Either way, we dodged a bullet in the 2016 election.
Dave I believe you will find that suppressors are very effective for multiple shots. Most states allow suppressors after an individual passes a background check and pays for the permit. I believe 8 “liberal” states ban them and two additional will not allow them for hunting purposes. I understand the need for a suppressor for an avid hunter for hunting wildlife like deer, bear, elk, and other big game where a large rifle is required for both the hunter and any partners with them during the hunt. You can not wear hearing protection like at a shooting range when hunting big game.
This is a states rights issue and what the f— the feds are getting involved with it for is beyond acceptable standards from my point of view. If this crap keeps up, we might as well do away with “states” and just call this America and eliminate “The United States of”.
Ron;
The primary purpose of most “supressors” today is to protect the hearing of the shooter – as you noted.
I do not think mass killers are likely to care.
The effect of any suppressor on a supersonic bullet – which is most rifle bullets is close to non-existant at a distance.
A supressed AR-15 is still as loud as a jackhammer.
I do not really want to get into a technical debate over supressors.
My primary point is that even our existing laws regarding them are just stupid.
There is no evidence that even an outright ban would have any effect at all on homicides, mass murders, suicides, domestic violence, gang killings.
To the extent there would be any effect at all – some hunters might lose their hearing.
Why should we pass laws that accomplish nothing just to feel good ?
The WaPo article I linked to elsewhere is pretty damning a wapo/538 statistician, part of a team researching ALL of the 33,000 gun deaths last year found that no proposed law would have any effect. They further found that in places like the UK and Australia where assorted gun laws had been imposed – they had no effect. Austrailia had very low rates of mass murder and gun deaths before and after – similarly with the UK.
The WaPo article does not note that, but I beleive that the Australia law did result in a small decline in suicides.
Experiences arround the world demonstrate that rates of violence are declining and have been nearly everywhere. But that does not mean that every place has the same rates of violence.
The strongest factor correlating to rates of violence is race.
Asians with by far the lowest rates, and blacks with the highest.
You can approximate the homicide rate in nearly any country in the world by knowing the racial demography.
The racial link probably has a strong cultural component.
Asians have the longest continuous organized society.
Regardless, the same declining trend is universal across all races.
With occasional speed bumps – such as the US in the 60’s and the countertrend rates in big cities in the US today.
The left likes to claim that they are better educated, more scientific – but they are near universally proposing solutions for every single issue, that do nothing but make them feel good.
I am not a gun nut. I own one gun – a .25 rifle that my wifes father got from his father for not smoking until after he was 16. We have no bullets for it, and it probably would not fire if we did.
I know a fair amount about guns – because I read stephen hunter novels, I can google, alot of my friends are in law enforcement, and because about 1/3 of my work over the past 20 years has involved the military.
When I have to hang arround the military or even defense contractors,
I go to the barber and get a #8 buzz, and bone up on weapons.
I am not an expert – but I know how different kinds of silencers are made.
The really effective ones are for handguns, and destroy themselves after one or two rounds. The vast majority are primarily to reduce the noise level a small amount for the shooter. They have minimal effect at a distance.
They may even make the gun louder – at a distance, by redirecting sound away from the shooter.
Regardless the law of energy conservation in immutable.
You can redirect energy, you can transform it from one form to another.
But you can not destroy it.
Wapo anti-gun researcher – no commonly offered gun law will accomplish anything.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b2b38f832a12
“Just 3 percent of American adults own half of the nation’s firearms, according to the results of a Harvard-Northeastern survey of 4,000 gun owners.
The survey’s findings support other research showing that as overall rates of gun ownership has declined, the number of firearms in circulation has skyrocketed. The implication is that there are more guns in fewer hands than ever before. The top 3 percent of American adults own, on average, 17 guns apiece, according to the survey’s estimates.
The survey is particularly useful to researchers because it asked respondents not just whether they own guns, but how many and what types of guns they own. This makes for one of the clearest pictures yet of American gun ownership, showing the concentration of most guns in the hands of a small fraction of American adults.
The study found that 22 percent of American adults say they personally own a firearm. This is lower than the percentages reported in some other recent surveys, such as those by the Pew Research Center (31 percent) and Gallup (28 percent).”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/19/just-three-percent-of-adults-own-half-of-americas-guns/
How to do tax reform:
Less or no deductions, flat or flatter taxes.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-03/republicans-need-tax-principles-like-these?utm_content=buffer104f2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
So a question for Jay and Roby.
Would you want Trump’s policies to drag the US into a recession if that would get progressives elected and result in progressive policies – even if that meant lots of people out of jobs ?
Or would you be happy because more people have jobs, and and are wealthier if Trump’s policies resulted in strong growth and his re-election and an even more republican congress ?
Put more simply, do you want americans to be better off, or do you want your tribe to win ?
The economy is complex, and I thought that a recession was nearly baked in in 2016 regardless of who was elected. Many of the critical problems that might cause that remain and may be outside the presidents or governments ability to avoid.
Still Trump is doing many of the right things economically (not all).
It is appearing that what he is doing is sufficient to overcome the strong head winds I beleive we continue to face.
But it is still possible for the economy to falter – either because Trump does something stupid, or because we have spent 20 years making such egregious mistakes than a year of semi-economic sanity is not enough to overcome those.
That said it is about as close to certainty as you can get in economics, that if growth continues to strengthen it is the consequence of Trump’s policies.
Thus far Trump has not yet accomplished something Obama did not – Obama did have short periods of strong growth. But the current growth reversed a downward trend immediately after the election, and has strengthened since.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/10/boom-continues-indeed-broadens.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Isn’t govenrment wonderful
A quite different view of RussiaGate
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-04/paul-craig-roberts-asks-whose-bright-idea-was-russiagate
Well a couple of interesting items in the news this morning that relate to these discussions.
1. After Cam Newton raises a clinched fist after a touchdown Sunday and states it was in unity for the inequality treatment of blacks (or something to that effect), a female sports reporter who covers the Carolina Panthers for the local Charlotte newspaper ask him a question Wednesday concerning the physicality of routes run by his receiver. His comment “It’s funny to hear a female talk about routes like — it’s funny.”…………Guess its fine to treat females different than men who would never get this answer to that question (“It’s funny to hear a male talk about routes like — it’s funny.”), but it is not fine to treat races different.
2. GOP is on board to ban bump stops for semi automatic weapons. Now I could care less if they have them or not, but this is a “see we did something” bill that will do nothing! I am not one that is good with metal, but I can make most anything out of wood short of whittling a sculpture. So looking at a picture of a semi, If I had one and wanted to make it rapid fire, I could do it in very short period of time and easily done with a few pieces of scrape material. Make a cam shaft type insert to fit into the trigger mechanism, secure and place a handle on the end of the cam and turn. Now it is rapid fire. Kind of like the old Gatling gun from the 1860’s.
Unless people are ruled by tyranny, the smart people understand whenever there is one person who comes up with a rule or regulation, there are 10 people making a living off ways to get around that rule and regulation.
More gun control will NEVER solve these killings. It is like a doctor who finds a cancerous tumor in your body after you report feeling pain. He provides pain medication, but does not remove the tumor, so eventually you end up dying from the cancer, but pain free for most of the time it continues growing.
The discussion has to be on hate and hate speech dividing this country. This is the cancer that is causing the pain (mass murders)!
Here we are at the point every side says that the other side’s remedies are useless. Your remedy also has its weak points: no amount of talking will reach mentally disturbed people and they are the ones who lose it and commit these crimes. If you mean political ideas by hate speech, then I am going to have to quote Dave: Most of these acts are due to broken people and are not political. Mass murders (mass shootings) in their most unrestrictive definition mean:
‘A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence.[1] The United States’ Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a “public mass shooting”[2] as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition[3][4] of the term “mass murder”. Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of four or more people with no cooling-off period.[5] Related terms include school shooting and massacre. ”
The causes of such killings are drug deals, bad marriages, bullying at school, work-related stress, and on and on. I’d love to believe that we can talk about hate and fix all that but…
Better than just dismissing remedies out of hand would be to think of as many reasonable partial ones as possible and give them all a shot together. You can make a more lethal weapon, you are handy. Not every nut job who suddenly becomes enraged at something and goes postal is handy. So, banning bumper stocks may well stop some, if not all such acts. Will your world really be worse in some way if congress Were to ban bumper stocks?
Sorry Roby,
But there is no parity here.
I am not proposing a remedy. Only you are.
Every problem does not have an answer – a remedy.
The fact that the world is imperfect does not mean we can use force to screw it up differently.
Even those problems that might have solutions – rarely is the solution the use of force.
Regardless, you are the one seeking to use force. You are the one that needs to demonstrate that what you wish to do will do more good than harm and is moral, and justified.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with dismissing an inneffective remedy.
There is no requirement that just because you want to do something stupid to solve what may well be an unsolveable problem that I have to bang my head against a wall to come up with a better way.
Often doing nothing is the best choice.
When the use of force is involved NEARLY ALWAYS doing nothing is the best choice.
Roby
What does it take to stop you from chasing false or unknown assumptions.
“The causes of such killings are drug deals, bad marriages, bullying at school, work-related stress, and on and on. I’d love to believe that we can talk about hate and fix all that but…”
Sorry, Roby, but NO!!!.
Paddock is thus far proving to be an enigma. He so far fits absoltuely no prior pattern.
But aside from a small number of usually religiously motivated mass killings – and even these still usually fit the pattern,
these high profile mass killings are by individuals with serious mental health problems.
Not Work Stress, not bullying. not bad marraiges, not drug deals, ….
These are broken people.
A significant portion of them are paranoid schizophrenics.
This is a problem we are almost certain is biological, and though we have some poor treatment, there is no cure.
Worse still – paranoid schizophrenics are only about twice as likely to be violent as ordinary people – the vast majority of paranoid schizophrenics are not dangerous. And only a tiny portion of them become mass killers.
There are other mental disorders that increase rates of violence, and correlate heavily to specific crimes. All or most serial killers are sociopaths. But again only a tiny portion of sociopaths are serial killers or even violent.
Regardless, I can not think of a single mass killing where the killer comes even close to fitting your profile.
Mass killings are particularly problematic because:
They are very very rare.
The perpetrators tend to be very disturbed and smart.
While they have often come to the attention of psychiatrists, or police or … before, those encounters are not noteworthy.
As I noted – just identifying that someone is a paranoid schizoprenic does nto make them a mass murderer – anymore than identifying someone as a sociopath makes them a serial killer.
The fact that all or nearly all are paranoid schizophrenics does not get us anywhere closer to preventing or reducing mass killings.
You want an answer where there isn’t one.
You keep accusing me of seeking Utopia – but that is false.
The world libertarians seek is not utopia, bad things still happen.
It is just a better place than is created by your incessant desire to find a state remedy for every problem.
I do not have an equally bad remedy.
I have no remedy at all. I am not going to do something to accomplish nothing except make the state larger more intrusive and costly.
It seems impossible to get through to so many, that this kind of regulation is stupid.
Ban Bump stocks and they are going to show up as something you can 3D print.
I do not personally see them as having much value – from what I can tell, they increase the rate of fire at substantial cost to accuracy.
But we are arguing different world views.
The left seems to beleive we are all clones of each other. That we are not allowed to have unique wants, desires and values. That is a natural consequence of trying to convert false constructs like equality and fairness into values or principles.
We are not equal – that is just how it is. We can consciously decide to structure our society to act as if we are equal – in extremely narrow ways – we can as an example be equal with regard to the law. But even that requires substantial effort and always falls short – which is essentially what those protesting police shootings are arguing.
But the more ways in which we try to pretend that we are equal the more we are using force to try to make the world different from what it is.
Expanding equality has two significantly negative impacts:
More equality mean more use of force.
More equality means less resources devoted to increasing the quality of life for all.
Do I really need to explain that efforts to more equality must mean lower quality of life ?
The competing value to equality is freedom. they are antipodal.
Humans are not ants. Free humans are different – unequal, and it is our differences that make the human world rich and wondrous. But those differences are diminished as we drive towards equality.
Freedom means living in a world where everything is permitted – except those very few things we choose to deny.
Quality of life requires keeping what is not permitted to a minimum,
because denying requires the use of force and force is not free,
and because denying – is denying – it means that some good things never happen.
In the scheme of things in the world bump stocks are inconsequential.
But regulating them is a huge demonstration of the stupidity of the left.
Because fundimentally they are unregulatable.
Because this is a pointless gesture to feel like we have done something.
Elsewhere I noted that Austrialia gun ban had an effect on suicides.
Well this event has resulting in lots and lots of the studies of Austrialia surfacing.
and aparently even that is not true The rate of gun suicides dropped in Austrialia post the ban, but the rate of non-gun suicides dropped by even more. The conclusion of statisticians is that the decrease in gun suicides is part of a trend in reduced suicides and has no relation to the ban.
I keep asking those of you who are pro government everything to find examples where some law or regulation showed an impact in a trend.
The australian suicide claim is an example of why we must look at changes in trends rather than absolute changes.
Because in almost everyway our lives are actually improving all the time.
If we pass a law and lo and behold a few years later suicides are down – it is easy to credit the law. But if that law did not change the trend, then the law is not the cause of the benefit – the law was actually ineffective.
Further in the instance of Australia we have something close to a control.
Austrailia and New Zealand are culturally extremely simple.
When Austrailia banned guns – New Zealand did not.
Yet there are no differences in trends between Australia and New Zealand.
So the positive effects of Austrailia’s gun ban was – nothing.
It is also now coming out that there is a pronounced negative impact.
Austrailia is experiencing an explosion of destructive “varments”
because they are not being shot and other ways of reducing their population are ineffective.
So congress prepares to ban bump stocks which will accomplish exactly nothing.
The left will celebrate a meaningless victory,
and those who actually want bump stocks will get them.
Stories of Jim Crow and Civil Rights are coming out as a result of all of this.
Rosa Parks related that meetings of Civil Rights leaders at her home involved large numbers of handguns on the table.
That well armed blacks with multiple shotguns were responsible for protecting witnesses to the trial for the murder of medger evers.
That civil rights workers int he south often had thompson sub machine guns under their beds, or loaded shotguns propped in each corner of their bedroom.
One of the reasons for recent SCOTUS victories regarding guns – is not the legislative history of the 2nd amendment, but that of the 14th.
When the 14th amendment was drafted its authors discussed and specifically intended that the equal rights of all people – particularly blacks included the right to guns.
Gun rights for blacks was a critical reason for the success of blacks in the south in the decade immediately following the Civil War.
The birth of Jim Crow occurred when Grant looking to end the occupation of the south by federal soldiers, turned a blind eye to disarming blacks as the soldiers left.
The early gains of blacks disappeared quickly.
Dave, the key to this, and I believe you would agree, is the fact blacks were freed by 13th amendment. Women got the vote by 19th amendment. 18 year olds got the vote by 16th amendment. Congress can not give itself a pay raise due to the 27th amendment. (Congress can vote for increase pay for following congresses, but not the current one in session when the vote is taken. And the 22nd amendment makes it almost impossible for a party to allow their president to set for more than two terms. Just think, with a super majority like Obama had, they could have changed a law in 2009 and Obama could still be president had the 22nd never been passed.
All of these happened because those in congress at the time did not want a future congress coming back and changing the law, so they amended the constitution to make it damn near impossible to change what they voted in and the states ratified.
Now if they want to ban bump stops fine. That is a weapons accessory, just like a suppressor is an accessory. And I do not see any congress coming up with the idea to change an existing law to allow machine guns again. But when you get into the weapons that hunters use for hunting (semi-automatic .22 to .27), basically a high powered 22 rifle that shoot multiple bullets for larger game, then you are getting into the weeds between the supporters of the 2nd amendment and the opposition of that same amendment.
So in order that some congress can not come back in the future and with a super majority and a setting president of the same party, reverse whatever they come up with today, pass the 28th amendment and let the states ratify. Then its concrete, can not be changed based on the direction of the wind in D.C. and almost an act of God will be needed to repeal and reinstate the 2nd amendment.
Ron, You can have as many civics classes as you like. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights have practically no unambiguous meaning, they are brought into reality by court decisions. Someone who wants to have a truly informed opinion of the 2nd amendment or pretty much any part of basis of our law, would have to read more than 200 years of legal opinions and court decisions along with that civics class. Not to mention a truly deep reading of history. That level of understanding is not feasible for any but a very few people. Even those few are divided into camps, left, right, and other. I have done enough reading on the 2nd amendment this morning to be satisfied that an intelligent person, armed with actual facts could take many very different stands on what it means and claim loudly to be in possession of the absolute unambiguous truth. Which is obviously the issue and the reason we have a court system and a supreme court.
At this point Dave will tell me that I am wrong and there is only one literal way the Constitution and Bill of Rights and 2nd amendment can be read. Sorry, that view has its adherents, but the existence of the court system itself makes it obvious that this simplistic view is not practical and has not triumphed.
The fact that there is semi reasonable discussion today on banning bumper stocks and the fact that there are many gun control laws on the books, state and federal, give me hope that as time goes on we may disarm. The fact that nearly everyone (and everyone I would call sane) has recognized that automatic weapons have been legally banned tells me that there is still some common sense left.
The idea that in today’s world private citizens with firearms are going to reign in a tyrannical US government sounds more like a call for any loon with his own views to assassinate, say, trump, or take over a federal facility like the Bundys, or blow up a federal building like McVeigh. When I hear people talking about using weapons on the government in this day in age I think exclusively of bad actors. You do get people like trump and Rand Paul and other politicians, in every case I have heard of, conservative ones, threatening a 2nd amendment remedy if they don’t win.
Maybe they never had that civics class?
Here is a liberal point of view on this, I like it:
“In 2008, the Supreme Court recognized–for the first time in American history–the “right to bear arms” as a personal, individual right, permitting law-abiding citizens to possess handguns in their home for their personal protection. Two years later, it held that both state and federal governments must observe this newly discovered right.
Curiously enough, the far-right responded to these radical victories as if the sky had fallen. During hearings on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions direly warned that the two gun cases–Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. City of Chicago–were 5-4 decisions. “Our Second Amendment rights are hanging by a thread,” he said. The idea that the rights of ordinary gun owners are in danger is a fallacy.
A second, and more pernicious, fallacy is embodied by this quotation from Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president:
When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Wait a minute, Epps! Who could argue with Jefferson? Well, not me, to be sure. But there’s a problem with this quote, as there is with so much of the rhetoric about the Second Amendment.
It’s false.
If good government actually came from a violent, armed population, then Afghanistan and Somalia would be the two best-governed places on earth
As far as scholars can tell, Jefferson never said it. Monticello.org, the official website of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, says, “We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, ‘When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny,’ or any of its listed variations.” The quotation (which has also been misattributed to Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and The Federalist), actually was apparently said in 1914 by the eminent person-no-one’s-ever-heard-of John Basil Barnhill, during a debate in St. Louis.
As bogus as the quote is the idea that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to create a citizenry able to intimidate the government, and that America would be a better place if government officials were to live in constant fear of gun violence. If good government actually came from a violent, armed population, then Afghanistan and Somalia would be the two best-governed places on earth. As we saw from the 2010 shootings in Tucson, Arizona, the consequences for democracy of guns in private hands, without reasonable regulation, can be dire–a society where a member of Congress cannot meet constituents without suffering traumatic brain injury, and where a federal judge cannot stop by a meeting on his way back from Mass without being shot dead.
But that image of a Mad Max republic lives on in the fringes of the national imagination. It is what authors Joshua Horwitz and Casey Anderson call “the insurrectionist idea,” the notion that the Constitution enshrines an individual right to nullify laws an armed citizen objects to. Its most prominent recent expression came from Senate candidate Sharon Angle, who predicted that if she was unable to defeat Democratic Sen. Harry Reid at the ballot box (which she couldn’t), citizens would turn to “Second Amendment remedies”–in essence, assassination. Rand Paul also likes to hint that the remedy for rejection of his libertarian policies may be hot lead. Deathandtaxesmag.com quotes him as saying, “Some citizens are holding out hope that the upcoming elections will better things. We’ll wait and see. Lots of us believe that maybe that’s an unreliable considering that the Fabian progressive socialists have been chipping at our foundations for well over 100 years. Regardless, the founders made sure we had Plan B: the Second Amendment….”
In other words, right-wing politicians implying that gun violence could be an acceptable political weapon in the US is a real thing. This is how the 2nd amendment can be abused, by the right, and is. And many doing it probably Had those civics classes and took them damned seriously.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/
“The idea that in today’s world private citizens with firearms are going to reign in a tyrannical US government sounds more like a call for any loon with his own views to assassinate…”
Yes, when I boil down Conservative reasoning on this point it’s that we have to remain armed to be able to shoot US Soldiers.
OK one more time and if ya’all can’t understand what I am saying, then I do not know how to say it any differently.
1. Define in current technological terms what is and is not a right of the American people to own and possess in the terms of firearms.
2. Pass that as the 28th amendment to the constitution and send to the states for ratification.
3. Include in the wording
Section 1. “The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”
Section 2. Define the rights included for arms ownership, (if any)
Section 3. State the requirement that 2/3rds of the states will require ratification before it becomes effective.
Its that simple and it eliminates all the liberal and conservative crap that always happens when someone decides to propose legislation that impacts a basic right defined in the bill of rights.
This bump stop bill is just a game that congress always plays to satiate the appetite to do something after some catastrophic event. It will have absolutely no affect on anything going forward other than on a handful of law abiding citizens that would want to use one at a firing range.
There are 350M guns in the US.
There are 1.2M active military, and 800K reserves.
Between federal, local and state there are about 1M law enforcement personel.
No, the new york militia is not going to overthrow the government or resist a military coup.
At the same time 350M weapons – possibly as many as 10M semi-automatic weapons is more than sufficient to constrain a tyranical government.
This will always be a relative question – as it should be.
The more tyranical government becomes, the more impetus there will be to resist.
As an example if you decide to impose an Austrialia style gun ban.
Do you think that all guns are going to be turned in ?
Lets say 1% of people refuse to turn in weapons – that is 3.5M weapons that will remain – that is 3.5M people who you have made criminals.
Now you need to send the police to confiscate those 3.5M weapons.
Lets say 1% of the people who refused to turn over their weapons voluntarily, choose to resist your demand to seize them by force.
that is 35,000 ARMED violent conflicts you are going to have with the police.
Get a clue. Just a few days of that and all the police are quitting.
Going back to resisting tryany.
It is unlikely that people are going march armed to DC and start killing soldiers.
You seem to understand resisting Tyranny backwards.
Should we get to that it will be millions of people with guns saying
The govenrment is not coming into my home.
You MIGHT be able to persuade the police and military to break down peoples doors to enforce tyranical and broadly opposed laws – if there is no shooting.
You are not getting soldiers and police to use force generally against an armed population.
The importance of an armed populace to resist Tyranny is self evident.
Almost no one on the left is actually willing to propose actual gun bans.
Because they are not so stupid as to believe that what was done in Austrialia can be repeated int he US without killing 10’s of thousands of people.
That is the power of the 2nd amendment.
Government is force. The presence of a large dormant force in the general public in the form of guns, is a constraint on government merely moving toward tyranny.
Ron
The requirements for ratification are in the constitution.
Requirements in an amendment can not be effective until after the amendment is ratified – that is a catch 22.
Though this would not effect a proposed 28th amendment,
the reason that SCOTUS has flipped on 2nd Amendment in the past decade is because of 14th amendment scholarship.
The history of the 14th amendment made it perfectly clear that it was specifically intended to extent an individual right to firearms to southern negros as the means for them to defend the rest of their rights against white southerners.
While textually the “militia clause” of the 2nd amendment is merely a justification, and therefore carries no extra meaning.
the 14th amendment made it clear that the right to bear arms was individual applied to the states and had nothing to do with militias.
Further the 14th amendment was passed in close enough proximity to the founding to imply a better understanding of our founders, and far enough away that we had accepted standing armies and the concept of self defense by militia had passed.
Roby, sorry I can not side with the liberal positions on disarming. When you look at history in this country, things people want will not keep them from getting them. Drugs. Easier to get off the street than getting a prescription from your doctor. Alcohol, made illegal in the 20’s, how’d that work out. many other things I could add, but too wordy.
I am not trying to be part of the rigid right that will not give on anything like Dave. So fine, ban bump stops and someone like me will figure out a way to make something cheap and easy and post it on You Tube. Someone like the Las Vegas shooter would figure out how to make his gun rapid fire. With the technological background kids have today, they will be able to make things much better than their parents and grandparents who bought everything.
So we ban guns today. 100 years from now there may be a country almost free of guns. But how many mass murders take place in that 100 years if we do not address the real cause of this problem? And with technology moving like it is, guns may not be the weapon of choice in a few short years. I have no idea what it might be, but anyone who would have said cars would be driving themselves across country 20-25 years ago would have been looked at somewhat funny. The internet was just getting started for the average American. And then we had the dial up modem to even connect.
Now, if you and anyone else wants the guns removed from society, then the way to do it is through an amendment to repeal the second amendment and update it with current technological information, especially with the screwed up SCOTUS we have today. Just look at the gerrymandering case. 4 rigid supporter of Wisconsin, 4 rigid supporters for the liberasl in Wisconsin and all the hours of arguments aimed at one Justice, that being Kennedy.
And at the same time we repeal and replace the 2nd amendment, the 1st amendment needs to be included to put a muzzle on people and what they can and can not say in the press and on the internet. Hate speech driving (in some cases) marginal nut cases to mass murder should also be banned, but that also needs to be an amendment and not a law based on some political parties whim.
I am not against doing something, but I want it done the right way and not by a severely divided government that today passes a law and then 4-8 years later the other party has a super majority and reverses those laws. Or better yet, they decide to let the law have a sunset provision like so many, even past gun laws, and then the new party does not extend existing law.
I do not believe that I have any wishes about regulating guns and their accessories that would involve repealing the 2nd amendment. The ban on bumper stocks may occur under the 2nd amendment, as well as that on automatic weapons. I see no chance of a repeal of the 2nd amendment unless society changes really radically somewhere in the far off future. Nor does someone like me want it. I do want some restrictions on things that are obviously dangerous, like that musician who was in the middle of the shooting whose quote about changing his mind on the guns is now in the headlines. I doubt he meant to repeal it, just to work within it to get the absurd level of firepower down to to a dull roar.
Roby, interesting article. Not too long and I found it to have information that i was unaware of, like these are actually used for hunting and the caliber is small, not large like I thought they were. Would you allow these or not in your ” world” if you wrote the new law?
http://time.com/4390506/gun-control-ar-15-semiautomatic-rifles/
Roby, I think you are saying something similar to something I heard today: “Cars are legal, but it’s not legal to drive them at 100 mph”
What we’re debating is the “speed limit” for firearms. Obviously, the analogy is not perfect, but there are varying points of view as to what constitutes going over the speed limit. And, as we all know, many of not most people go over the speed limit anyway.
The problem is that there ARE people on the left who want to confiscate and ban guns, but they want to do it in such a way that they appear to be simply banning extremely powerful military-style automatic weapons, when, in reality, their goal is to redefine popular legal weapons as such things – hence, the “assault weapons” bans that have been repeatedly overturned in courts.
Once one side is convinced that the other side will not rest until it has achieved unconditional surrender, that side will fight often to the death. And that’s where we are.
It’s indisputable that the Constitution guarantees the right to own guns. No amount of incrementalism is going to be successful until that right is abridged or repealed.
But there is room for reasoned discussion about limits, and that’s why I say that the time to have that discussion is anytime OTHER than the highly emotional period following a mass murder. But no one listens to me… 😦
Priscilla, I am listening. And that is why I proposed an amended constitution. In preparing that amendment, to pass 2/3 rds of the states it would have to be acceptable to a wide range of thinking. It could not be the Pelosi/Shumer legislation and it could not be the Ryan/McConnell legislation. It could not be a reactionary action to some catastrophe because it might take up to seven years to get ratified and much can change in seven years.
To make something that future congresses can not change without courts getting involved with challenges to legislation, it takes an amendment. In addition, each state have their own gun laws. An amendment over rules those laws, but statez will not complain since 2/3rds backed it.
Otherwise, we will argue this issue and be divided for years to come.
Basically the rifle I used in the Army, without the automatic feature of the M16. Would I allow into my “ideal” world? Maybe not. Am I dreaming about a ban on it now, no, not as things stand. I am not naive.
I bought a .22 rifle, from a private person when I first moved to rural vermont, for protection. I do not even know what make it was. I paid like $85 for it, it had a scope as well. Rounds were loaded into a long tube parallel to the barrel, something like 20 of them. It could be fired quite fast, I could have emptied it in ten seconds or less. Very accurate at say 200-300 feet, I could hit an egg sized object most times. Sold it with an ad in the paper when I realized I did not need it. So, I know that mundane firearms exist that will send a lot of rounds downrange quickly and accurately. I am not naive, they are not going anywhere.
Lets say that the bumper stocks are outlawed. We will never know if there was some person whose impulse to commit mayhem was derailed by lack of easy availability of that item. Mass murders that Didn’t happen are invisible. I am willing to support some things that may prevent something, something we will never know didn’t happen. Perhaps that something would be another Sandy hook. Ya gotta try, can’t just leave it to fate.
The cars and speed limit analogy works for me and I can’t argue with anything you said Priscilla, other than “that’s why I say that the time to have that discussion is anytime OTHER than the highly emotional period following a mass murder.” After a slaughter is the time to talk about gun control, while the NRA is in hiding and people in general still have not just accepted this, as they will in a few weeks or sooner.
Most people I talk with about gun control, Ron, don’t want to eliinate Guns, they only want to reduce/limit automatic-type weapons that shoot a lot of bullets fast, and they generally want to keep guns out of the hands of those with too many loose marbles rattling in their heads. The goal isn’t to reduce crime, but to reduce mass shootings.
Australia accomplished that. Overall crime rates stayed about the same, but they haven’t had any mass shootings since they banned certain classes of guns. And it doesn’t appear that home robberies increased as a result. Citizens still own guns for self protection – but not high powered multi shot weapons.
Roby
“I do not believe that I have any wishes about regulating guns and their accessories that would involve repealing the 2nd amendment.”
Oh ?
Does the first amendment right to free excercise of religion, allow govenrment to ban islam – that is a more dangerous religion ?
Or ban services on Saturday – that is merely an accessory function ?
A right is something that govenrment can not interfere with.
Otherwise the concept of right is meaningless.
Not interfere, means not interfere.
It does not mean interfere a little.
Jay
“Most people I talk with about gun control, Ron, don’t want to eliinate Guns, they only want to reduce/limit ..”
“Most people I talk with about birth control, Ron, don’t want to eliminate birth control. they only want to reduce/limit …”
No matter what it is about CONTROL of other peoples lives.
You may use force against others:
To punish their initiation of force
You may punish people who shoot guns at people,
not people who own guns.
To compel them to keep agreements.
To compel them to make whole those they harmed.
That is it. there is no instance of banning things that falls into one of the justified uses of force.
You just plain do not get,
There is no limit to our desire or beleif that we know best how others should live. While man revolted against monarchs to gain control of their own lives, the evidence is that self governing people are more inclined to dictate how others must live than kings.
“You can have as many civics classes as you like. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights have practically no unambiguous meaning, they are brought into reality by court decisions.”
You are confusing the stupid mess that the left has made of our courts and law with the actual rule of law.
i.e. you are absolutely wrong.
Law by definition means what it says.
The fact that words change meaning over time, does not mean that law changes meaning over time.
We change the meaning of law, by changing the law. It is quite simple.
The role of judges in “interpretting” constitutions and laws, is essentially that of historical grammarians and textualists.
To the extent that law changes or evolves or meaning changes, it is because legislatures change the law.
It is true that legal precedents play a role – but all that means is that absent strong evidence that past judges (or lower courts) misunderstood the law, we should defer to the analysis done by those closer to the crafting of the law and hopefully more familiar with the law at the time.
This is actually the system of stautory and constitutional interpretation that is mostly used throughout the country and in state and local courts.
It is a centuries old tradition.
It is the only judicial approach that conforms to the rule of law.
And the left has broken it – possibly unfixably.
Your approach – that the law or constitution means whatever the consensus of 9 justices say it means, is lawless. It is the rule of man, not law.
It results in a mess that is near impossible to repair.
We do not need to agree on regulation, to agree that a great deal of the regulation that we have is crap. Farm subsidies as an example have never worked – not during the depression, not in Europe, not in india, not anywhere. They have always ultimately worked to produce exactly the opposite result as desired, they have always ultimately become tools of the strong and big to oppress the weak.
Ted Turner is receiving farm subsidies
This is a problem that is now nearly or actually impossible to fix.
Every single regulation ever passed has winners and losers.
Once passed the winners nearly always fight forcefully to avoid any roll back.
Often they fight to expand something that is failing.
Regulations pretty much always sound good – they pretty much always are sold as remedies to some serious problem. While they never turn out to be remedies they always turn out to benefit someone.
It is damn near impossible to get congress to repeal something with diffuse costs and concentrated benefits.
But our constitution prohibited government interference in contracts – and all regulation is interferance in contracts. For 130 years that significantly choked federal and state regulation. but the damn having been broken, it is impossible to go back.
Even Scalia were he alive would not return us to the Locherner era – nor will Gorsuch.
Not because of stare decisis. Not because of rules of constitutional interpretation.
But because no supreme court justice – no matter how seriously they take the text of the constitution, is going to declare overnight that nearly all regulation since 1930 is unconstitutional and that nearly every govenrment agency is primarily involved in unconstitutional work.
Even simpler issues – the constitution reserves SOLEY to congress all legislative – regulatory authority. The EPA has no constitutional authority to make law, draft regulations, ….. The executive branch of government is there to EXECUTE the law, not to create it. Creating law is solely the job of congress according to the constitution.
But it is unlikely that you will get SCOTUS to enforce those provisions of the constitution.
Because the change would be too “disruptive”.
None of this is about how the constitution is “interpretted”.
It is merely a reflection of the fact that SCOTUS is not going to rule disruptively.
Or atleast not in a way that disrupts government.
Ultimately your approach means that you have a near one way ratched to ever growing government. Which means you are on the slow train to catastrophic failure.
If we can not restore the rule of law through the courts and there is no principled way to do that without disruption, then we will get there ar different way – either we will have revolution, or we will have collapse.
The only question is when.
Roby,
While it is my understanding that you do not claim to be steeped in political philosophy,
much of what you are arguing is litterally neo-post-modern marxist bunk.
It is premised on the idiocy that somehow all ideas are equal.
You correctly note that I am going to attack your claim regarding constitutional interpretation.
But you fail to grasp several issues with your argument.
First – using your own nonsense – my approach is equally valid as yours.
But there is a much more fundimental argument.
While I can give a good legal and philosophical argument for the “originalist” approach.
There is a much simpler argument – nothing else actually works.
You and I get into this battle all the time.
We are debating “bump stocks” now. I do nto care much about bump stocks.
The world will not end if bump stocks are regulated.
Still foreseably there will be only bad consequences.
As Ron noted he is pretty sure he can whittle one himself.
They can also be fabricated with rudimentary metal working skills.
And certainly they can be easily 3D printed,
There will absolutely be a black market. You will not have eliminated bump stocks.
Those you are most intent on denying access will still have them available to them.
Worse still (atleast for the left) you will push even more into black markets, and drive even more of things like 3D printing, ….
Bump stocks themselves are nothing more than a legal innovation to allow people who want something that you have decided must be illegal to get what they want anyway.
Aside from black markets in bump stocks, you are likely to increase the black market in automatic weapons. Which again only exists because of your laws.
Outside of the movies we have had very very few instances where automatic weapons were used in crimes – mostly rare instances during prohibition.
Which should give you even more clues as to why your approach will not work.
Regardless, maybe we do get less bump stocks. One gun expert one the news indicated that Bump Stocks were kind of stupid, because they are expensive and significantly decrease a guns accuracy, and just about any semi automatic weapon can be modified for full automatic operation in 4-5 minutes using information readily available to anyone on the internet.
So instead of bump stocks – those who desparately want full auto, will modify AR-15’s and other semi-automatic weapons.
Anyway, my actual point is bad ideas fail – they do not work.
You can dislike what I claim about constitutional interpretation,
But the alternatives self evidently do not work.
Presumably you agree that there is much bad legislation out their.
I would hope you are not going to try to defend farm subsidies as an example.
Well almost a century of experience with alternate schemes of constitutional interpretation has produced no means of terminating farm subsidies.
It is pretty much inarguable that our founders never would have supported such nonsense.
To summarize:
The fact that the we may have many ideas, many views, does nto make all views equal.
There are many ways to argue competing views to determine which are more true than others – we do not need some concept of absolute truth.
We can demonstrate – in theory, by logic, by principle, and in practice which ideas are better than others.
Not liking an idea is not a basis to reject it.
But its not working – particularly its predictably not working is.
The ideas of the left not only predictably do not work, but historically they do not work.
We are not in a binary situation.
“Roby,
While it is my understanding that you do not claim to be steeped in political philosophy,
much of what you are arguing is litterally neo-post-modern marxist bunk.”
Dave, this as your Aspergers talking.
A.) You have understood the meaning of next to nothing I said correctly. That is Aspergers when done to the level you have done it for years.
B) I have told you many times that I am not interested by now in the harangues and lectures you address to me and that find you an extremely poor source, not worth my time to read when you go over the edge and start haranguing. I recently told you that when you get into your harangue mode I am going to bring up your Aspergers issues, but you have not processed that information. Asperger’s minds are never wrong and are not the least bit truly interested or respectful of other people’s points of view. To you, other people’s thoughts are only interesting as a starting point for one of your fanatical lectures.
Its not your fault you have that kind of mind, but I am not interested in your lectures.
C) Black and white thinking, you seem to see almost no distinction between Stalin, Mao, and an article in the Atlantic. 100 million killed by the left! one of your posts informed us. Which is relevant in the US how? Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot have nothing to do with the US democratic/liberal voters and politicians.
There are numerous other hallmarks of Aspergers that your torrent of nonsense exemplifies.
Now, I can elaborate, I can get into it good and serious about the relationship between Asperger’s behaviors and your extreme libertarian philosophy (your own words) and your extreme posting pattern. Or I can spare everyone the spectacle of your becoming increasingly agitated and incoherent and going even further into right field than merely accusing me of “neo-post-modern marxist bunk”. My choice is that I’ll leave you to your harangues and beat feet outa here till Ricks next post. It will be interesting to look in now and then and observe how long you can continue this particular harangue about my supposed marxist views without any response from me.
I’ve bet myself a slice of cheese cake on the issue of how long you can continue haranguing my recent posts. Please don’t let me down!
Roby;
Back to this stupid internet diagnostic nonsense.
Do not have autism. Do not have aspbergers – a form of autism.
You seem to be confused, because much of the time I take you fairly literally.
That is deliberate. We are discussing law and govenrment, not fiction and poetry.
When you are discussing the use of force you are obligated to do so unambigously – clearly. You should expect that your arguments, and words will be taken fairly litterally.
We would not want a law establishing that Bears were an endangered species to be taken to mean men with an abundance of body hair.
If you wish to have a discussion of poetry, art, music, then you can complain when I read your words litterally and precisely.
We are not discussing Beethovens 9th we are disussing the 2nd amendment.
We are discussing government, and the justified use of force.
Do you want force to be used indiscriminantly ?
This is not about aspbergers, and your deflection to it is either stupid or vile.
Regardless, it is an effort to escape the failure of your own arguments.
Mao, killed more than Stalin, Stalin more than Hitler, Hitler more than Pol Pot, Pol Pot more than Castro ….
It is still all statists. Some examples of statism have resulted in less copious blood than others.
The left is not the only form of statism, nor are all incarnations of the left equally bloody. Blood does sometimes source outside the left.
None of this changes the ultimately murderous nature of the left.
Roby;
Still responding to argument with ad homimen.
While your response is erroneous – no aspbergers here.
It would not matter if true.
An argument is not disproven or a valid counter argument made by disparaging the person.
Labeling the person autistic, diagnosing them with aspbergers, or even labeling the argument as haranguing – are all fallacious.
They are all stupid or repugnant.
TNM is for the most part a pretty civil place.
You are not civil. You confuse insult with argument.
Since you seem to get into psychology, in Transactional analysis, that is called a crossed transaction. It is a game, it is about an emotional payoff, not knowledge. It is a deliberate effort to derail logic and reason and transform discusion to emotion, or judgement.
Roby;
Government must be simple – otherwise it fails.
One of our fundimental principles is that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”
Inseparable from that principle is the requirement that the law must either be intuitive or
simple – or both.
Govenrment must also be simple because government is tripley expensive.
Government is by defintion the restriction by force of what we can do.
Not being able to do things is a COST.
For a few things – not being able to murder others, it is a cost that has significantly net positive benefits.
But for most things it is merely a cost.
So we pay once for all laws in what we do not have as a result of them.
But we pay a second time – because government is force, and we have to pay to impose law by force.
We pay a third time because of all the things we lose, because we had to pay for govenrment.
Every law, every regulation that we pass slowly reduces our future.
Absent constraint, failure is inevitable, and likely extremely disruptive.
You pretend I am naive because I tell you government must be simple.
That should be self evident.
Roby;
I would strongly encourage studying history – not just of the 2nd amendment, but of many other things.
But you have a bizzare way of understanding history.
You do not seem to have any interest in what worked and what did not,
and are more interested in what past approaches appeal to you and which did not.
I do not disagree that the constitution is a “living” document.
It must be changed when we find it is not working.
I do not think either of us, or anyone else disagree on that.
The only question is how.
We have tried a number of approaches.
Hopefully you would agree that an approach that results in multiple possible concurrent meanings is deeply flawed. The more possible results an approach provides the more political the judiciary becomes.
Do you believe that our courts should be deciding based on politics ?
Exploring history and discovering that the supreme court has shifted all over on some issue does not mean that the result was always right – was Dred Scott decided right ?
Was Plessey v. Fergusson ?
Noting that historically the court has been all over the place on some issue, just means it has often been wrong. We can learn from what is wrong.
One of the things we should learn is how to avoid being wrong in the future.
You argument on so many things seems to boil down to, “there are many ways to do something, so mine is as good as any other”.
That is post modern neo-marxism. It is also obviously wrong.
The presence of many ideas does not make all ideas equal, It does not make them all work.
If you wish to demonstrate that there is an approach to statutory interpretation that does a better job that historical textualism of delivering “the rule of law, not man”
that is means of interpretation that delivers the same answer consistently
Regardless of who the parties are, regardless or the emotions involved, regardless of the party or beleifs of the justices in question – then by all means offer it.
Roby
Austrailia has disarmed.
There has been no change in any relevant trends – except that now people are less able to effectively deal with pest animals.
That is it.
Your future aspiration is to disrupt the country for no benefit.
This is a major part of what is wrong with the left.
It is enough for you that you feel god about what you do.
It is entirely irrelevant whether you actually do good.
I beleive that it is stupid for the federal govenrment to ban bump stocks.
Frankly I beleive it is stupid to ban automatic weapons
First Paddock managed to get one anyway,
and second laws that are easily circumvented just mean restrictions on the freedom of those who are not a problem and no effect on those who are.
I do not believe the 2nd amendment prevents regulating bump stocks.
I do being the constitution does.
What you are calling “being reasonable” is just being stupid over something small.
I do not understand why we have to go through demonstrating to those on the left over and over how their attempts to regulate things to make us safer obviously fail, every time emotions are high.
I have made the arguments against not merely gun control but all regulation over and over again.
Specifically with respect to gun control the data is so compelling that only idiots beleive gun control has value.
And yet, you still aspire to the day when magically we will all agree with you and fart rainbows and “disarm”.
Your selling a religion.
BTW the Bundy’s have been in court over all those incidents that you seem to fully comprehend.
They have been consistently winning.
Much of what you get from the media is distorted.
As an example the “federal facility” they took over, was private property improperly confiscated by government.
The feds have repeatedly charged ranchers with “arson” for backburning to confine existing forest fires. They are universally losing these cases.
But claims that someone is an “arsonist” when all they are is a property owner trying to protect their own property – often from fires the result of government mismanagement.
Regardless, it is extremely unwise to base your sense of something occuring in nevada or Utah on what reporters from New York City say.
The Bundy’s do appear to be pretty conservative mormons.
But federal courts are tending to find them right about the law.
What you think about the deterent effect of an armed population is irrelevant.
No it is not about angry loons assassinating Trump.
Do you beleive that a miliary of at most 2M and a police force of another 1M
are going to be willing to follow orders and engage in armed conflict with large numbers of armed citizens ?
The question is not who will prevail – though frankly no matter how good the military is and how prolific the weapons are, they can not deal with a population with 350M guns.
How well did the british do in 1776 ?
That is closer to what we are talking about.
Lexington and concorde occurred when the british tried to confiscate the locals guns.
It took 8 years for the colonists to figure out how to stand up as an Army and successfully battle the British Army toe-toe.
But Franklin noted from the begining that the outcome was inevitable.
No military can control a country where the populace is armed and even as little as 1/3 is hostlile.
Race has come to the forefront at the moment.
It is wise to really look at the history of race in the US.
Partly because that will reveal how far we have come, and partly because it should allow you to grasp how difficult it is to deal with an armed hostile population.
The Civil war was bloody and disasterous – but it did NOT end the issue, as it often contended. The north had to occupy the south militarily for a decade.
A very expensive proposition.
Eventually they gave up, and the soldiers left.
The consequence was nearly a century of Jim Crow.
Southerners were wrong about slaves, slavery and blacks.
and it still took more than a century to work past that
The US Military is constitutionally barred from engaging US citizens on US soil.
But tryanny presupposes the constitution does nto mean anything anymore.
It is unlikely that a few million soldiers are going to be willing to use force against unarmed americans absent a strong faith in the righteousness of the government they are following.
Put arms int he hands of the people and that calculus becomes even more lopsided.
It is hard to get the military to kill people over something it does nto beleive.
It is even harder when they are shooting back.
Your citing Garrett Epps as a constitutional scholar ?
He has been on the wrong(losing) side of nearly every constitutional conflict in the past several decades.
What quote of Jefferson’s is “fake” there are so many jefferson quotes about guns.
Are you going to try to claim that the federalist papers are “fake” ?
Try federalist 46 to start.
Here is a different Jefferson paragraph on an armed citizenry – right from his papers at montecello – hopefully we can dispense with claims that is “fake”
http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/100
An armed populace is not a guarantee of good government. It is merely a bar to a military tyranny.
Somalia and Afghanistan prove exactly that point.
Good government must come from the people – it can not be imposed externally.
The somalis and Afghans do not appear able to govern themselves.
But they are still quite able to drive out foreign tyrants.
Roby
Can you terminate the stupid straw man arguments.
I am not aware of anyone – except left wing nuts that has thought
“Second amendment remedies” meant assassination.
It means a refusal to accept a tyrant, and a willingness to resist tryanny by force.
That can be as little as being willing to shoot anyone trying to come to your home to take your gun.
There are many “fake quotes” by our founders. About many topics.
Regardless there is zero problems finding extremely well documented quotes from nearly every founder about the virtue of firearms.
While the declaration does nto explicitly mention King George confiscating citizens firearms that was the event that triggered armed conflict.
The federalist papers do mention arms repeatedly – unless you think that Madison, Jay and Hamilton expected the populace to resist tyranny with sticks that means GUNS.
Disproving some particular quote here and there does absolutley nothing – because there are hundreds of quotes.
Are you saying the 2nd amendment itself is fake ?
Further we know their actions.
Dave “I am not aware of anyone – except left wing nuts that has thought
“Second amendment remedies” meant assassination.”
They could be referring to the flippant remark I made about removing Trump by hiring an assassin when Jay kept his “Trump Must Go” theme when I said that was the only way he was going to leave office before 2020.
Roby
Are you saying that it would be acceptable if the federal government passed laws enslaving you, breaking up your family. executing you, and that if it chose to do these that you would just sit there and take it ?
To all but an idiot the “2nd amendment” is a legitimate response to government tyrany.
The only debate is the degree of tryany required to justify gun violence as a response.
With the exception of McVeigh – who did not use guns, the near universal extreme right militia response – the “2nd amendment solution” is to wait for the tryanical government to come after them and then resist with force.
At Ruby Ridge – Randy Weaver and his family – pretty right wing extremists, did not resort to guns until fired on by the government.
An attempt was made to prosecute an FBI agent for murder, but government protected its own and the federal government prevented the state government from prosecuting.
At Waco – Koresch and his followers responders to an armed government attack.
I can not think of a real world example of a “2nd amendment response” that was not armed defense.
You are so deluded about guns that you are incapable of grasping that they serve both offensive and defensive purposes.
The NAP – non-agression principle is the formal first principle of most libertarians, and atleast informally accepted by the rest.
I have NEVER heard a single libertarain ever advocate for the use of force of any kind EXCEPT as a response to FORCE.
Libertarians are the most consistently anti-war of all parties and ideologies.
We are constantly misrepresented as pacifists or isolationists.
We are non-interventionists.
The use of force is only justified in defense against the use of force.
The “2nd amendment remedy” might well involve a great deal of gun violence.
But it will be triggered by actual FORCE used against others.
The prohibition against the initiation of force is the core libertarain principle.
No libertarian i assassinating anyone.
@Priscilla; “It’s indisputable that the Constitution guarantees the right to own guns.”
No it’s not. No law made by humans is. The only law that is indisputable is the one from a “higher power”, and some of those are under attack.
This is not a good time to talk about this as it is an emotional issue. Right?
No, wrong. You don’t “discuss”when your house is on fire, do you. Or go on line to check for symptoms when your spouse is lying in bed shaking with the chills or keels over into his oatmeal. You call an ambulance!
And as soon as someone proposes a law that infringes on your right to fire as rapidly as possible or as quietly as possible or checks for mental illness, you immediately attack and say we need more mental testing you don’t wait unless you are Harry Reid.
No equivalency. Yeah, I get that, but both left and right love to push things they don’t like under the rug. Don’t make it right though.
BTW, automatic weapons are against current federal laws. I don’t don’t think they intended that it is OK to fix a gun at home for automatic fire and NOT be covered by that law.
Just like pressure cooker bombs are illegal as hand grenades at our kids graduation party.
You confuse “indisputable” with unchangeable.
Priscilla is correct and you are wrong, and your problem with with the meaning of words.
Humans wrote the constitution, and they can change what they wrote.
They can not change what those who did write it meant.
We can not alter the past. only the future.
“And as soon as someone proposes a law that infringes on your right to fire as rapidly as possible or as quietly as possible or checks for mental illness, you immediately attack and say we need more mental testing you don’t wait unless you are Harry Reid.”
As soon as someone proposes a law that infringes on a right – should be the and of legislative discussion. Does not matter whether we are talking about guns or any other right.
If you are proposing a law that infringes on a constitutional right – you must first change the constitution. Regardless of whether we are talking about guns or birth control.
Next, even when no actual right is at issue – which is pretty much never,
there is no reason to contemplate laws that demonstrably will not work.
Should we pass laws banning floods ? Earthquakes ? Mental Illness ?
We do not pass laws “when the house is on fire”.
If you have time to legislate – then you have time to discus.
Regardless, your argument seems to be “I am highly emotional damnit, let me do whatever stupid thing I want”
Your right – there is no equivalency.
Stupid is stupid.
Unfortunately this will not be the last stupid thing we do.
BTW private ownership of automatic weapons:
Was permitted for a long long time.
Was somewhat restricted from the 40’s through 86,
is still legal but highly restricted.
Before, in the middle and after there was never some tidal wave of people seeking automatic weapons.
Many civil rights leaders in the south in the 50’s and 60’s had and needed Tommy Guns – those are machine guns.
People were not in the streets mowing each other down by the hundreds.
Ahem, indisputable: in·dis·put·a·ble
ˌindəˈspyo͞odəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: indisputable
unable to be challenged or denied.”
Despite your retort, all man made laws can be disputed, as you would probably vehemently defend, being a libertarian.
Aside from the earthquakes and floods, which operate under higher laws- that of nature, you like to bandy about, a law that bans automatic weapons is already on the books and another law really isn’t necessary, but if it gets the bumps stocks and other alterations to semis off the market, then so be it.
And, hollering that it won’t work is OK, but perhaps we should try it out.
You supporters of “gun rights” must go back in time and tell us what the writer of the 2nd really meant. Until we can do that you will continue to interpret it your own way: unfettered access and possession of all weapons, and the other sides more realistic interpretation. I will not waste pixels as this debate has been going on for a long time. So don’t dredge it up and waste time. Suffice it to say that there are at least two views, that are “disputable”.
dduck
Again you are still making confusing meaning.
The second amendment says what it says.
You are conflating challenging a law, with disputing it, that is a misuse of the word.
Unless you are claiming that the actual words of the 2nd amendment are different than those published, then you are either challenging the 2nd amendment or engaged in that nonsense that words really have no meaning so everything is disputable.
a part of your problem is conflating statutory interpretation with fiction and poetry.
Law must be clear and unambiguous. You can not have the rule of law any other way. You can not have the social contract any other way.
We are not dealing with poetry.
There are rules for statutory interpretation that go back centuries (and are generally disregarded by the left particularly with respect to the constitution). Those rules are deliberately narrow. The objective is that a law should be understood as narrowly (regarding prohibitions) as possible,
and as unambiguously as possible.
Where the meaning of words has changed, then the meaning of a word is what those who ratified it would have expected.
You can “dispute this” but in doing so, you become lawless.
That is what it means when you decide that the meaning of law is determined by means hearts or politics or feeling, rather than by its text.
We can change text, and when we do so long as the same rules of understanding apply, we can know what that changed text unambigously means.
Once you say legal meaning is determined subjectively by a person, you end up with an endless Matryoshka doll.
Ginsberg says the 2nd amendment says X, I say that what ginsberg says is Y, you say that what I say that ginsberg says is Z.
That is lawless – the law of man. Not the rule of law.
dd12, laws of the land are based on the US Constitution and judged accordingly. That’s essentially what I meant. I get that inalienable rights are those that are not dependent on any government or law, and those are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or property, if you want to be an Lockeian originalist) But it’s pretty indisputable that there have been governments that have taken away peoples’ lives, liberty AND happiness/property.
The Second Amendment, as Dave has correctly noted, was put into the Constitution to essentially guarantee that bearing arms, i.e. owning guns would not be the exclusive privilege and power of the government, in order to prevent the government from using that power in oppressive and tyrannical ways. It guarantees citizens of the US the right to own guns. It just does. Like Ron says, you have to repeal that Amendment, if you want to outlaw all guns.
I also get what you and Roby (and I presume Jay) are saying about discussing this after a mass shooting…but I disagree. People don’t make good decisions when they’re emotional, angry and upset. They just don’t.
I actually think we’ve been having a pretty good discussion on the gun control, but I personally think it would be better if we weren’t focusing so much on the Las Vegas massacre. We all wish that we could find a way to eliminate all mass murders, but, as far as I know, it’s not possible, unless we can somehow eliminate human hate and evil. Eliminating guns is not going to do it. And emotional appeals that say basically ” If you don’t ban guns NOW, the next mass killing is gonna be on YOU!” is counterproductive. For one thing, what if the next mass murder is a bombing, as it was in the Boston Marathon massacre?
Appeals to emotion tend to overlook facts, that’s my point.
@Priscilla. Do you think that the law banning automatic weapons (1935) was constitutional? The second does not say anything about them, it only says arms. So why was it constitutional, an auto or a flame thrower are arms, and so on.
When we follow an old out of date provision in the Constitution without applying current circumstances we get where we are. Did the slaves have the right to bear arms, perish the thought. The old rich farmers wrote this thing, and I think it is a wonderful document- for it’s time-, as were the Magma Carter, Pax Romana and Hammurabi’s Law along with all the Christian/Judaeo/Islamic rules and regulations.
I would like to repeal the second, but if that is not feasible, then at least consider that it may have meant something else at the time.
Sorry for the rant, but words like indisputable push my buttons.
Good points, DDuck…
Laws limiting weapon types are constitutional.
dduck;
Was the law banning automatic weapons unconstitutional ?
Yes!.
At the time of the revolution, ordinary people could and did own the Pennsylvania rifle – roughly the AR-15 of its day.
There were not all that many of them, but they were probably instrumental – particularly in new england, we colonials were chased all over new england by british troops, but stayed out of range of british guns and sniped away at the british.
Quite quickly the revolutionary war shifted to the British controlling cities – particularly ports and colonials controlling everywhere else.
Regardless at the time of the revolution private citizens could and did own warships, and armies. I do not think our founders would have had a problem allowing private ownership of machine guns.
Further, machine guns were not absolutely banned in 1935,
They still aren’t.
There are civil rights leaders that had tommy guns under their beds when they traveled through the south.
Aside from a spike during prohibition in US history the use of automatic weapons in crimes is near non-existant.
There are not alot of things a heavy machine gun is useful for. ‘
Crime is rarely one of those.
You only see bad guys spraying the world with machine guns in miami vice.
I am not actively looking to strike the laws banning automatic weapons today, because regardless of what our founders intended, and regardless of the fact that the impact would be nonexistant. that is not likely to fly today.
We really like to ban “scary things”. We do not need actual evidence that they actually cause real harm. It is enough that they are scary.
There is not much reason to fight for machine guns – because I can not think of a use for them. Even Criminals do not find them useful – except in the movies.
Jay;
“Laws limiting weapons types are constitutional” ?
You might not. Mostly I do not focus on the constitution – for much this reason.
Liberty is liberty. We are free to do as we please short of actually harming others.
Govenrment should NEVER be banning “things”.
Laws target harmful ACTIONS.
If I murder someone I should be jailed.
Whether I did so with a machine gun or a bedroom slipper.
The anti-federalists objected to the Bill of Rights – not because they had a problem with the rights in it, but because they correctly noted that because specific rights were listed those would become our ONLY rights.
The constitution is about govenrment – not rights.
It dictates the specific powers of govenrment.
Those powers should be construed narrowly.
Powers that are not enumerated in the constitution do not belong to govenrment. The 9th and 10th amendments make that clear.
The courts went to a great deal of trouble to find a right to privacy.
They shouldn’t have needed to.
There is no enumerated power of govenrment to violate privacy.
I see nothing in the constitution empowering government to ban anything.
I mean, when people start arguing that the 2nd Amendment is only about muskets, I wonder….do you also think that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to radio and TV, because those didn’t exist in the 18th century? Does it only apply to the spoken word and documents published on printing presses?
Historically speaking (and as Anon has pointed out), there WERE assault weapons in existence before the Constitution was written, if, by assault weapons, we are talking about rapid firing guns with large ammunition capacities. And the framers didn’t exclude them, so the “musket” argument just makes no sense to me. I also assume that Ben and the boys had some cognizance of the fact that technological advances would continue after their time. I believe that they based the writing of the Constitution on more timeless principles, and on enlightenment philosophies.
I think that the disagreement here is that some of us believe that our government could become tyrannical and some of us don’t. Thomas Jefferson, who was somewhat instrumental in the founding, believed that “experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
There are those who think that it’s paranoid to believe that our government could ever incrementally become tyrannical and take our rights away.
And there are also those who think that our rights are already being incrementally infringed upon.
The debate will not be over any time soon. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean we should give up and stop debating.
Jay;
I would suggest that you actually take a seriously look at the results in Austrialia.
The positive effect is essentially ZILCH.
Austrailia had almost no mass shootings before. they had almost none after.
These are very rare events.
HOWEVER the mass killing rate in austrailia remained constant – arsons went up.
For sometime I had heard that the gun suicide rate went down – which it did,
but the overall suicide rate went down more – part of a longer term trend.
Further Austrailia can be compared to New Zealand as a control.
Their culture, populations, ethnicities, and rates of vioelnce are almost identical.
But NZ did not ban guns.
There is no difference in trends in any kind of violence between the two.
Bottomline Austrailia accomplished nothing.
Except they are now having a problem with large animal pests.
https://fee.org/articles/the-australia-model-for-gun-control-is-useless/
http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/05/how-the-second-amendment-helped-activist
This is a dissent on a 9th circuit 2nd amendment case that was eventually reversed by SCOTUS – i.e. SCOTUS agreed with the dissent.
It is not that long and better than I it covers most of the nonsense Roby spews.
Either we have constitutional rights or we dont.
Either they are all broad or they are all narrow.
The 2nd amendment serves two critical purposes.
There is no right to free speach or anything else, if you can not use force to protect your rights against the force of others.
The 2nd amendment is the remedy when all else goes to hell.
When the rule of law has failed.
It is not for when we do not like the outcome of the last election, but when government is not holding elections,
It is a right that must be protected while free, because it is only the wide distribution of guns among a free people that gives any hope to resist tyrants when all freedom is gone and what hope remains are those guns not yet confiscated.
The jews resisting the SS in warsaw would have taken any weapons they could get – including bump stocks.
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of rehear-
ing en banc:
Judges know very well how to read the Constitution
broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted.
We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the
press” also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S.
844 (1997), and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects”
also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States,
389 U.S. 347 (1967). When a particular right comports espe-
cially well with our notions of good social policy, we build
magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases
—or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional
text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d
790 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev’d sub nom. Washington v.
Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). But, as the panel amply
demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular con-
stitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying
language that is incontrovertibly there.
It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as spring-
boards for major social change while treating others like
senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they
quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must
be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a juris-
prudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad
compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individu-
als from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must
give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to
gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crum-
pled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution;
it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our
personal preferences.
The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sym-
pathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the
temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same
generous approach to the Second Amendment that they rou-
tinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the
Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual
right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to
ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S.
174 (1939), did not hold that the defendants lacked standing
to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the gov-
ernment argued the collective rights theory in its brief. See
Kleinfeld Dissent at 6011-12; see also Brannon P. Denning &
Glenn H. Reynolds, Telling Miller’s Tale: A Reply to David
Yassky, 65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 113, 117-18 (2002). The
Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and
rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller’s
weapon—a sawed-off shotgun—was reasonably susceptible
to militia use. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. We are bound not
only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Mil-
ler’s claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a per-
son rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered
discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for mili-
tia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller’s test; it
renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior
court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch
when it last visited a constitutional provision.
The majority falls prey to the delusion—popular in some
circles—that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to
own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons
in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But
the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives
best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed
people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament
was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free
blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’
homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished
their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol &
Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an
Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338
(1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right
to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-
42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of
slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to
resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393,
417 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it
would give blacks the right to “keep and carry arms wherever
they went”). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other
armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one
by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.
All too many of the other great tragedies of history—
Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holo-
caust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops
against unarmed populations. Many could well have been
avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their
intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets
apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent
at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw
Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with
only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles
could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons
of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines
the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw
the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second
Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those
exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have
failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection
and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the
courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees.
However improbable these contingencies may seem today,
facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make
only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the
right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitu-
tional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was
still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it
would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle
to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves
can read what they say plainly enough:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The sheer ponderousness of the panel’s opinion—the moun-
tain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen
short words of constitutional text—refutes its thesis far more
convincingly than anything I might say. The panel’s labored
effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body
weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rat-
tlesnake by sitting on it—and is just as likely to succeed.
In the UK they are now banning acid – because acid has been used in attacks
The UK should be the poster child against gun laws.
More and more and more gets banned in the UK
and still bad things keep happening.
Dave and don’t forget many years ago it was made illegal to carry a knife in public without good reason, unless it has a folding blade with a cutting edge 3 inches long or less. Guess they won’t have anyone carrying a butcher knife to stab someone since it is illegal. Do a search “stabbings in UK” and not one article will appear (not).
And the ban on transporting anything corrosive in public will sure stop ISIS and radical Islamist’s from throwing that on people in public.
So lets get rid of all those guns because that will stop all gun violence in America!!!!!!
Let’s get rid of the kind of guns capable of causing the kind of death and mayhem we just saw in Vegas.
Think of this kind of ban like highway speed limit laws: they don’t prevent all speeding accidents, but they surely reduce a significant percent, without causing traffic to stop flowing.
For example, how would your life be affected negatively if our gun laws were similar to Australia’s?
How would your life significantly be effected if citizens were only allowed to own two guns each, for home security use?
Jay;
Oh, do you know that speed limits actually reduce traffic accidents ?
We actually know that you are three times as likely to be in an accident if you are 5 mph below the average speed of drivers, than if you are 15mph above.
We also know that we have more problems when people are all traveling the same speed. That everything works better when there are variations in peoples speed.
Regardless, the fundimental point is that not only do you not know – either about the effect of laws on guns or cars, but you are often wrong.
We now have very good data on the results of Australia.
And the answer is that they confiscation of weapons and tough gun laws had no discernable effect.
Guns do not cause mayhem – people do.
I can think of alot of ways that Paddock could have killed alot more people without using a gun.
Austrailia has the same number of mass killings as before.
Few – because they are rare – even in the US.
I do not as an example care about bump stocks, and I care very little about silencers.
But I care alot about stupidity in government.
I care alot about doing stupid and ineffectual things just to “feel good”.
Banning bump stocks will change nothing – except perhaps:
making bump stocks unavailable to ordinary people.
Apparently Obama approved them because they are useful for people with disabilities. I do not know. I do not care. We should not be banning things just to feel good.
We will end up with a few people in jail for owning or selling bump stocks.
If a criminal wants them they will have no trouble getting them.
There will be no change in mass shootings.
If you do not wish to be called stupid – quit pushing stuff that is false.
Most of what claims to be “common sense” is the substitution of feelings for reason, and frequently wrong.
Almost everything the left disagrees with others about – the left is wrong about.
I can create a poison gas that kill kill many people with stuff I can find in your laundry.
You home is full of things that can cause the death and mayhem we saw in las vegas.
For $15 I can build a flame thrower from parts I can buy at an autozone.
Potent explosives are pretty trivial.
Starting fires in crowed buildings and beating the fire detection supressions systems is not that hard.
We are going to ban bump stocks and legalize sex work ?
http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/05/dc-could-become-only-us-city-to-decrimin
Dave, if there is anyone in America that does not think sex for sale was not legalized years ago, they are nuts. The numbers game was illegal until it became the lottery. Prostitution was illegal until it became “escort service”.
But I know I will get killed for making this statement and the comments will fill up this blog. Why is prostitution illegal to start with? Other than religious groups thinking sex for sale should be illegal, it is a crime with no victims.
Agree…
Prostitution should not be illegal…
Should it be a legitimate medical tax deduction, like other physical therapy expenses? 😼😇
The internet has made prostitution in the US less dangerous.
But it remains illegal.
Kamela Harris was one of the big DA’s going after Backpage.
I beleive she was part of driving adds off of Craigslist.
Regardless, the data is in.
criminalizing prostitution causes all the problems we associate with prostitution – like violence, abuse, explotation, slavery.
these problems decline to the extent that prostitution is legalized.
But all regulation of prostitution drives towards abuse.
The nordic model is only better than that of the US.
Taxing and regulating – still results in lots of blackmarket prostitution – because most prostitutes can not afford meet the regulations
No prostitution should not be tax deductible – NOTHING should be tax deductible.
Flat tax, no deductions.
What happened when England went from an entirely free college system to one of the most expensive in the world.
Basically the exact opposite of what Bernie wants.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w23888#fromrss
To know what people really think, pay regard to what they do, rather than what they say. – René Descartes
Not the deadliest
http://www.theroot.com/this-is-only-the-deadliest-shooting-in-u-s-history-bec-1819112938?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=The_Root_twitter
No there is no reason to worry about slippery slopes!
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/10/05/britain-moves-to-criminalize-reading-extremist-material-on-the-internet/amp/
Dave, I made the same suggestion a few comments back. No one bit when I said control speech when they control guns.
I can guarantee the liberals would have no problem with this since they want to ban free speech now given the demonstrations that have occurred on campuses across this nation.
Gods help us when the millennials really get into positions of control!!!
Millenials are politically wierd.
First, the accute anti-speach stuff is littlerally the current crop of college students. Haidt and several other profs noted that campus’s have been drifting left for a long time, but did not go nuts until about 2013.
Millenials lean more heavily left than prior age cohorts – but only specific ways.
They have favorable impressions of socialism but they do not really understand what it is, and they have almost no historical knowledge of its unbelievable record of failure.
They also have more libertarian friendly positions than prior cohorts.
They have a bizarre sense of entitlement, but tat the same time they are LESS concerned about the poor and more likely to beleive that people should help themselves.
They are more narcisist than prior cohorts.
I would also note that every cohort shifts right as it ages.
And the largest shift starts when they enter the job market.
Millenials have been brainwashed in many ways. They’ve been marinated in social justice, but never taught to critically analyze it.
But modern states would not shoot there own people merely because of they way they were voting ?
What happened in Catalonia is unlikely in the US. Because we are armed.
https://fee.org/articles/catalonia-shows-the-danger-of-disarming-civilians/?utm_source=zapier&utm_medium=facebook
OH my Dave. Do you really think we would shoot people to control them here if we disarmed them? Heavens no, we would not do that. (Said the Sander/Warrens of the world)
BLM certainly thinks otherwise.
I think that we already live in a totalitarian police state. Just not a structured or ideological one.
There is almost no possibility of ending the war on drugs – because that would leave 1/3 of our police and 1/3 of our prison guards unemployed.
I do not beleive the police are inherently evil.
I do beleive that they reflect the rule of man not law. That they do as they please, and that we let them so long as they only rarely infringe on those who are powerful.
While I beleive that aspects of policing – such as shootings, and violence are declining – atleast partly as a result of smart phones and body cams,
we still have militarized and hormonalized our policing.
Policing like many other aspects of our state suffer heavily from a lack of accountability.
Jay an Roby Rant about Trump tweets and other meaningless nonsense.
My beefs with Trump would be that he ran on ratchetting down the drug war, and Sessions is ratchetting it up. He ran on rolling back asset forfeture and it is going up.
He reversed Obama’s tepid steps to reign in police militarization – do the police really need APC’s, 50 Cal machine guns, grenades and bayonetts ?
Mass shootings are near the top of the list of justifications for SWAT.
The only mass shooting that was impacted by SWAT was sandy hook – Lanza killed himself when SWAT showed up.
At columbine there were 6 SWAT teams present – none went in for hours.
One thing that could have impacted Paddock would have been a couple of police snipers. Paddock was unskilled with guns, but his perch meant only someone skilled could interfere with his shooting.
A few shots at him that even came close would have forced him to back off.
We still do not know the details but maybe he was stopped by a SWAT team – 70 min after he started. What did they do, bring them in from DC ?
Trump, said he was winning in afghanistan – or getting out.
We are now doing neither.
Regardless, I am judging the president by what he does, not what he says, and by that standard, he is doing better than Obama – mostly, but still bad on many things.
NOTE:
After Rick posted this new thread, the problems I was having with the blog have stopped. No more disconnects and drop outs.
Jay, Rick is only at 289 comments. 1000 is just a couple days away. Then it will start again.
JJ, agree with your last four posts.
I tempted to use the speed limit argument, but feared a fatburger attack.
BTW: “Federal Definition of a Machine Gun
For purposes of federal law, a machine gun is defined as:
[A]ny weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manually reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.16
To me that sounds like a law already exists.
Not sure what a Fatburger attack is, but I used the speed limit analogy a bit further up in this thread.
The courts have been quite clear in interpreting the 2nd Amendment, particularly in the Heller decision, in which SCOTUS said that Americans have the right to own guns for personal self-defense. The Court has also said that machine guns, i.e. fully automatic guns are NOT protected by the 2nd, because they are dangerous and unusual. And this year, the high court will hear a challenge on concealed carry restrictions.
Why is it that you are not ok with the Court interpreting the Constitution? Isn’t that its constitutional role? Circular logic there, I know, but what’s up with “we can never ever overturn Roe v. Wade, because the Court found a constitutional right to abortion”, but “We must overturn Heller, because the Court reaffirmed the right to own guns?”
dd12, I didn’t mean that you have said anything about Roe v. Wade, but Jay has, and many liberals go all stare decicis on Roe, but then pooh-pooh Heller….
Heller was a 5–4 decision, decided by the Scalia Conservatives.
And it narrowly decided that a complete ban of handguns within a defined city’s environs was unconstitutional.
Jay, you might want to check out the Heller decision a it more closely. It was a landmark 2nd Amendment case, not narrow at all, and endorsed gun ownership as part of an inherent personal right to self-defense. The overturning of the DC handgun ban was the issue at hand, but the holding of the court was pretty broad.
Miranda was 5-4
NYT v Sulivan was 5-4
Bakke was 5-4
Kelo 5-4
Obergefell 5-4
Fischer V TX 4-3
If you are suggesting that the definition includes bump stocks, that would be wrong.
The bump stock works by essentially vibrating your finger.
It is still one trigger pull per bullet, you just can pull the trigger faster with help.
dhlii: LMAO, like my vibrating finger is OK to those shot quickly instead of slowly. Please!
Priscilla: What did I ever do to you that you would insult me by calling me a liberal. 🙂
That should have been fatberg: https://jalopnik.com/bus-sized-lump-of-fat-called-a-fatburg-discovered-i-1028805797 I have been using that term here, probably too much, to describe the blockage on this blog.
“dhlii: LMAO, like my vibrating finger is OK to those shot quickly instead of slowly. Please!”
Your argument is that bump stocks fit the current definition of an automatic weapon.
They don’t. It is just that simple.
Dead people do not wish to be dead.
They do no wish to be shot slowly, or quickly or stabbed with a knife.
Killing people is a crime.
It is a crime done slowly,.
rapidly,
with a knife,
with a mouse, in a house on the roof.
If Paddock killed these people with a rock – still murder.
dd12, sorry about calling you a liberal! What was I thinking?! 😉
Some statistics.
Laws must be enforced. There is no reason to believe your must have excellent serves the people well law will turn out any better than any of the others.
https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/state-thugs-purpose-government?utm_content=60219308&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06/6-reasons-right-wing-friend-isnt-coming-side-gun-control/
Ok, so I have the right to defend myself, so says the Supreme Court. Well, I need at least two guns for my left and right hands. So, two long guns (no cutting down the barrel illegally unless you use black powder- hello founding fathers) and two hand guns. So that’s four now.
Oh, but I may want to hunt ducks (bastards) so OK on a shotgun. A rifle for Bambi’s decedents, and a varmint rifle. Through in one for target practice on the cheap, say a .22 makes it eight. Would I mind, assuming I’m not a collector, with an exemptoion,
The right to defend yourself comes from natural law, not the supreme court.
The right to bear arms comes from the constitution.
Where in the constitution does the federal govenrment get the power to decide barrel length ?
While you are confused about what constitutes a right and why they exist, you are atleast paying lip service to their existance.
Do you understand what a right is ? It is a freedom that government can not infringe upon – not even with the consent of the majority.
When the constitution says “congress shall make no law” – that is what a right means.
Something can be both a right and illegal – that just means that congress has infringed unconstitutionally on your right.
If you permit government to decide what constitutes arms – by saying that it can restrict barrel length, then why can’t it restrict further ?
If congress can say that the barrel length must be X, then why can’t it say that guns can not have triggers, and can not fire bullets.
If you have a right to something – it can not be regulated AT ALL.
OR if you must use the more relaxed standards of the supreme court
it can only be regulated when there is a crystal clear compelling societal benefit.
and where that regulation is done in the most neutral and non-intrusive way possible.
Once you say that government can dictate the number of firearms you may have, the type, their use, the design, …. you no longer have a right to them, and the words in the constitution are entirely meaningless.
If something is a right – it does nto matter if you mind.
That is the entire point.
Free speach is not only that speach others find acceptable.
There is only a right to free speach if you can say what most people find unacceptable.
We are currently directly confronting this with the left’s nonsense about “hate speach”.
To the extent hate speach exists, it is EXACTLY what the right to free speach protects.
We do not need a right to say things that no one is bothered by.
A right means that you may do something even if others mind strongly.
dd12, the problem with regulating the numbers of guns that a person owns gets tricky, both from a constitutional and a practical standpoint.
Once the government says that you can only own one, or two, or ten guns, it becomes incumbent on it to come up with a plan to set up a registry for all guns and confiscate the rest. I imagine that a buy-back, similar to what Australia did, would be the least objectionable way to do this. But, 1) Australia does not have a 2nd Amendment type protection for the right to own firearms and 2) Americans own many, many more guns per capita than Australians ever did. and 3) Australians are still buying guns legally ~ they have to provide a reason, and be licensed for each gun, and they can’t legally own semi-automatics, unless you are a “professional shooter.”
The cultural and legal differences are significant. 1) If the buy-back is voluntary, how does the government find out who has not relinquished their guns? 2) what would be the penalty for non-compliance? Are we prepared to put otherwise law-abiding gun owners in prison? 3) Would we establish a door-to-door program of home invasions by ATF agents, searching for guns? 4) What good would all of this do, if criminals who possess illegal guns are the only ones left with them? 5) When a state inevitably files suit over the 10th Amendment violation, what if SCOTUS rules that the whole thing is unconstitutional?
Well here goes the lame Libertarian again. Limiting the number of guns one could own is just one more step in whittling away rights so people do not see whats happening and then one day they say “you can not have that one gun we have let you have since 2075. (Between now and 2075 they reduced from no limit to one in my example, could be more years, could be less)
We have lost rights as a nation and let government dictate what we can and can not do and we are like the frog in the pot of water that did not realize it was dinner when it slowly went from cold to hot. There are too many example to provide on most any subject, but I can give you one that was in our morning paper.
Since the early 90’s, there has been a beltway proposed for this area. Over the years it has changed and since the early 2000’s the state provided a “map” for all new road construction. If your property was in that corridor, you were not able to do much with your property because 1. the state did not want people building more structures on it or increasing the value of the property so they had to pay more when they bought it and 2. no one was going to buy a house or property that the state was going to confiscate in a few years. Delays, funding, court challenges, Environmental challenges, etc have delayed this road and it still is not need built. Some houses were bought in 2007, but the majority of the properties are still in the “map”. Finally in 2016, a court ruled that the state had to buy the houses because the properties were encumbered (or some legal mumble) and the state appealed. The appeal is still in the courts to be ruled. So for over 17 years, people have owned properties they can’t do anything with except pay taxes and live in it, even if they want to move. Most people don’t have the money to leave one house empty and move to another.
Don’t ask me why this has never made it to the supreme court. Has to be some issue with going through the state courts first, but to me this is a prime example of how government has whittled away at the 4th amendment to allow unreasonable seizure of properties or the 5th amendment where private property is taken for public use, without just compensation. In my mind, encumbering properties for more than a decade is unreasonable seizure, but to those in government, it is just protecting the state from much higher costs in the future when the roads are actually built.
Should government decide how many cars I need ?
How many computers ?
Steak Knives ?
Children ?
If you decide that you are only allowed so many of something – then government must keep track of what you have. Don’t we have government keeping far too much information on us as it is ?
Should the government NOT DECIDE how many nuclear weapons you need?
They HAVE DECIDED you SHOULD NOT drive your car on the sidewalk. You have a problem with that?
Stop making dumb rationalizations.
IF government did not prohibit private ownership of nuclear weapons – do you think everyone would have one ? Do you think anyone would ?
You seem to think we need laws to prevent things that no one would do.
BTW I am not sure that we actually have laws prohibiting private ownership of nuclear weapons.
There is no need for law prohibiting driving on a sidewalk.
If you can miraculously manage to drive on a sidewalk without damaging anything or harming anyone that is all that is required.
And again – I am no so sure their are laws against driving on a sidewalk.
More likely there are laws against hitting pedestrians.
Regardless, your back pretending I am an anarchist.
Limited govenrment is no NO government.
I am not opposed to laws against murder.
Though I do not think we need separate laws against murder with a gun and murder with a knife.
I do not have a problem with deadly weapons enhancements – but again
you are punishing an act of violence – after the fact.
I am not making rationalizations, though even if I were, all that would matter was that they were valid.
Your feelings do not make my arguments dumb.
BTW, I have driven up on to a sidewalk to avoid being a part of an accident.
The officers who investigated did not cite me, they congradulated me.
Austrialia’s gun control did not work.
We have been fighting over gun control for a long time.
As a consequence both sides have been seeking the holy grail of proof that gun control has a noticeable consequence – good or bad.
We have found very very little.
Absolutely gun control reduces gun crimes – though often not nearly as much as expected. But it does NOT reduce violent crimes.
I had thought that there was evidence that it reduced suicides.
But apparently more thorough analysis of Australian data suggests even that effect is spurious.
We are talking about guns at the moment.
But we are really just dealing with a central issue of regulation.
That is that there are very few if any examples of ANY regulation having a positive change on a trend.
I raise this constantly.
Many of you respond that I am just an idiot.
But no one has provided an example of any regulation at all that has demonstrably positively shifted an existing improving trend.
Believing in things without evidence is religion.
As usual, you summarize conclusions that are full of crap. Stop distorting the truth with your narrow focus. The main purpose of the law was to cut down on mass shooting. And it ACCOMPLISHED THAT! Plus it’s cut down other gun related crime and deaths.
“For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.
The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)
Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.”
Also check out the armed robbery stats, which also decreased. They include home robberies, which according to the NRA deceivers should have spiked up after the gun buyback went into effect.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
“The main purpose of the law was to cut down on mass shooting.”
Because you say so ?
If the law had eliminated mass shooting but resulted in many times more total deaths from Arson – would it be a good law ?
Regardless “the Purpose” or the law is irrelevant – you are back guessing at intentions.
What I have documented is “the consequences” of the law.
That is not a little detail. Good purposes do not justify bad results.
The use of force can not be justified – even for good purposes, unless at the minimum you accomplish good.
” And it ACCOMPLISHED THAT! Plus it’s cut down other gun related crime and deaths.”
BZZT, Wrong – read the many many articles with statistical data I provided on this.
Even 538.com concluded the law had no statistically significant effect.
You used force, and you got nothing.
That is immoral.
Your snopes link is contradicted by actual studies.
What you have done is proven both yourself and Snopes statistically incompetent unreliable and biased. Not a surprise.
Further it makes the common stupid mistake of ignoring trends.
Elsewhere her I have posted the graph that demonstrates that in the US as the total guns have increased violent crime has declined.
It is actually possible that graph demonstrats causation.
But that is not a conclusion that can be drawn solely from that graphic.
Why – for exactly the same reason your Snopes australia claims are wrong.
In BOTH cases, you are trying to determine the effect of some independent variable on a trend.
In BOTH cases you must detect a deviation to the trend.
If you do not – then it is actually MORE valid to conclude that in the US increased gun ownership has dramatically reduced gun crime.
While changes in Trend should be all you need – and there were no changes in Trends in Austrailia. there also were no changes relative to New Zealand.
All of this stuff has been extensively studied accross the world for decades.
The real results:
There is weak evidence that gun control reduces suicides.
There is weak evidence that higher gun ownership reduces crime rates.
That is it.
Absolutely banning guns reduces gun crimes. But it does not reduce violent crimes.
Are you trying to say that laws making it more likely that you will die from arson than from a bullet are an important public benefit ?
……to be thus limited and backed up by a central registry (alarms are going off)? Probably not, as those like Paddock and others are just gunbergers. And I would have no problem if they have them all locked or plugged. Of course this won’t help much with the spate of kid shootings using granmas’s gun that they found in her purse or a car pocket.
Paddock is the perfect example of what is wrong with regulation.
I do not know what you think a “gunberger” is but Paddock was not.
As best as is known thus far he showed no interest in guns until recently.
He was not knowledgeable about guns or skilled with them.
He was just wealthy.
He decided for as of yet unknown reasons to do evil. To kill alot of people.
His wealth was a tool he used to do so. Guns was the method he used.
But the objective was mass murder. It is highly unlikely he cared much about the how.
We also are unsure of the moment whether the who mattered.
Targetting the Country Music concert suggests he might have had a specific who in mind,
But purportedly he cased venue’s in chicago and boston that leave the impression that the who of this concert might not have been important.
So all we know is he wanted to kill alot of people.
He was smart, and not skilled with guns. His choice to attack a crowd from 300 yards away in a perch reflects that. He was not sniping. The bump stocks increased his rate of fire at the expense of accuracy – he did not care about accuracy.
He was not a “gunberger” whatever that is. He was a mass murderer.
Further Paddock is a wealthy older male with no history of mental health problems.
Purportedly he had an actual automatic weapon. I do not know if that is true or if it was legal. But he would have had no problems legally getting an automatic weapon.
There are no red flags about Paddock that would have drawn him to anyone’s attention as a potential threat.
There is no regulation that he would not have either legaly been able to comply with – as I noted, he likely could have gotten a permit for an automatic weapon, or that he was not wealthy enough to circumvent.
We are fighting over North Koreans nuclear and ICBM programs at the moment.
Jeff Bezo’s, Elon Musk, and Paul Allen are each wealthy enough to acquire rockets capable of getting to the moon and back. I beleive one of Musk’s rockets is more powerful than the Saturn V – probably the most powerful rocket previously built.
If someone wealthy enough can create their own ICBM why do you think that you are going to be able to regulate someone like Paddock into safety ?
Paddock does not as of yet fit any profile of mass killers.
Mass killers in their 60’s are extremely rare, and nearly always religiously, politically or ideology motivated – we have no evidence of that yet. The other possibility at that age is some very specific undiagnosed brain tumors. Which is my guess at the moment.
Most mass killers are after infamy – and that is why they are nearly always young males with paranoid schizophrenia. People do not wake up with a desire for infamy in their mid 60’s with no prior signs.
But the other attribute Paddock shares with mass killers is sufficient intelligence and resourcefulness that no law is not going to be an impediment to attaining his goal of killing people.
You really do not get it.
Guns do not kill people.
People kill people.
One way or another Paddock was going to kill alot of people.
It is unlikely that even in a totalitarian regime he would be stoppable.
Stopping him ahead of time would require luck and numerous serious mistakes on his part.
There is no law that you can pass that would stop him.
The complete elimination of guns would not stop him.
“As best as is known thus far he showed no interest in guns until recently.”
Wrong. He had previously purchased and owned 14 other weapons before he went on his buying spree – which happened over the last FULL YEAR.
UNFORTUNITY they don’t track ammunition sales, which could have tipped off authorities (oh right, you don’t think the government should track those kind of sales) that something ominous was in the works.
Paddock was 64 – within the last year is RECENT.
You think that if tracking gun sales is opposed that it is going to be OK to track ammunition ?
I do not want government tracking my phone calls either.
I do not want government tracking US citizens without a warrant.
And I do not want warrants to be issued without specifically identifying what is to be searched for, and that there is probably cause that the person being searched committed an actual crime.
I do not care whether the issue is guns or what.
AS an example – I have no problem with the Obama Administration spying on UAE leaders. But absent a warrant the identify of US persons that they interacted with can not be revealed – not even to the rest of government.
So why do you think I would support spying on someone ammunition purchases ?
BTW it is also stupid because plenty of resources exist to load your own ammunition.
Most serious gun people do that, but to save money and control quality.
Paddock was not a gun person. He was a mass murderer who chose to use guns, and clearly was not that skilled.
But he was smart and compensated for lack of skill.
We do not have the ability to a priori prevent evil.
Even a hypothetical society where there is more supervision than action – so that any attempt to do evil is detected before it can occur would be so inefficient that everyone would starve. It would also be incredibly repressive and totalitarian.
We pay for our survival and improvement with the acceptance that all evil will not be prevented. With the knowledge that the sum harm of all unprevented evil is less than the cost of lost action as a consequence of massive supervision.
Our most effective by far means of reducing harm is the knowledge that doing harm will have personal consequences. That is the basis for law, and why law is supposed to be a posteriori – we punish acts, rather than attempt to anticipate detect and prevent evil.
Our justice system, our entire government, our social contract is rooted in the preventive power of punishing actual bad acts.
This works for two reasons:
The most important is that absent the threat of force the overwhelming majority of us will not initiate force. This is critical, society can not survive otherwise. If the only impediment to doing evil was punishment the scale of govenrment and law enforcement would be so large as to again drive us to starvation.
But some of us will do evil if the probability of punishment is not sufficiently high, and the punishment is not sufficient to motivate people to avoid it.
Those are the things we can deal with. We can not deal with those who would do evil and will not be stopped by the prospect of punishment.
We do not know alot about Paddock, but we know he was willing to kill alot of people, and willing to die if necescary to do so.
We do not have the means to prevent those who would do that from doing evil.
Our protection is that those people are rare, and that they are not “infectuous”.
They can not lead others to the same place.
“We do not have the ability to a priori prevent evil.”
We do have the ability to a priori prevent the sales of the kind of weapons that killed and wounded ALL THOSE people.
Again – very fallacious logic.
The guns did not kill people – Paddock did.
Ted Kazinski did not use guns, Timothy McVeigh did not use guns.
Osama Bin Laden did not use guns.
You can not stop evil by banning guns.
You make a trivial logical error, that should be obvious.
If you do not want to be called stupid, do not make stupid errors or arguments.
Feelings are not logic.
Diverse countries have substantially higher rates of violence regardless of gun control.
https://mises.org/blog/does-ethnic-heterogeneity-make-homicide-worse-americas
That includes let those who want abortions have them, right… next
I have no problem with a womans right to control of their own body.
I have a major problem with forcing the rest of us to pay for what a woman or a man or anyone else might want.
Dave, but that is not the liberals way of thinking. It is their right to have an abortion paid for by tax payer revenues.
I agree 100% with your statement. Do what you want, but don’t make others pay for it.
I have explained my position on abortion many times.
Jay, clearly has not ever bothered to read it, or he never would have posted his stupid comment.
But that is an incredibly common problem with those on the left.
They do not know their own positions.
The do not know conservative positions.
The do not know libertarian positions.
They make nonsenical arguments that misrepresent everything – such as Jay’s recent totally bogus rant about Russia and guns.
And finally as you note leftist positions are completely inconsistent.
It is not OK for christians to refuse to provide specific services to gays that represent actual endorsement of conduct that many christians view as immoral.
But it is acceptable for gays to refuse service to christians – because they are prolife.
This incident is interesting as:
The group did not identify themselves. The Coffee house sought to identify them.
They did not ask for anything that violated the beleifs or values of the owner.
When the group was identified as prolife, the owner denied them service because he assumed they were anti-gay – while that MIGHT be true, the owner assumed it.
http://theliberator.news/2017/homosexual-coffee-shop-owner-evicts-peaceful-christians/
I have said over and over and over. Anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason they wish or none at all. That the remedy is boycott’s, protest etc.
That private discrimination is a self punishing act.
But if you want public accomidation laws which I beleive are both immoral and unconstitutional, you must atleast apply them uniformly.
If an owner can not use their religious beliefs to bar Service to a customer,
That is actually the same as an owner barring a customer for their religious beliefs.
There are lots of problems with conservatives.
Trump who is not really conservative is also pretty illogical.
But the left is just a logical disaster – and they do not care.
They want to make everything up as they go based on feeling and without any regard for logical consistancy.
You constantly presume that you know what everyone one outside the left beleives – despite constant evidence that you are wrong.
Abortion isn’t covered by your federal taxes:
“Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman’s life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.”
If your State provides funds for abortion, Elect new representatives to change those laws. Isn’t that what Conservative minded voters do?
The role of government – state local, federal
is to provide protection from foreign invaders, to provide police and courts, to enforce contracts and to compel compansation for actual harms.
These are the only things that we can morally use force to accomplish.
That is is. Abortion, birth control, …… are not in that.
You must provide those – as well as things like food, clothes, shelter, for yourself.
You can not morally force others to provide those.
If my representative steals, are you saying the only remedy is to elect another ?
You keep ranting at me that Trump must be removed for bad style, for taking a position on divisive issues. or just because you do not like him.
I think we would all agree that he can be removed if he commits a crime.
Stealling is a crime.
This woman appears to have an attraction for Sexual Predators.
This Presidential couple appears to have an affinity for sexual foursomes.
Most of us are not especially happy about Trump’s misogyny.
But the democratic choice in 2016 was an apologists for actual predator’s.
Further, the central premise of the left is that
their values, ideas and people are better than everyone else.
What is self evident they are not.
Leftism openly depends on the virtue of leftists.
Yet, clearly prominent leftists are not virtuous.
The libertarian premise of limited government accepts that people who want power are not virtuous.
Given that people – regardless of ideology are similarly prone to corruption,
which ideology will work better – the one giving more power to government and requiring virtuous leaders, or the one giving less power to government and assuming corrupt leaders.
Dave, “Leftism openly depends on the virtue of leftists.
Yet, clearly prominent leftists are not virtuous.
The libertarian premise of limited government accepts that people who want power are not virtuous.”
OK lets be fair and balanced on this issue.
“Conservatism openly depends on the virtues of the right”
Yet clearly the prominent right are not always virtuous.
It is clear that neither Clinton nor Trump had any virtues. Had she been virtuous, she would have left her husband after the first rape accusation that was swept under the rug. She would not have quoted Tammy Wynette “standing by her man” and would have instead left him so he could have carried on with other women in a more open way. But given her unending desire for power, she found staying married to Bill gave her the inroads to the power she all so much wanted. And power was much more important than virtues.
And we have had enough conversation about Trump and his virtues (or complete lack of)
So while the left wants to control how people conduct one part of their life, the right is also just as bad because they want to control the other part of peoples lives.
I would say that today, the Libertarian premise should be based more on people who want power have to prove they are virtuous before accepting that premise for any politician.
at 0:50 we get the effusive praise of Weinstein
Bill Clinton, Roman Polanski, Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen
Ron;
Mostly I agree.
To those who say that the right has as many Harvey Weinsteins as the left.
Not looking for a game of count the sexist pigs, more, less, it does not matter much.
Hypocrisy matters. We out justifiably outraged at the Congressman who opposes abortion pushing his mistress to get an abortion.
Just as I am more offended by Clinton than Trump
That does not make Trump a good guy.
I think the records shows Trump to be more verbally sexist, while his acts are offensive – not on the scale of Weinstein, Polanksi, Clinton, …
If you differ – So What ?
Both Trump and Clinton should have been disqualified by voters – but they were not. But lets end the fake outrage that Trump is somehow different.
But finally – NO!!! The libertarian premise is NOT that we should find more virtuous candidates.
I have yet to read solzhenitsyn but several source that recomend him claim he dealt the death blow to academic communists in the west by demonstrating intellectually that communist MUST end up shifting to barbaric leaders.
I do nto think that is limited to communists – as Lord Acton noted – “Power corrupts”
We should always try to elect the best people.
But we need a government that will work and survive the worst.
Because we will get far more of the worst, and we may never get any of the best.
Libertarianism is putting Madison’s federalist 51 into action.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
Our govenrment must work even with bad people in power.
That means the power of govenrment must be severely limited.
While there are many many other compelling reasons for limited government, human imperfection and the lure of power is one of the most potent.
https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/569677514559221760
And the NYT killed the story in 2004
https://www.thewrap.com/media-enablers-harvey-weinstein-new-york-times/
If the armed citizenry in the US is not a deterent to Government tryany than how did this happen ?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452426/second-amendment-armed-citizenry-vs-government-force-history
Dear 2nd Amendment idiots – I say that affectionately (snide smile) – an armed populace has had no effect whatsoever in modern times preventing or discouraging excessive government force against its own citizenry in any Democratic style government like our own.
And in all of those other Democratic nations, the citizenry is far less armed than we are. If an armed populace discourages tryrany, those nations with less armed citizens should show signs of rising tryany. Are the citizens in Canada, England, Germany, Japan, Ireland, France, Italy, Finland, Sweden, etc, more threatened by government force than heavily armed America?
And the flip side of the coin also disproves any relationship between an armed populace with freedom from government suppression. Russia, for instance, issues firearm licenses to citizens over 18 years of age. The licence is for five years and may be renewed. Firearms are allowed for self-defense, hunting, or sports activities. There are more firearms per citizen in Russia than in most of the other nations listed above. Therefor there should be LESS government intervention blocking the freedoms of Russian citizens than those other nations. Are any of you 2nd Amendment knuckleheads (wink wink) claiming that’s true?
Examples in fact would suffice for those with open eyes and common sense (tho a waste of time with the NRA indoctrinated acolytes spouting gun orthodoxy ).
Jay, why do you take the liberal stance and support legislation that can be changed with the next setting president and congress in any gun legislation. Why will you not even consider a 28th amendment to repeal the second amendment and make the change permanent?
You might lump me in with the “2nd amendment idiots”. Maybe I am an idiot in accepting the fact that I do not trust our leaders in government, any of them. I would not want my daughters dating one (or son if the politician was female).
But I am open to the will of the people and if they so choose to amend the constitution, so be it. But just like this site, not one can agree on what the founding fathers meant when they wrote that right into the constitution as it pertains to today. If your liberal, you believe one thing. If your conservative you believe another. And that is what is wrong when trying to legislate changes to rights afforded individuals by the constitution. 1/2 the country will accept those changes and 1/2 of them will not and many will resist in some way by breaking the law.
I own two guns, have for decades.
If anyone tries to break in my house, I’ll shoot them.
One is a double barrel shotgun.
The other a hand gun.
Also have a baseball bat, and a 9-iron near my bed.
I feel perfectly safe without more or higher power weapons.
And I never for a second, not even in a moment of mad paranoia, thought putting limits on the number or kind of additional weapons I could buy makes me more vulnerable to government intrusion in my life. Anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts.
Ok on!y took 350 comments this time for problems to start. 2nd attempt.
Jay, you trust your government, I do not for the most part. I accept the fact you think congress can pass a bill to limit the number and types of weapons you can own and never will a future congress change the legislation to include more weapons and reduce the numbers one can own. Here again I do not.
But why are you avoiding my question about an amendment to repeal and replace the 2nd amendment that would support your positions. Then no future congress could infringe on the rights that you wanted.
In support of my thinking I offer Obamacare as an example of what happens to legislation covering “rights”.There are enough holes in that legislation to put all 77,000 Pages of the income tax IRS rules through. Obama issued EO saying employers have to cover birth control, Trump orders EO to reverse what Obama did. People today get paid big bucks to find loopholes in legislation and I would bet big money that millions would change hands finding ways to circumvent any weapons ban.
I stand by my comment that about amending the constitution and accepting that decision.
I don’t think passing an amendment for the 2nd is feasible.
I do think a law banning multi shot rifles like those banned in Australia is possible. And it should pass Constitutional muster.
If not, be ready for more and more US gun massacres.
Jay, “I don’t think passing an amendment for the 2nd is feasible.”
And why is it not feasible?
Repealing the 2nd amendment is not feasible – because you can not get the support to do so.
Banning multishot weapons would clearly run afoul of the constitution.
If you are going to try to make this ludicrous argument that the constitution does not apply to things that did not exist in 1787, then congress can ban birth control.
But following the same argument – does that mean I can have a private army ? A frigate ?
A submarine ? Torpedoes ?
BTW the fist machine gun – the Puckle gun was invented in 1717.
It just took a century to catch on. It fired 10 mucker balls per minute.
Again more logical stupidity.
If you have what you think you need – great.
But you have no voice in what another thinks they need.
The determining factor in Heller – and later McDonald, was that the authors of the 14th amendment – not the Founders. had made it crystal clear in debates, that the intent of the equal protection and priviledges and immunities clauses was to guarantee a right to firearms to individual negro’s, and that right was explicitly to extent to the states.
The founders were significantly less of a factor than the reconstruction republicans.
This should have been a 9-0 decision.
If the constitution is amended the new amendment must be taken to mean what those people who ratified it in 20xx meant.
I would oppose a repeal or modification of the 2nd amendment – but if the left can pass it, they can have it.
The same should be true of the myriads of other “amendments” to the constitution that were actually accomplished by living constitution interpretation.
The constitution is a living document – we change what it means by amendment.
So The Irish did not make life so miserable for the English that they left ?
So we are still in Vietnam ?
So the USSR is still in Afghanistan ?
How well are we doing in Afghanistan ?
And you are calling others idiots ?
There are myriads of examples modern and older of armed populations removing occupiers or tyranical governments.
Are you saying that tyranical govenrments never arrose in Europe ?
Sorry Jay, but the Nazi’s were born from one of those european democracies.
And there are myriads of other examples of governments turning tyranical throughout the world.
BTW all those european countries are NOT unarmed. The Swiss are heavily armed as an example.
I would take a look towards Europe right now. There is a strong risk of fascism.
Regardless, are you saying that Spain’s catalonia issue is not an example of rising tyranny ?
How well are things going in Venezeula ?
Regardless, must every unarmed population be in tyranny right now to disprove your non-sense ?
Myriads of factors discourage Tyranny. An armed population is one of those.
Hungary and Prague would likely have ended differently had those peoples been armed.
But ultimately even the totalitarianism of the USSR was not able to check even an unarmed population.
Because you can not actually make a country work through force alone.
With respect to Russia – I do not know where you got your Data but gunpolicy.org says you are quite wrong.
Russia is 68 of 178 countries in private gun ownership – which is pretty low.
It is not even 1/10th of that of the US.
Americans own more total “assault weapons” than total Russian guns.
Russia is considered to be highly regulated.
Russian laws are quite complex, and really ban weapons rather than guns,
An iron rod with a handle can be considered an illegal weapon in Russia.
About 1/2 of the few private guns in Russia are registered.
The rest are illegal
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/russia
You represent one of the more restrictive countries in the world as a free fire zone and expect to be taken credibly.
Russian gun possession (legal and illegal) are about twice that of the UK – generally considered a near absolute ban country,
and about half that of France. and 1/4 that of Switzerland.
Anyway, the bottom line is you are misrepresenting the data so badly that trying to analyze your conclusions is pointless.
So we find historic preservation and environmental conservation laws lead to environmental destruction and the destruction of historic properties.
Another regulatory fail.
https://www.perc.org/articles/historic-preservation-laws-lead-deterioration-so-does-involuntary-conservation
How long with it take to get bingo ?
Thanks, JJ, for slipping in some facts is our dispute over “gun control”. The arguments, which put the Old Boys very salient 2nd- OK for it’s time, over today’s concern for personal safety. Back then, they did need militias with arms- black powder muskets (you can legally make the barrel as short as you want)- were a good for rich white farmers to use to protect themselves against invading foreign troops or Indians, and as some opine, in case of slave rebellions.
How nice that we now have a humongous military and police force to take over those potential foreign invaders.
Could it be that gunbergers know of a threat we don’t know. Whoops, I forgo, they MAY not trust the gumint to do a good job. Or are they just kids that don’t want their BB guns taken away (“you could put someone’s eye out”, mama said).
I live in NYC, and somehow we exist and don’t feel particularly threatened, but I can’t speak for everyone out there, that may feel their freedom threatened, so buy a musket and saw it down so you can take it to church or the local Starbucks.
Sleep well kids.
Yes, this was overly sarcastic, but getting through the fatbergers requires some dispersant; who has time to wade through hundreds of comments to get to the RonPs, Priscillas and JJs.
“…. but getting through the fatbergers requires some dispersant; who has time to wade through hundreds of comments to get to the RonPs, Priscillas and JJs.”
I must have something others do not have. I don’t wade though anything. Most e-mails I delete with a cursory review. Others I read completely. Can have 25-50 and can get through in 5-7 minutes or less unless I respond. If I were trying to read this stuff from the comment section, i would not be here.
This is your idea of “facts” ?
The “rich white farmers” of new england, were not so rich, and not concerned about indian attack by the late 18th century.
The western settlers – which were NOT in any way rich white farmers, where those primarily concerned about indians.
The concerning regarding slave rebellions was not that white owners needed guns to put down revolting slaves, but that guns were secured FROM white slaves. White plantation owners were worried about ARMED slave rebellion.
This is actually VERY significant and drive the privledges and immunites clause of the 14th amendent.
The history of the 14th amendment was probably determinative win Heller and MvDonald,
Because the authors of the 14th amendment made it clear that they were giving freed black slaves the right to firearms, and that the ownership of firearms by individual blacks was necescary to secure their freedom.
The 14th amendment – long before Heller was part of the argument that the bill of rights applied to – was incorporated, against the states. Because the 14th amendment says that STATES can not infringe on our civil rights.
You can insult those who are suspicious of government as you wish. Right now that would be 79% of the population including much of the left.
I find it hypocritical that those who do not trust “gubmint” are clearly dim witted – until they are you.
In 1787 it was legal for a private person to own and army or a battleship.
Are you saying that in addition to a musket, I am free to raise a private army ? That I can own my own frigates and cruisers ?
Regardless, you have the ability to mostly leave without fear of your government, because the prevalence of guns makes that kind of tyranny near impossible.
Further, as you say you live in NYC – where guns are tightly controlled and few own them.
You are twice as likely to be killed by a gun than I am. I live in a suburban/rural community were gun ownership is high, and the rates of gun violence are far lower than NYC.
The past decade has been a slow growing backlash at elites, pretty specifically because you treat them like dirt. Your post is laced with sarcasm that makes it clear how poorly you think of those whose views differ from yours.
Guess what ? They know that you look down on them. They know that you are condescending. They also know that you are incredibly badly informed and trapped inside your bubble.
This would be the rough modern equivalent of the pennsylvania rifle.
You are even disparaging of our founders. One of many factors in the colonial victory was the colonists superior weaponry – atleast in the area of firearms.
The Pennsylvania riffle had 3 times the range and far greater accuracy than the british muskets. particularly in New England this allowed colonial irregulars to harrass redcoats – staying out of their range and never directly engaging while slowly picking off the british as they tried to march through new england.
Further history is repleat with instances were armed citizenry deposed tryancial government. Including several instances where the US was removed as an occupying force.
Ireland won freedom from England in 1921, in close to the same way the US did in 1776, by making occupation so costly as to be untenable.
The Afghans successfully took on the British in 1854, the Soviets, and are doing fairly well against the US.
The north vietnamese successfully evicted US forces in the 70’s.
But the most important impact of an armed US citizenry is as a deterent.
Finally, it you actually want to reduce “gun violence” – eliminating suicide and accidents, nearly all the remainder is tied to the drug war – just as gun violence in the US in the 20’s was due to prohibition.
Legalize drugs and you will vastly reduce both the need for a militariazed police and the large number of gun deaths.
But you are more interested in doing stupid ineffectual things that you pretend are “common sense”.
I grasp you live in NYC – and you choose to do so. That you live with very low rates of personal ownership of guns, and that you appear willing to tolerate the violence of the drug war that you can not reign in.
That you “feel” safer than you are.
But you are not free to impose your inarguably worse approach on the rest of us by force.
I would also question why you are fixated on conflict up to violence over issues that we disagree on an unwilling to address the issues where we might share common ground.
On innumerable social issues libertarians share vast common ground with those on the left.
I want government out of “vice”. Drugs, alcohol, prostitution. The record of government on these has been abysmal.
I do not think the issue of racism in this country looms as large as the left makes it,
but it is still and issue. Reducing the encounters between police and minorities over vice issues will significantly diminish the racial conflict with police.
It will return our right to privacy to us – whether we are black or white.
I support nearly open borders. But that has consequences. Are you prepared to discuss how we can make broad immigration possible ? Large scale immigration has worked well in countries without welfare states and with significant economic freedom. It is disasterous for those with deep welfare states and limited economic freedom.
All over europe, including the UK, Sweden, Germany and France, social democracies are being torn apart by the consequences of mass immigration intersecting the welfare state with minimal economic freedom.
I am not afraid of the Alt-Right in the US – there are a tiny and dwindling force.
But they are emergent in Europe. Europe has a long term risk of a strong fascist shift.
If we do not figure out how to address immigration in the US we will head the same way.
So are you prepared to have rational dialogue on the issue ? Are you prepared to try to figure out what changes must be made to absorb large influxes of immigrants with minimal disruption ?
I will give you one really big clue – you need to substantially boost economic growth,
because if you can not, you produce a dependent class of immigrants, and a displaced class of natives ripe for fascist appeals.
Are you prepared to discuss, getting the US out of the role of policeman to the world ?
That has not worked when democrats have done it. It has not worked when republicans did it.
There are myriads of areas I am prepared to work with you.
But I am not going to buy hypocritical ends justify the means approaches that merely favor your particular viewpoints.
I think the TX building codes used to shut down abortion clinics are repugnant.
Because restrictive building codes are a bad idea. I do not beleive that government can regulate the crap out of everything EXCEPT the sacred cows of the left.
A few days ago a Gay Seattle Coffee House owner refused service to prolife customers
In TX a Karoke bar chased Milo Yanopolis and some Neo-Nazi’s out because “You people are not welcome here”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/6/christian-activists-booted-from-seattle-coffee-sho/
So make up your mind. do public accomidation laws apply universally?
Must gays serve homophobes ? Must Jews serve Nazi’s ? …
The left is demanding “safe spaces” – all that means is the ability to exclude those whose views you do not like from space you perceive as yours.
I have no problem with those on the left excluding people whose views offend them from their businesses. But only if everyone is free to do the same.
I am not interested in hypocrisy.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLj2AJfVYAAH5aY.jpg:large
The NRA has come out in favor of Bump Stock regulation.
Myriads of other gun owners groups still oppose.
You are flogging the wrong horse.
This is also pretty telling regarding what you are up against.
I would further note that I rejects or inverts another leftist claim.
That those on the right are stupid and anti-science.
There are myriads of studies on guns.
There is none that supports any claim the left makes.
It is the left that is anti-science, pushing a religious view as a substiture for facts and reality.
Today’s best laff.
Somehow this is related
Gun owners are the most law abiding in the country – even exceeding the police.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler#
Quite often our efforts to help people leave them worse off.
New Orleans suffered from this problem too.
https://ppe.mercatus.org/publication/doing-bad-doing-good?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=research&utm_campaign=PPETweets
Catalonia
End the drug war. End the violence
https://beinglibertarian.com/ending-gun-violence-begins-ending-drug-war-lowdown-liberty/
Another lie of distortion from Deceptive Dave.
Taking SOME guns away isn’t taking ALL YOUR guns away.
And here’s another contradiction to your Deceptive Dingbat assertions, the one where you stated the Las Vegas shooter ‘didn’t know anything’ about guns:
“A note found in the hotel room of the man who shot into a crowd from his perch in a Las Vegas high-rise included hand-written calculations about where he needed to aim to maximize his accuracy and kill as many people as possible.In an interview airing Sunday on “60 Minutes,” three police officers who stormed Stephen Paddock’s hotel room in the Mandalay Bay hotel tell correspondent Bill Whitaker new details about the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. The officers were the first to see Paddock’s body and the arsenal of weapons and ammunition he had stockpiled.Officer David Newton from the Las Vegas Police Department’s K-9 unit said he noticed a note on the shooter’s nightstand once officers breached the room. He said the note was located near one of the windows that Paddock had smashed with a hammer to fire onto the crowd below with high-powered semi-automatic rifles outfitted to increase their rate of fire.”I could see on it he had written the distance, the elevation he was on, the drop of what his bullet was gonna be for the crowd,” Newton said. “So he had that written down and figured out so he would know where to shoot to hit his targets from there.””
No deception at all. I have argued that I do not think the government can prohibit the private ownership of nuclear weapons – I also do not think such a prohibition is necescary.
I doubt Bill Gates is going to try to develop a private nuclear weapon.
Regardless, I am open about ZERO tolerance for restrictions.
Taking SOME of your speach away isn’t taking ALL YOUR speach away.
Taking SOME of your money away isn’t taking ALL YOUR money away.
Taking SOME of your home away isn’t taking ALL YOUR home away.
Taking SOME of your penis away isn’t taking ALL YOUR penis away.
Words have meaning. A right means either absolutely no restrictions at all, or
only restictions that can be justified using extremely high standards.
Among those they must demonstrably work,
and they must be the least intrusive means of accomplishing the purported goal.
Unless he was actually trying to assassinate a specific person, the note is meaningless.
The entire point of targetting a crowd of 20,000 from a distance of about 300M
is to eliminate the need for accuracy.
The bump stock alone destroyed so much of his accuracy that he was completely unable to aim in all but the most course sense.
Paddock was essentially trying to hit the broad side of a bark with a pistol from 20′.
He was not trying to put a bullet through the keyhole.
Mostly the note means He watched too many episodes of “shooter” and was having delusions of being Bobby Lee Swagger.
BTW I would strongly recommend reading alot of Stephen Hunter Books if you want to talk intelligently about guns – particularly guns and accuracy.
Paddock was shooting from about 300M. That is about the limits of the Secret Service protection ring arround the president.
Why 300M ? Because there are very very few people who can hit what they are aiming for at that distance. And the SS keeps track of them all.
There are maybe a handful of people in the entire world who using incredibly expensive and finely tuned weapons can hit a person from 1700 yards.
There are probably a couple of thousand that can do it from 300m,
Paddock was not one of those. His “notes” are hubris.
They are like me trying to make a calculation of were to detect a higgs bosun using the large hadron collider. The notes might look impressive. They might even demonstrate alot of research.
They do not demonstrate the ability to Perform the task.
Olympic shooting events top out at 50m distances. Accurate shooting at distances from 1200-300m are very difficult require incredible practice.
As I understand Paddock was shooting standing up with weapons on tripods.
This is not aimed shooting.
Trying to be accurate at 300m would mean lying prone with the rifle and your body very well supported with no vibration at all. Even your breathing must be very very careful.
slight fluctuations in the pull of the trigger will change the trajectory of the bullet.
Absolutiely none of that matter in Paddock’s shooting.
dd12, Jay and Roby, my question remains the same:
If you want the federal government to regulate and limit the number of legal guns that can be purchased by an American citizen, how do you propose that this happen, without repealing the 2nd Amendment, not to mention the 4th and the 10th?
Some states (NY) do that. Of course it only works partially, but it might save a few lives.
dduck12,Roby,Jay
To fix the problem with “mass” killings in America, we need to ban all weapons, not just rapid fire weapons.
What do most all of these since 1984 have in common?
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/
One gunman entering an establishment or shooting from outside the building and killing multiple people with one or two guns. Some had large ammo magazines that hold a lot of bullets and are quickly exchanged with a little practice.
There are a couple that say the killer had 14 guns or some number, but they were not used in the crime. Even Las Vegas where multiple guns were found, not all were used.
And the only way to ban weapons in the United States is a full repeal of the 2nd amendment. And included in the amendment should be a requirement that anyone found with a weapon after the gun ban is put into place gets a mandatory federal 10 year prison sentence without possibility of parole. Anyone found selling weapons would be a federal 15 year mandatory sentence without parole. If there is not sufficient prison time and it only ends up with a slap on the wrist, the ban will do no good and the red necks from rural America will hide their guns, buy more off the streets or find a “reverse” fast and furious if they have a chance and get them that way. Or the politicians in red neck America would find loopholes in the mandatory sentence if it were not a federal crime, so taking away states rights in this issue would be required.
Sorry I can not buy into your utopia that a law will eliminate anyone doing this in the future unless the right to own a gun is removed and anyone owning a gun after that is removed from society.
A total ban on guns will likely radically reduce the rate of gun crime.
It will have no impact on the homicide rate or the crime rate.
That is what is demonstrated by the results from Australia.
“That is what is demonstrated by the results from Australia.”
That was disputed by MORE RECENT studies(referenced above in another comment response to you).
It might save lives is a constant refrain for the most egregiously restrictive legislation.
But that never actually happens.
AGAIN name a single law ever that has positively shifted a meaningful trend line.
PPACA shifted the trend line of the number insured. It had no impact on actual healthcare outcomes.
I don’t understand your reasoning about needing to repeal ANY Amendments to outlaw SOME classes of weapons. The law to outlaw machine guns is Constitutional; why would laws enacted to outlaw certain other kinds of multiple shot weapons be any problem?
We already have those laws, Jay. That’s the point.
The Supreme Court has determined that it is not necessary to own a machine gun, in order to protect oneself and one’s property and family. Machine guns are illegal and have been for a long time. You can’t legally own or make a bomb ~ we have laws against that too. Didn’t stop Timothy McVeigh or the Tsarnaev brothers.
Almost every modern handgun and rifle is semiautomatic to some degree. The Obama administration’s ATF legalized the now infamous bump stock modification , in order to make shooting easier for the disabled, not to turn semi-automatics into machine guns, although that has been an unintended consequence. So, fine, the Trump administration can roll back the Obama regulation on bump stocks.
Do you seriously think that would stop someone like Stephen Paddock?
Over the last 10 years, gun ownership has risen in this country, while rates of gun homicide have gone down. How do you square that circle?
Laws do not stop criminals. If they did, we wouldn’t have criminals.
Every murder ever committed has been against the law.
The purpose of laws is not to prevent ordinary people from committing murder.
Almost all of us will not commit murder regardless of the law.
It is not to prevent actual murderer’s from committing murder. Murder was illegal – they did it anyway. Criminals are by definition the people who will not obey the law.
We pass laws ONLY to impact that very small portion of people who would do something that everyone knows is wrong, but only if they would not get caught and punished.
That is the purpose and audience of every law ever written.
There is no further law that can actually reduce mass murders. Because mass murders are already illegal and those committing them already know that and do it anyway.
If you sought to pass laws banning speach about airplanes, or to require that all speach must be in catalonian, or that you could only speak if standing on one foot,
you would need to repeal the first amendment.
If you sought to ban islam, or compel jews to eat pig, or prohibit the construction of buddhist temples – you would have to repeal the first amendment.
If you wish to make similar restrictions on the right to “bear arms” you would have to repeal the second amendment.
A right means “make no law restricting” it does not mean make laws that I want.
The law outlawing machine guns is arguably unconstitutional.
But you are not likely to see it challenged just as the law against incitement to violence is arguably unconstitutional.
Proponents of gun laws, and proponents of free speach are not likely to challenge laws that are popular and that have incredibly strong viscal responses – because those are what gets us very bad law.
The conjunction of sex and children has resulted in stupid laws that send 14 year olds to jail for decades for having consensual sex with 12 year olds and then requires them to register for life, to avoid getting within 100 yards of any children.
Do you think a 36 year old mother should have to register for life, and not be able to go to birthday parties or the park or pick up her kids at school – because she had sex with a 12 year old when she was 14 ?
Well that is the state of the law.
We rarely challenge unconstitutional laws when they have strong visceral responses because the results are uniformly bad,
The key aspect of How is that it is supposed to be very difficult to infringe on liberty.
The most critical aspect of Heller – was that the 2nd amendment was subject to strict scrutiny.
The problem I have is that if it is not subject to strict scrutiny – then it is not really a right.
All rights liberties freedoms should be subject to strict scrutiny – even those not mentioned in the bill of rights.
The anti-federalists got it right. The inclusion of the bull of rights weakened the constitution.
It altered two things.
It destroyed the understanding that the constitution defined the limits of the federal govenrment – that all powers not specifically given government were prohibited to government.
It left the impression that the only rights we have are those enumerated in the bill of rights.
Regardless, the difficulty amending the constitution is just a reflection that increasing the power of government or decreasing our liberty are supposed to be very difficult.
One of the biggest flaws in the constitution is that it is not clear that law making is asymmetrical.
That it does and should require supermajorities to create law, but the destruction of existing law should occur whenever those supermajorities do not continue to persist.
i.e. While it took 60 votes to enact PPACA, PPACA should not require 60 votes to repeal.
It should only require 41 – the absence of continued 60 vote support.
Speaking only for myself, I just wish to minimize, since at this time eliminating is probably impossible, these shootings and deaths. This is not utopia, but common senseopia fewer guns mean fewer deaths and slower firing rates also mean fewer deaths.
I don’t care about loop holes, and non-compliance being the reasons to NOT try and minimize gun violence, those are whistling past the graveyard, rationalization and cop outs and keeping your toys from being taken from you by the “gumint”.
Your views above pretty much reflect my own.
I want to restrict as much as feasible the access to military style guns for individual ownership. I see a lot of possible upsides to that, and ZERO downsides.
“I want to restrict as much as feasible the access to birth control for individual ownership. I see a lot of possible upsides to that, and ZERO downsides.”
What does it take for you to grasp that you are doing nothing but trying to impose your personal preferences on others by force.
“I want to enslave progressives. I see a lot of possible upsides to that, and ZERO downsides.”
Your “argument” if it can be called that is
I want to infringe on someone else’s freedom. Because the infringement I seek does not affect me in a way I care about, it only has benefits and no actual harms
Worse still, we are talking about a specific infringement that demonstrably has no benefits.
But you just keep saying it does, as if merely saying so is sufficient.
Intuitively, I also think that fewer guns mean fewer deaths. But the statistics don’t back up my intuition. So much so that gun ban advocates have had to include suicide in the data on gun deaths.
Maybe that conversation about gun violence that everyone says we should be having, should be an actual conversation, using actual facts? Maybe the sky high rate of gun deaths in D.C. and Chicago has more to do with gang violence, the numbers of fatherless boys, addiction, and an increase in mental illness?
“Maybe the sky high rate of gun deaths in D.C. and Chicago has more to do with gang violence, the numbers of fatherless boys, addiction, and an increase in mental illness?”
If guns were 10 times more difficult to acquire, are you suggesting those gun deaths wouldn’t diminish drastically?
I grew up in the warring slums of NYC’s Washington Heights, with frequent gang violence between Italians, Irish, Puerto Rican’s. The were occasional deaths, from stabbing, rocks in slings, steel chains, belts with razor sharp clasps, a zip gun death or two – but no widespread shootings!
Modern guns are WAY MORE lethal than other easily acquired weapons. Period!
And this still holds true: “Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.”
As does this: “For every one person killed with guns, two more are injured… The CDC’s National Electronic Injury Surveillance System estimates the number of annual non-fatal firearm injuries based on reports from a sample of hospital emergency departments: over the last five years, there were more than 200 non-fatal firearm injuries each day.”
The non-fatal statistics may explain the statistical drop in homocides you referred to above: the gun shot fatality rate has dropped from improved emergency response and medical advancements; more gun shot victims survive now (averaging about 80,000 survivals a year).
https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/
Jay, if you and those who believe tighter gun laws will make people think twice before trying to buy something illegal, then let the states make them illegal if they so choose and in those states where they do not want those restrictions, then they can choose not to make them illegal. States rights, power retained in states unless given to the federal government by the people of the states.(US Constitution)
And since you believe people will follow the laws enacted by government, this should fix any problems in the future for gun control nuts.
No – certain classes of guns have to be banned NATIONALLY.
Otherwise, as in Illinois/Chicago where gun laws are strict, those who defy the laws simply buy them in an adjoining state with lax or no restrictions.
Jay, then you have just created another war on drugs and given the cartels a huge revenue source, because if someone is going to break the law in Chicago and buy a gun in Texas, they will do the same by getting it from the black market.
The Vegas shooter had plenty of resources to find black market weapons. He only needed a few to do what he did, not all twenty plus he had in the room.
The illegal gun trade nowhere as widespread or lucrative as narcotics. Costs and logistics prevent it. Yes, organized crime will still be able to afford to buy guns that are banned, but not ghetto kids or petty crooks
That would be because drugs are legal.
More people own guns than do illegal drugs.
Regardless, does it matter ?
Lets say that a total ban on guns only required a violent confrontation to get guns turned in 1% of the time – that would still be 3M violent confrontations.
Lets say 0.01% of the time – that would be 30K violent confrontations.
Lets say only 1% of legal gun owners chose in the future to be illegal gun owners,
That would still be potentially 3M additional people in jail.
Guns are still a 43B business in the US (NBC 2015).
1% of that would be 400M I think there would be plenty of illegal guns.
I think that you could pretty much count on the fact that there would be near zero change in illegal use of guns. that is pretty much what Austraila saw.
Crimes like robbery and rape went up.
in 1920 there was little or no illegal alcohol trade.
How did prohibition work ?
No one could afford alcohol during prohibition either.
Nor drugs during the war on drugs.
You do understand that most of those petty crooks … are already buying ilegal weapons.
You know that a bag of heroin costs less than a pack of cigarettes ?
Jay .”Yes, organized crime will still be able to afford to buy guns that are banned, but not ghetto kids or petty crooks”
I thought we were debating banning assault weapons, not guns used on the street. Guns like the ones Paddock purchased, not handguns that kill people in Chicago. So now your true colors have come out just like all the other liberals that want to ban guns completely. propose one thing with the desired outcome completely different.
I knew if I kept asking enough questions I would get the answer to the real Jay’s agenda.
Thank you for fessing up. So now I am even more rigid in my support of 2nd amendment rights and would look at any change being much more devious than before.
And liberals wonder why conservatives don’t trust them. You gave a perfect example.
No – certain classes of guns have to be banned Globally.
Otherwise, as in Illinois/Chicago where gun laws are strict, those who defy the laws simply buy them in an adjoining country with lax or no restrictions.
No – certain classes of guns have to be banned throught the universe.
Otherwise, as in Illinois/Chicago where gun laws are strict, those who defy the laws simply buy them in an adjoining planet with lax or no restrictions.
You falsely claim deception on the part of others and then overtly engage in it.
It is highly likely that agressive gun control will result in a reduction of gun deaths.
And though less than expected the data from Australia actually shows that.
But there has never been a demonstrated example of gun control reducing homicides.
All effective gun control would do in DC would do is change how people are killed.
Alot of effort for no good.
Even the suicide claims which even advocates of gun rights have generally accepted are proving to be elusive.
I am not particluarly impressed by the ability of gun control laws to change how people are killed.
If your objective is to reduce “gun deaths” – go away. Not interested.
Produce evidence you have reduced homicides below trend.
Dunce.
Scrawny libertarian Stock:
https://www.google.com/search?q=scrawny+cows&safe=off&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS692US692&hl=en-US&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhgMOm9-TWAhXIh1QKHQCCAVEQ_AUIESgB&biw=1024&bih=653#imgrc=9Ntx4k2Ls2J60M:
Aspirations that do not work are by definition utopian.
There is no difference between reduce and eliminate if neither are possible.
Or will be accomplished by your proposed method.
Rates of homicide have been declining for milenia.
Clearly something works to reduce.
But the evidence does nto support any claim that law has anything to do with the reduction.
Further you want to be very careful with unsupported aspirations to reduction.
These are the same claims that support stop and frisk, manditory minimums and long sentences. Those all BTW actually work. But statististically the effect is very small.
We have extremely long trends in reducing violence. Almost none of those reductions are attributable to anything government has done.
“There is no difference between reduce and eliminate if neither are possible.”
Once again a useless sentence.
You reduce smoking and second hand smoke and some continue smoking, but the non- or stop- smokers enjoy a healthier life; that’s the “difference”. Well, kiss my sweet patootie, I get to benefit from that taken away freedom.
Aw, but we have taken away their “rights” under the Construction, I’m sure you will contend in a few hundreds of words.
Logic STILL eludes you.
AGAIN There is no difference between reduce and eliminate if neither are possible.
Yes, there is a difference if one is possible. But it is not,
You do not just get to assume the impossible.
Gun control is a cost with no benefit. Or more accurately a cost with net negative benefits.
If you actually care whether you are killed with a knife or a gun or burns in an arson – then maybe there is merit to gun control – though at substantial cost given that dead is still dead. If you do not care much how you died then you have traded freedom for nothing.
I only argue the constitution – when the issue is the constitution.
You may not take another persons rights by force – constitution or not, but for very limited instances. Theft is theft, slavery is slavery. Immoral is immoral
Blah blah blah.
“I don’t care about loop holes, and non-compliance being the reasons to NOT try and minimize gun violence, those are whistling past the graveyard, rationalization and cop outs and keeping your toys from being taken from you by the “gumint”.”
Actually you are completely totally ass backwards on this.
What those “loopholes” and noncompliance mean is that your laws will greatly restrict liberty, but will not make a dent in what you want accomplished.
Mass shootings are incredibly rare. Even fun homocides are rare compared to gun ownership.
Banning bump stocks as an example, will absolutely greatly reduce the access of ordinary people (maybe), but it will have zero impact on mass killers.
Paddock managed to acquire atleast one actual automatic weapon.
Distributed defense has provided open source information that allows you to make your own AR-15 – no registration, no background check, no serial number.
You can make it however you want.
It takes about 4 min or work to modify and AR-15 to fully automatic.
You do not need a “bump stock”.
Loopholes and non-compliance mean that the law will only effect those you need NOT worry about.
Pretty much by definition you can not stop a criminal by making laws.
A criminal is someone who does not follow the law.
If you are prepared to kill 50 people regardless of the punishment, is an additional 10 year sentence for using a bump stock going to make the price too high ?
Regardless passing laws that you are not prepared to ensure full compliance with – it itself hypocritical and destructive of the rule of law.
When government sometimes turns a blind eye to some violations – that is the rule of man not law. That is lawlessness.
You are actually acting to bring about anarchy. An infinite number of laws that no one obeys is actually anarchy. A large number of laws arbitrarily enforces is totalitarian.
Guns Don’t Kill People – says Dave
Watch 60Minutes tonight Dave. They will be showing footage of the Vegas shooter, pointing his arm out the broken window, followed by a steady stream of bullets exiting HIS forefinger!
Oh wait, I guess BULLETS don’t kill people either. There ya go, right again.
Why do you figure that there are hundreds of millions of guns out there that haven’t spontaneously risen up and killed people?
And do you also believe that cars run people over, and matches start forest fires? Or that knives stab people? I recall a murder case in which a man stabbed his wife to death with a screw driver. Do screw drivers kill people?
Gun banners play word games, but never come up with factual arguments. Poor little Jimmy Kimmel announced that, because he blamed Trump voters for the Las Vegas shootings, he has had to hire extra armed security. And, he apparently doesn’t see the irony in that…
Irony meter going completely off scale.
This is just silly nonsense from you, Priscilla. Guns and screwdriver are not self activating (unless you’re living in a Horror Movie script). But to posit that someone intent on mayhem with a knife is just as dangerous as someone with a gun, is sappy.
Come on Jay,
The only silly nonsense is yours.
We got it – you want to be able to make the world safer.
We all do. But gun control will not do that.
Life expectancy for cave men was 22, the most likely cause of death – violence.
Not a gun in sight.
The rates of violent death were higher prior to the invention of the gun than after.
Human violence has been steadily declining since men left caves.
Absolutely as we have become more affluent we have gained ever more technological power, and far greater ability to kill people in large numbers.
While by far the largest cause of death by violence in the 20th century was government, still the overall rates of human violence were lower than ever before.
Get the theme – the greater our ability to kill each other in large numbers, the less we do so. Cause and effect ? Probably not. But the inverse is clearly false. More ability to kill people does not mean more killing, no matter how much you would like that to be true so that you can claim some control over a world that is mostly still outside human control.
Well atleast you seem to get that humans kill people, not tools.
Yes, tools amplify our ability to do so.
More possibility, is NOT the same as more killing.
We know that, and you should.
if the left leaning statisticians from 538 can get it, that like it or not gun control does not effect violence. If Sen. Feinstein can grasp that no proposed gun control law ever would have altered Las Vegas, then why can’t you ?
More importantly because your problem in gun control is the same problem you have everywhere. Why can’t you grasp that over and over the evidence shows that the impact of more regulation is negative and does nothing to actually improve the thing it is supposed to.
Zzzzzz.
Guns Don’t Kill People – says Dave
No says reality.
I have never seen a bullet aim and fire itself, nor a gun.
Regardless – we distinguish those things we can dictate by law, from those we can not with HUMANS.
We can not ban huricanes, or cancer, or earthquakes.
If guns were actually capable of killing people without human direction – we could not make laws about them.
Law binds humans, not nature, not things.
Violence done by humans is a crime subject to law.
Violence done by nature or things is not.
If guns actually kill people – then it is outside the ability of govenrment to regulate them.
Regardless, gun laws – like all regulation is just a stupid redundant effort to make something illegal multiple times.
Killing people is illegal – with a rifle, with an automatic weapon, with a knife, with a bed room slipper.
You are not really looking to ban bump stocks. Who really cares about bum stocks.
What you are looking to do is prevent mass killings.
You can’t. It is completely out of the ability of humans to do.
To the extent government has any preventive power at all, it is in the certainty of punishment for initiating violence.
There is no law in existance that will stop a mass murderer who is willing to die.
Because he already knows the outcome and is not disuaded.
I have never smoked marijuana in my life. I would do so atleast once if it was legal.
I do not because I am not willing to take even the small risk I will be arrested, jailed overnight and possibly convicted and punished.
That is the only thing stopping me.
IF I discovered I was going to die of cancer tomorow – NOTHING would stop me.
I do not want to kill 50 people – or anyone. Most people do not. Most gun owners do not.
We do not need laws preventing us from killing people.
Laws ALWAYS work ONLY by preventing those few people who actually want to do the illegal thing, and only choose not to because of fear of punishement.
If you are passing a law – and you expect it to change the behavior of a large number of people, you are going to fail.
Look at the gun death rates in some states that have tougher gun laws: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
Cavemen? LMAO, why not chimps, since they raid and kill their neighbors.
Oh wait, there is a group of primates that don’t do that and they just happen to have strict leaders- but no Constitution.
Yes, the bonobos, have a matriarchal society.
This is an excellent piece
It is impossible to discuss rights without addressing where rights come from.
The left does not consider this, or when it does pretends that they come from the majority or from government (close to the same thing)
Either choice instantly means that the Nazi’s Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin are are acceptable.
Either means that past slavery, discrimination etc were justified.
If you wish to claim that these things were clearly wrong – you must be able to say WHY they are wrong. Reliance on the will of the majority or on government is insufficient as the past will of the majority was for slavery,
Rights are by definition limits to the power of government or the majority.
Once you accept that rights are NOT from government or the will of the majority,
You are stuck with the fact that they are not fungible,
That you can not create or destroy rights willy nilly as you please.
Whether our rights come from free will, god, nature, evolution, they are for the most part discovered not constructed.
They are like gravity – they have always been there – even when we did not understand them or respect them. Gravity exists – even if you beleive you can float accross the grand canyon. Gravity exists even if you are a cave man who has not conceived much less beleives in it.
Rights are the same.
The 2nd amendment is really an abbreviated form of the right to self defense.
Do you have a right to a gun ? That is not the correct question.
Do you have the right to defend yourself against an agressor – whether they are a criminal, a gang or a tyranical government ? The answer is yes.
The right to firearms is merely the right to whatever tools are necescary to be able to defend yourself against any threats.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452432/second-amendment-timeless-natural-right-protected
Ultimately I am not fixated on rights. Because that inverts the argument.
The base is not everything is prohibited except that which is allowed.
It is everything is allowed – except that which is prohibited.
We are prohibited from infringing on the equal liberty of others.
You may not kill people because that reduces (eliminates) their liberty.
The only infringements of liberty you are permitted is those that result in net greater liberty.
That is why the language in the declaration of independence – Governments are instituted to secure our liberty.
The purpose of government is to SOLELY protect freedom, not to create it, and not to reduce it.
And deaths might be even lower if the “Iron Pipeline” could be eliminated or slowed down:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Pipeline
BTW, if gravity would be fairer, it would rain “stuff”on gun death deniers.
“Well regulated militia”, my sweet rear end.
Priscilla, if all we had were screw drivers, which by the way some career criminals do carry to avoid laws against knife laws, the an excess number in a volatile situation, like a gang conflict could lead to more stabbings. Common sense?
I am going to go back to Ricks original post concerning the division in the country and address actions of fans at college and professional teams with a Native American name, ie Florida State Seminoles, Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, etc. We have said the same thing almost 10 times concerning guns and gun control and no one has changed their mind.
Tomahawks were general purpose tools used by Native Americans that were often employed as a hand-to-hand or a thrown weapon.
Why the hell is it OK for white Americans sitting in a stadium to do the native American chant and swing their arms in a manner that signifies the use of a weapon on another individual. Why do it if it does not apply to their team chopping up the opposing team? And with blacks having a cow over how they are being treated, they are right there with their white friends doing the same.
People are having a hemorrhage over the Washington Red Skins team name, but not a word about this disparaging action. Another double standard?
You pass stupid laws that create black markets and then blame the people who were NOT stupid for the black markets you create ?
Get a clue. When you ban, reduce the access, create scarity or distort the price of anything – you get black markets – always and everywhere.
In the USSR between 1/3 and 2/3 of all exchange was in black markets.
We have the same issues with drug and prostitution laws.
We see exactly the same thing with cigarettes.
Sorry dduck12 – you do not get to blame others for the problems you create.
If you regulate the crap out of something in your city or state YOU are responsible for the fact that black markets arrise. Those states not stupid enough to do as your city or state did owe you no obligation to protect you from your own stupidity.
You have completely inverted logic.
This is precisely the outcome we want.
One one state passes bad laws and another does not – we want the benefit of not having acted stupidly to be with the wise state and the cost with the unwise one.
This is why elminating the deductibility of state and local taxes is a good aspect of the tax reform being proposed.
Making state and local taxes deductible from federal taxes relieves high tax states from the public backlash against high taxes.
Ron, there is a saying “if s/he didn’t have double-standards, s/he’s have no standards at all.”
The hypocrisy of many ~ on the left and the right ~ has become glaringly obvious. To use an example on the right, all we need to do is to look at the fate of the Obamacare repeal, which was promised for 7 years, and was passed in the Congress, so long as Obama was there to veto it, but went down in flames after Trump promised to sign it. And, if you believe the polling on O-Care, as soon as the House passed a repeal/replace bill, all of a sudden, more and more people wanted to keep it. It may be awful, but for many it’s “free,” and taking back free stuff is hard to do, even if it’s cheap, awful free stuff.
It’s similar with SS and Medicare reform ~ everyone knows (or should know) that entitlements are bankrupting us. But the second that a politician mentions reform, his chances of re-election plummet.
What we do not understand is that the price the least well off among us pay for “free”.
The bottom 20% of us, have .25 people per household employed full time. The top 20% have 2.5 full time employed per household.
We would add trillions to our economy if those at the bottom had even crappy low paying jobs at the same rate as those at the top. And better still those at the bottom would be better off.
Our laws works to keep poor people unemployed.
Hardly a politician avoids the scandal of having an improperly employed houseworker.
Why ? It is not like most of these people can not afford to pay employment taxes.
It is because we make the amount of work necessary to employ one of two people prohibitive.
We deprive people of the dignity and opportunity that comes from supporting themselves.
And we do so in ways that destroy the instutions that make us more productive.
This site needs to be shared with many who are at each others throat in other sites to see what type of discussions people can have on subjects like gun control without going all personal on the issues. What is very clear here is what is happening in congress today.
While the loony left and the radical right are calling each other names, this site made up of mostly moderate left and moderate right positioning individuals is what congress is tackling today with gun control.
There are those that favor some forms of limitations on the number of guns and the type of guns one can own. They are the ones that believe criminals will be reluctant to exceed those limits or find ways to obtain restricted firearms. Then there are those that believe no matter what laws are on the books, the criminals will find a way to obtain those firearms. That is what is happening in congress and what is happening across America today. You do not need to be nuts to believe in either position.
But in this day and age of the internet and drones, one does not need a gun to perform mass murder and the alternative is much safer for the individual committing murder. They can commit the crime, few will realize what happened and the criminal is long gone from where ever they started from. No suicide needed in this case.
Buy castor bean seeds . Many places on the internet to purchase.. Soak the beans in water, remove the skins and cook them. mash them and then mix with a solvent like alcohol and in short order you have ricin. And I won’t go into any more detail as to how to disburse this from a drone over thousands of people at a concert, but just 1.78mg’s of ricin (less than a pinch worth of salt) breathed in by individuals will kill just as many if not more people than what happened in Vegas. Its all on the internet.
So this idiot does not support legislative action for multiple reasons. It will not stop one person from doing harm if that is in their heart. They will find the will and the way. I just learned how to do it with ricin in just a few minutes. The problem is people who follow the law find it uncomprehendable how others would be so sick as to find ways to commit these crimes and believe the only way to do it is with a gun. That may have been true a few years back when information was not readily available, but today you can find anything on the internet. Who ever thought a pressure cooker could be used for a bomb until it happened in Boston?
The default when we can not agree should be NOT to use force to infringe on peoples rights.
The left (and sometimes the right) is unwilling to accept that.
Humans are individuals. we are each unique. We are rarely going to agree.
So long as we are not using force – that is OK.
You and I need not agree on my carpet, choice of car, or breakfast cereal.
But when we are going to empower men with guns to impose the choices we make on others by force, when we can not agree, we must do nothing.
Another new question
https://amp.businessinsider.com/sonia-sotomayor-partisan-gerrymandering-supremecourt-oral-arguments-2017-10
Anyone have any ideas what the blacks that have achieved representation in congress are going to do when the gerrymandered districts to insure minority representation. In North Carolina, ” NC’s 12th congressional district is a congressional district located in the city of Charlotte and surrounding areas in Mecklenburg County. Prior to the 2016 elections, it was a gerrymandered district located in central North Carolina that comprised portions of Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, Lexington, Salisbury, Concord, and High Point.
It was one of two minority-majority Congressional districts created in the state in the 1990s”.
This was to follow the voting rights law that prohibited diluting minority votes and preventing a minority from getting elected.
Once these gerrymandered black voters are included with gerrymandered white voters, the number of black representatives is going to drop. Anyone thin the ACLU will have a cow about that?
I think that courts stepping into redistricting is dangerous, stupid and corrupting.
No good can come of it.
I think purportedly non-partisan commissions are about the stupidest idea in existance.
Anyone who thinks they will remain non-partisan very long is an idiot – and that is presuming they are ever non-partisan.
One of the fundimental problems with this issue – is the stupid presumption that there is a “right” way to do this.
The voter efficiency argument being made, in the unlikely event the court buys it is going to result in far worse than anything we have now.
The supposed “one person, one vote” “doctrine” that Ginsberg raised in oral arguments, requires districts to have roughly equal population – that is all.
Neither the constitution nor the supreme court has ever ruled that voters are entitled to have their votes count perfectly equally.
That is actually impossible.
The actual proposition reflected in the constitution is that related groups of people are entitled to representation that reflects them. i.e. that Rural voters are entitled to elect representative that reflect the interests of rural voters.
This is the core of the constitutional scheme for electing house and senate.
Our founder explicitly rejected “one person, one vote”.
The change the left is looking for would AGAIN require constitutional amendment.
Finally, the net impact will depend on exactly how a “voter efficiency” scheme is enacted.
But if the court maintains the prior requirments such as compact districts – the net result will be ZIPO.
There are several districts throughout the country that just plane look offensive – most of these are held by democrats.
Regardless, the traditional form of gerrymandering works to aide incumbents at the expense of their party. It is popular because it usually benefits incumbents of BOTH parties. Democrat and republican incumbents share the desire to have easy elections in districts where the majority of the voters are from their party.
The claim that one party (or the other) is increasing their control of legislatures or congress by “gerrymandering” presumes that incumbents are willing to significantly increase their risk of re-election – for the good of the party. It also presumes that parties are willing to risk being obliterated in the legislature or congress by a few point change in voting.
Currently 43% of voters identify as democrats, 39% as republicans.
If you accepted this voter efficiency argument on a nationwide scale and allocate all districts so they were 43/39 then the house of representatives would likely be entirely democratic. BUT if there was a 5 point swing in voter preference the house would be entirely republicans.
This is exactly the kind of political instability you do NOT want.
You do nto want this in the house of representatives, you do not want it in state legislatures.
If we divided the house and the senate up the same way the electoral college went
There would be 57 republican senators, and 43 democrats,
There would be 246 republican representatives, and 187 democrats.
Interestingly the house currently has 246 republicans and 187 democrats.
Dave agree mostly about independent commissions. I also think “snake districts” or “octopus districts” to insure minority representation is ridiculous. And that gerrymandering became political partisanship gerrymandering.Technology exist today that would allow for allocating population based on a minimal number of requirements that would end up with districts that are more like 5 year old childrens gig saw puzzles instead of ink spot splatters.
The problem I have is the fact the vote is perceived to be 4-4 beforevwrguements ever begin and everything is directed to one justice.
Ron;
I do not buy the “technology” argument – most ever.
What is being done today was possible 100 years ago.
All that technology does is makes it STILL possible.
Fundimentally there are only two mutually exclusive things one can accomplish by manipulating redistricting.
1). Create “safe” districts for incumbents. Mostly that is bipartisan. It is very hard to create a “safe” republican district without also creating a proportionate number of “safe” democratic districts.
While there are negatives to this – mostly it is not a bad thing. There are very serious dangers to a huge single election swings.
2). increase the number of districts your party controls.
But this comes at a cost – it eliminates the safe districts and it significantly increases the odds that a small voter change will flip the entire legislature.
It is way past time for racial gerrymanding to end.
But that is mostly a side issue. It is just a special form of #1.
My fundimental point – which is much like my russia point, is “so what ?”
If republicans or democrats choose to manipulate their districts such that there are no safe seats but that they get a disproportionate majority of the legislature – let them.
If they do so and can not deliver better government, a better economy etc. then the next election cycle a small swing in voters will throw them all out of office and give the other party total dominance
The problem with our outrage over gerrymandering is “there is no free lunch”.
As I noted the current makeup of the senate has democrats with 6 more seats than the electoral collage results would predict, and the makeup of the house is EXACTLY consistent with the electoral college results.
The bigger red/blue problem in the country is more the consequence of “the great sorting”
The former republican north/democratic south division has finally cleared and we have a republican rural, democratic urban division with mostly republican suburban.
We have a few more southern senate seats to flip to red and the sort will complete.
The only thing new that Trump did was note that any republican was going to dominate in the south no matter what, and that he could afford to be weak in the south – once he got nominated, if he could pick up northern blue collar votes. And that is what tipped the election. Romney tried the same – everyone know what the “battleground states” were. But Romney never spoke to blue color workers in a way they responded to.
Regardless, democrats are looking for an explanation for their losses over the past decade. As shakespeare noted “the fault is not in your stars, but in yourself”.
Just to be clear Ron, I am not trying to say that districting is currently done in some wonderful moral way.
I am arguing that it is never going to be done in some impecably “fair” way.
That there is no such thing, that the process is going to be corrupt no matter how it is done, but that the current scheme incentivizes less offensive and less dangerous corruption than the one being proposed, that we should not grow the number of people who the election process is going to corrupt.
I have in the past argued against recounts and for runoff elections.
One reason for that is that recounts corrupt our judiciary.
Is there anyone that does nto want to hold their nose over the 2000 election ?
Is there anyone who does not think that Judges from local through the supreme court handled that election badly and biased ?
With respect to the decision that SCOTUS is faced with now its FIRST priority would be to confine the corruption to the already corrupted.
We do not want any but the most obviously egregiously offensive instances of “gerrymandering being addressed by the courts.
We do not want courts determining districts. That will corrupt them.
We do not want “non-partisan” commissions – that will rapidly be corrupted.
To the extend I think the courts have any role it should be to say “District X” does nto meet the standards of compactness etc. Go redraw the map.
Courts should never draw maps themselves, and they should be limited to rejected egregious districts that do not meet the existing criteria.
Hey Ron, now that you mentioned the ACLU, even they are not safe anymore from left wing extremists: http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/04/black-lives-matter-students-shut-down-th
Wow!! I wonder if these nuts even know who Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Monroe are, where they went to school and what they stood for.
This is where things are headed.
Logic is not the forte of the left.
I read about this. Unbelievable (or maybe not so much) that a congressman should so casually dismiss the right of his constituents to defend themselves, but assert that a “public servant” deserves armed guards. It’s the same with Hollywood celebrities ~ many of them travel with armed bodyguards ~ which is fine, if there is a need for them, I have no problem with that. But then they demand that the law-abiding plebes be stripped of that right.
This is exactly the reason why we can’t have a productive debate about gun control. Many legislators are in favor of banning guns, but they do not have the political courage to ask for 2nd Amendment repeal. So, they make a bogeyman out of the NRA, and say that it “controls” the defenders of the amendment.
I am not a “gun person”. I have one rifle, inherited, that does not work.
I shot a .22 at groundhogs a couple of times as a kid.
Long ago I thought gun control was a good idea.
But like those at 538, I can read statistics and understand them.
Gun control is one of myriads of issues where those on the left want to force all of us to do something that will not do any good, purportedly for our own benefit.
It is no different from Global Warming, or ObamaCare.
I get accused of being a really extremist libertarian.
That is not where I started. When I was in my 20’s I leaned moderately left.
When Bush II was elected, I was prepared to buy NCLB, and Medicare D and essentially this progressive republicanism. But Iraq and the post 9/11 exploding security state were a problem for me. As was the growing realization that CAGW was a hoax.
I had no problem with defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan – though our goal should have been the destruction of Al Queda, the destruction of the Taliban and departure.
As much as Sadam was a clearly bad man, I was very very morally uncomfortable with pre-emptive war.
I have become ever more libertarian over time, because the evidence is that government does nto work – really pretty much ever.
I pretty much taunt Roby and Jay asking them for a program that works – because I am so confident that they are not going to be able to find something that ultimately will not be demonstrably bad. I used to be much more careful about what I said. But a decade of checking things out thoroughly before I post has never resulted in any case that required significant adjustment.
What actually surprises me is that given a government with $4T of programs you would think there were a few examples of something that actually worked.
That is not to say that government does absolutely no good. Just that I have never encountered anything beyond a test program that was net positive. The norm is much like Section 8. Section 8 evolved from a trial program at chicago’s cabrini green, that carefully selected people to move into better neighborhoods, and provided them with support and resources, the trial was run by the best administrators, and social workers and psychologists and it worked incredibly – though even it left cabrini green worse off by removing those most likely to improve it. But the programs caught attention and was scaled to a nationwide program – and the evidence is that it is a miserable failure.
Now instead of giving a chance to the most likely to succeed with a bit of help, it is litterally moving drug dealers from the inner cities into working class minority neighborhoods that had successfully broken out, and destroying them.
Gun control is just the same as all other attempts by statists to control the world and fix it.
I do not think we are actually better off with 300+m guns. But I do not think we are worse off either. The left is right – people die as a result of the abundance of guns. But they miss the fact that others end up better off too. The net is pretty close to zero. Gun nuts have been looking for the holy grail of proof that guns make us safer, gun control freaks have sought the opposite. Each is capable of finding single statistics that make their case.
But no gun law has ever disrupted a trend. In other words on net, they do nothing.
That inherently makes gun laws net negative, because laws reduce freedom, you can not do that with no benefit, they also have a cost to enforce, again you can not do that with no benefit.
The trend argument I am constantly making is important.
I keep posting things showing that in innumerable ways (almost all ways) the world is getting better. While most of us have the personal experience to know that. Somehow intuitively we beleive the world is getting worse – despite the evidence of our own eyes.
Regardless, that constant improvement is the baseline, and it has been going on since the first cave men. But most improving trends have accelerated dramatically in the past 4 centuries, and they have done so primarily staring in the west. This was not a result of technology – nearly all the great western technology was borrowed from elsewhere. China had nearly all of the technology of the west 2000 years before we did. The great driving force was the growing western value of the individual. Martin Luther’s thesis, being one example. The proposition that we each get to decide for ourselves. That started in Germany but reached its zenith in the anglo countries and then in the US.
That is “american exceptionalism”. It has nothing to do with the geography, or race. It is the value that individuals to the greatest extent possible should control their own lives. That we each not only can but ultimately MUST decide everything for ourselves. That even in a totalitarian state – we are still responsible for our own lives, so we might as well choose freedom.
Those improving trends in everything are not a few years long, or a few decades, they are centuries, millennia long.
The driving factor for our improvement in anything is not government – in fact improvements in government are a consequence, not a cause.
Greater individual freedom means rising standard of living, rising standard of living means we can climb maslow’s hierarchy of needs. When we can not feed ourselves we do not think about child labor, or clean water or clean air. As we become ever better off, we can afford to improve our lives and or world all the more.
We have students at Berkeley demanding take home tests as a right, and white privilege shaming left professors for expecting them to abide by the same rules as other students.
We are so used to our affluence we do not understand that it is the product of our effort and that of those who preceded us, it is not a right, and it did not come from government.
You have to be able to laugh at yourself.
Trump (or Obama) is not a threat – because we are free to disparage them.
Weinstein (or Ailes) are because we are not.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/452456/hollywood-fears-weinstein-not-trump
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/corker-colleagues-agree-impeach-trump-article-1.3552093
Above👆
“If Sen. Corker’s Congressional colleagues agree with him, they should impeach and convict President Trump
MAX BOOT OCT 9, 2017 4:39 PM
It is no longer just President Trump’s critics who are calling him out for his ignorance and ineptitude. His own secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has apparently called him a “moron,” and now the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Corker, has said, “It’s a shame the White House has become an adult day care center” and warned that Trump may put us on “the path to World War III.” With friends like these . . .
Corker’s defection — previewed last week when he said, “I think Secretary (Rex) Tillerson, Secretary (Jim) Mattis and Chief of Staff (John) Kelly are those people that help separate our country from chaos” — is particularly significant, given that, until recently, he had been one of the mainstream Republicans normalizing Trump.
Back in April 2016, when Trump was not yet the Republican nominee, Corker gushed that he saw “a great deal of evolution taking place” and that a recent “foreign policy speech was a step in the right direction.” He urged Never-Trump Republicans like me “just to chill” and foresaw “a coming together taking place.”
In fairness to Corker, he was only one of many Republicans who operated under what might be called the Von Papen Hypothesis. Franz von Papen was the aristocratic military officer who convinced other members of the conservative German establishment to support Adolf Hitler’s appointment as chancellor in 1933 on the assumption that the clownish populist could be controlled by more moderate officials.”
Do you understand that Max Boot is a neocon ?
A proponent of endless war. That Neocons are people who flipped from being democrats to republicans during the cold war.
If Democrats want the neocons back – they can have them.
I have absolutely no interest in anything Max Boot says.
Guess you don’t want to hear what Corker says either.
Or what this guy says..
Or what anyone with a different opinion from your flat perspective thinks.
You are right, generally I give very little weight to appeals to authority.
Particularly those from people I do not trust on the most important subject in THEIR lives.
As to Corker – whatever. Corker and Trump are having a fight over minutia over why Corker chose not to run again.
The details are not important. Corker would have had a tough fight WITH Trump’s endorsement.
Do I care which of them is actually right ?
You also seem to think it is important what Trump says about someone or something, or what Republicans, or Trump cabinet members says about Trump.
I don’t. I care what people DO!
I do not know if Tillerson called Trump a moron. Nor do I care.
I do not know whether Trump threatened to fire him.
I do know that the accomplishments and failures of the executive branch fall squarely at the presidents feet.
I think that thus far Foreign policy under Trump has been good – C+/B- That is compared to Obama where it was a D- and Bush where it was a C-.
Does Tillerson get credit ? – yup. Does Trump ? yup.
Further Trump picked Tillerson and the rest of his cabinet and most of them are pretty good.
If there is a bit of back stabbing and name calling – So What ?
Maybe Tillerson called Trump a moron. Maybe Trump threatened to fire him.
Maybe Tillerson is quitting in december. Do not know. Do not care.
I do care about our foreign policy. Thus far the only big mistake is staying in afghanistan.
Trump puportedly fought against that tooth and nail. Fought Kelly, Fought McMasters, Fought Mattis, Fought Tillerson. I wish he would not have given in.
But it is Trump’s and Co now – they own it.
Regardless, there is a big difference between supporting everything Trump does and not hyperventilating over the most recent knee jerk meaningless leak of the day.
Harvey Weinstein was meeting Barack Obama in the whitehouse personally, possibly more frequently than Michelle.
Should we impeach Obama ? too late.
That atleast is something we know is true – they whitehouse has records.
The rest of this is all unsourced leaks.
Your freaking out over gossip.
The problem is you want to freak out.
You need to beleive that Trump is the anti-christ,
and that but for youtube, Russia, twitter, …. Clinton would have been elected in a landslide.
You need to beleive that voters were decieved, that they did not actually say FU to the left.
While much of what has floated re corker is not likely true.
What is probably true is that he was going to face a difficult primary – one he might have lost.
You are the left seem to have a very broad concept of when we should impeach the president.
Here is a long list of the Obama scandal’s
http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/10/04/obama_scandals.html
This ignores the myriads of instances where he acted without the legal authority to do so – such as DACA.
To be clear – I am not making a threat – just noting that each expansion of the limits that democrats impose comes back to bite them.
Kennedy engaged in atleast the malfeasance of Nixon. Johnson was the arch criminal president. Yet Nixon was faced with impeachment and as a consequence Clinton was actually impeached, but not convicted.
Reid went nuclear – and now Gorsuch is a supreme court Justice, and Trump’s appointments have nearly all gotten through the Senate.
If you impeach Trump because you do not like his style – then you can expect the next democrat to face the same threat.
I have only had two presidents in my entire life time that I actually liked, Carter and Reagan. The rest were mediocre disappointments.
Those of you on the left can manage to live until 2020, and apparently current projections suggest you are going to have to make it to 2024.
regardless, chill out.
Everyone has gotten that you are hyperventaliting and appoplectic and think this is the worst thing ever.
Even Oprah recently had a group session with Trump and Clinton voters and found – nothing has changed – except that those on the left have not figured out the election is over.
I understand you do not like Trump – I do not either. I am very tired of defending him.
Just because I think your attacks are stupid and rooted in the inability to accept that voters rejected you – this election was MORE a rejection of the left than the election of Trump.
Get a clue, you are unliked and unwanted. Most of us think you are elitist, snobby and intolerant.
Pew found we are more divided than ever before.
But more interesting is what we are divided over.
The identity politics issues are not what divides us.
Most of us accept the “culture wars” are over.
We grasp that racism is still present, but it is as low as it has ever been and not in the top ten of problems impacting minorities.
We have minor issues to work out – like can a baker refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, or what are we going to do about transgendered bathrooms.
Despite the uproar these are not issues that are polarizing the country.
It is actually politics. The left has just gone too far into socilaism and divided the country.
Snore….
“LAS VEGAS (AP) — The gunman who killed 58 people in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history targeted aviation fuel tanks..”
Try and do that with knives…
He hit them several times – even puncturing the tank and nothing happened.
Things only blow up when you hit them with a bullet in the movies.
Regardless, there is always a way
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook
You should be able to find a copy on line somewhere.
I have a paper copy I bought at a computer show in the 70’s.
McVeigh did not use a gun. Kazynski did not use a gun.
If you want to kill alot of people – there is always a way.
I knew having a discussion with dhii reminded me of something. It finally popped into my mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26RTlPgg-tA
Nonsense, wordiness and a total lack of common sense.
What a waste of time, that’s on me.
JJ, I wish you well. Don’t get drowned in the wake of fatberger’s silly tsunami of twisted logic and other deniers of a more subtle stripe.
I’m going to try and wait this one out. No sense fighting the shit tide.
When facts contradict your pretense to commonsense – facts win.
Yes, you have taken us through the looking glass.
I took the red pill, you took the blue one.
Right, time to ‘duck’ for shit storm cover for a while for me too.
I just got a new toy: an Instant Pot Ultra multi cooker, and I’m going to focus on food, not futile argument.
Here’s tomorrow’s recipe:
http://panlasangpinoy.com/2015/05/08/slow-cook-pork-hock-stew/
Jay, if you were interested in discussion or in debating points of view other than your own, you wouldn’t get so upset that you couldn’t come up with any factual evidence to back yourself up.
Advocating policies that don’t work is not a winning hand, and rhetorical bludgeons, meant to beat others into submission are not arguments. Nor are playground-style insults.
I do agree with you that this discussion is probably over for now, because we’re essentially going over the same territory, again and again.
Plus, it appears that the media has moved on to covering “more important” stories, such as how many women Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted, and how many people knew about it and stayed silent, in the interests of furthering their own careers and/or getting their hands on some of his money.
Priscilla. ” Plus, it appears that the media has moved on to covering “more important” stories, such as how many women Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted, and how many people knew about it and stayed silent”
I wonder if anyone on the left has questioned why Bill Cosby was charged, why Harvey Weinstein has been accused of so many different instances of sexual misconduct to the point he has been removed from his leadership position, but good ol’ Bill Clinton is still walking around fat dumb and happy.
And I will also will bring up why nothing has taken place with Hillary and all her illegal activities with her email crap on personal computers.
I don’t want to reenter the debate if he or she did something wrong or not. My point is I thought politicians were subject to the same laws that private citizens are subjected to.
Nothing has been done about Clinton because we do not have the rule of law.
The rule of law means that we rule by laws, imposed on all of us, that we make no allowances for who it is who violated the law.
That whether we think Trump, or Clinton, or Obama or Weinstein or …. did something wrong, that we pursue it with equal vigor, that we pursue it whether the perpitrator is a pauper or a prince.
Contra Jay and Roby, I do not think that Trump should “get off” if he has committed and actual crime. Not even one that Clinton or Obama committed.
I merely insist we follow the 4th amendment as written.
We do not conduct searches and seizures of anyone, absent probable cause that a specific crime has actually been committed.
We have that with not only Clinton, but much of her staff.
We need to investigate and prosecute because not merely must clinton be brought to justice – but those who helped her an enabled her and conspired with her to commit her crimes. At the very least – none of these people should ever be in a position of public trust again.
The same with the misconduct in the Obama administration.
If we do not do this that means that we only care when the “wrong people” do something bad. that our law only applies to some.
We have Black Lives Matter arguing there is a different criminal justice system for people of color. I think that while true, they over state the case. The real problem is that we have lost the rule of law. That some people are treated differently than others – maybe because of race, maybe because of class, maybe because of political connections.
I rail here about the Trump investigations. I do nto care that much about Trump. What I care about is that the rest of us can not count on better treatment than Trump.
But this works the other way. The failure to pursue not merely Clinton but a raft of others throughout the Obama administration means we can expect even more of the same lawlessness in the future. Maybe by Trump and his cronies, or maybe by the next democrat. It does nto matter.
This even goes to my arguments for originalist constitutional interpretation.
If as a judge you can not follow the law as written – not only are you the judge who will rewrite the constitution in an oppinion, but you are also the judge who will hold the black accountable and let the white go free – or visa versa, or jail the republican and not the democrat or visa versa. If you can not apply the law as written regardless of your “feelings” you are corrupt, and dangerous and should not be a judge.
There is absolutely no debate that Clinton broke several laws.
Comey “rewrote” the law to require intent.
I beleive intent should be a part of nearly all federal criminal laws – except a very few where the standard is recklessness, or gross negligence.
That is the case regarding Clinton.
Because we did not properly pursue one crime we know was committed, we also avoided the myriads of related crimes, by both clinton and surrogates.
Clinton also inarguably lied in several court filings.
This a a crime (though not to the level of perjury)
There is also ample evidence of destruction of evidence – which is a very serious crime, even if we are not exactly sure precisely who was responsible.
I am not sure there is proof of a “pay for Play” scheme, but there is more than enough evidence for an investigation.
Menendez appears to be going down for a much smaller one right now.
I am not sure that the reasons this is not all being pursued are partisan.
The powers that be protect themselves – even often those on the opposite side of the political fence.
Even now the FBI seems to be behaving as if Obama is still president.
I really think Trump needs to fire alot more people.
Which is another issue here.
Forget crimes. People in government do not even lose their jobs for egregious misconduct.
Conservatives have been demanding firing the head of the IRS for years.
Trump has kept a guy that Congress considered impeaching.
Because he is a personal friend of Trumps.
We forget that there is much nepotism between the left and right – even when Trump a purported outsider is president.
Arguing for policies that must be imposed by force that you can not demonstrate have a high probability of being net positive is wrong, it is immoral. It is no different from burglary or rape. It is imposing your will on others by force without justification.
Appeals to common sense are not arguments. We do not agree on what constitutes common sense, and the concept of the left is shallow. Regardless, facts do not support it.
There has never been a debate. There almost never is with the left.
There is “I want”, “I feel” in opposition to facts, logic, reason.
Before one can infringe on a right more is necessary than demonstrating a net positive outcome – but without a high probability of a net positive outcome any infringement is immoral.
We are going over the same territory – because there is no new territory.
We will do this again and again every time some bad thing associated with guns occurs.
This is the typical Rahm Emanuel “never let a crisis go to waste” evil.
It is a deliberate effort to drive into a slippery slope.
If whatever you wish can not be accomplished outside after an emotionally supercharged event – then you are looking to accomplish evil.
The Weinstein story is the story of the hypocrisy of the left.
There are so many people who knew. Shortly we will likely get into who claims they did not know who must have known.
Weinstein is also Hillary writ so that we can see her.
The left tolerates exactly the conduct they excoriate in others, if you support the right causes, or know the right people
New York Times had this story in 2004 – and killed it.
Not only should it be self evident that Weinstein is evil,
but that he could not exist but for the complicity of huge portions of the upper tiers of the left.
Nor is that whataboutism. The fundamental issue is hypocrisy – and not Weinsteins.
Finding examples of those on the right who have behaved similarly is not going to defuse this. The right is not championing women. The right is not claiming the moral high ground on the very issues Weinstein was perverting.
This is almost like discovering that Lincoln had kids to his own negro slaves while in the whitehouse and the entire abolitionist movement knew about it.
This is not about Weinstein, this is about the cancer in the soul of the left.
It is about Hilary meeting with and taking massive contributions from Goldman sachs.
About her having a public persona and a private one.
It is about Warren being instrumental in saving the ExIm bank – despite it being exactly what she campaigned against.
It is about the fact that many of the leaders of the left not merely have feet of clay, but do not even beleive what they say.
It is about the fact that progressivism is quite litterally the rule of man, not law.
That in the world of the left “who you are determines what you are free to do”.
It you are powerful – the rules do not apply to you.
What’s the difference between Donald and Harvey?
Not much. Grew up in the same part of NY. Same generational sexual fixations. Same attitudes of sexual obnoxiousness. Same sexual preoccupations. Only a moron would read in political implication in their sexual behaviors.
What are the differences ?
The least important one is that as best we can tell:
Harvey’s misconduct is much more pervasive, and more numerous, and more serious. and closer to coercive.
Slightly more importantly Harvey is a hypocrite Trump has been openly sexual, he has not pretended otherwise. He has not pretended – atleast not until more recently that there was a standard he was failing to conform to. Harvey violated principles of his ideology.
But the most important issue has nothing to do with Harvey at all. It has to do with the left.
The left claims this type of conduct is somehow unique to the right.
But it is clearly atleast as pervasive on the left.
Many – particularly many powerful people, people who condemned others for similar conduct, on the left, knew about Harvey and said and did nothing.
If you publicly condemned Trump or anyone else for this type of conduct while knowing that Harvey was doing it, you are morally bankrupt.
This conspiracy on the left to hide Weinsteins conduct is by far the worst aspect of this and its perpetrators are NOT Harvey.
Trump was publicly known for being physical. People could avoid him. To the extent he had some power, you could still pursue your carreer and avoid him. I am not aware of any evidence that if he was rebuffed he punished someone. That anyone had a choice between their carreer and accepting his conduct.
In fact the opposite is true – atleast one allegation against Trump is inside a consensual relationship while the woman’s husband was suing Trump. Essentially the allegation was an effort to get a better deal.
Weinstein AND all those who covered for him, left his potential victims with a choice between losing their career or doing as he wished.
Get the AND. Everyone who covered this up is complicit in what happened to others.
Meh. I would imagine that, if Donald Trump had assaulted or raped multiple women a la Clinton and Weinstein, it would have come out long ago. If the Access Hollywood tape was the best that his enemies could come up with ~ and I have to believe that it was ~ then Trump is a piker, compared to our 42nd president. Come to think of it, they’re both pikers compared to the sexual behavior of JFK.
To my knowledge there is one multiply recycled allegation of rape of a 13 year old, that has very little credibility.
Almost exactly the same story has been peddled against Clinton.
Separately there is ONE claim that Trump flew to the caribean on the lolita express.
The claim is weak, but Trump did know Epstein.
There are atleast 7 confirmed trips by Bill Clinton on the “lolita express”.
There are allegations of as many as 20 and many of them recent.
There is one allegation against Trump of “not here, not now, my husband is downstairs” inside of a consensual relationship. that one is highly credible,
This is what you get from a trump hardass lawyer when you say anything negative about trump:
“I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know,” Cohen said. “So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?”
“You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up… for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet… you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it,” he added.
“Though there’s many literal senses to the word, if you distort it, and you put Mr. Trump’s name there onto it, rest assured, you will suffer the consequences. So you do whatever you want. You want to ruin your life at the age of 20? You do that, and I’ll be happy to serve it right up to you,” he added.
I think your paper’s a joke, and it’s going to be my absolute pleasure to serve you with a $500 million lawsuit, like I told [you] I did it to Univision,” Cohen continued.
In spite of that
• Allegations of unwanted physical contact
o 3.1Jessica Leeds (1980s)
o 3.2Kristin Anderson (1990s)
o 3.3Cathy Heller (1997)
o 3.4Temple Taggart McDowell (1997)
o 3.5Karena Virginia (1998)
o 3.6Mindy McGillivray (2003)
o 3.7Rachel Crooks (2005)
o 3.8Natasha Stoynoff (2005)
o 3.9Jessica Drake (2006)
o 3.10Ninni Laaksonen (2006)
o 3.11Summer Zervos (2007)
o 3.12Burnett’s unnamed friend (2010)
o 3.13Cassandra Searles (2013)
• 4Allegations of pageant dressing room visits
o 4.1Miss Teen USA contestants
o 4.2Bridget Sullivan (2000)
o 4.3Tasha Dixon (2001)
o 4.4Unnamed contestants (2001)
o 4.5Samantha Holvey (2006)
The threat that bothers you so much is only credible if the story is not true.
If you say you are going to print a story about me that says I raped someone – I am going to say to you much what Mr. Cohn said. I am even likely to do it very loudly and in public.
If the story is actually true – that is bad conduct, practically extortion.
If it is not it is righteous indignation.
If you were disuaded by such courtroom claims – the presumption is your story will not hold up in court.
Weinstein did not merely threaten to take every dime someone had in court.
He threatened to assure they never got a job.
I only checked one of your list.
This is Cassandra Searles claim.
This does not sound like took me to a private room where he forced me to give him a blow job.
But maybe in your world publicly making all contestants in a Beauty pagent parade arround clothed on stage is the same as chocking someone with your penis.
Despite the fact that I am dubious about the credibility of your list,
overall it does not matter. Establish that Trump actually raped someone, and I will join you in impeaching him.
But that will not alter the fact that the Weinstein story is alot bigger.
Not because of Weinstein, but because of Hollywoods complicity, and because Trump is not a scion of anything. Even the republican party is distanced from him.
Weinstein is part of the left, a BIG part.
Trumps conduct implicates himself. Republicans as not selling virtue. The left is.
Identity politics is about being more virtuous.
Weinstein is another demonstration that the pedals of virtue are dirty scum.
Atleast as bad as the rest of us.
If you manage to make Trump as bad as Weinstein – you will make me puke and want to impeach him. But you will not alter the slightest my and myriads of others disgust for the left.
The last post on trump’s sex issues was me (Roby). Not the first anonymous, that was someone else.
Yesterday we saw our wonderful Russian friend. My wife takes pilates from classes from her. (They do it in a church and I’m allowed to go practice my viola in the actual chapel, which has the most wonderful acoustics I have ever met.)
So, after the class we were talking and our friend got onto world politics. She was very positive on the character of Lil Kim. Clearly, the latest Russian government propaganda. She was down on trump now, unlike last year when she thought he was great. Also the latest putin line of propaganda. This is a brilliant highly educated woman with a heart of gold telling us that Lil Kim is some wonderful unfairly persecuted hero.
Brainwashing, voluntary victim. Loyalty to her group. Happens all the time. My wife said later, “She is crazy, I love her, but she is crazy. ”
I’ve seen quite a few polls in the last month in which people were asked, among other things whether trump is dividing or uniting the country. Something like 70% of republicans have consistently been answering that trump is uniting the country. Like him or hate him, but, he is uniting the country? Really? Based on what evidence? Willful withdrawal into another universe, not just an alternate universe , but a false one. Something like 25% of the country, under the influence of party loyalty has departed from reality. And most of them are never coming back. I never like much of their GOP politics but I did not previously believe that they were oblivious to reality en masse. This worries me, its damned unhealthy. Its a new phenomenon in its scale.
People will believe anything, really Anything!, once they are under the control of a political force or ideology. Normal people, good people, but no longer part of reality.
Covering for trump on his obvious sexual predator behavior is like thinking that he is uniting the country, it takes being willfully blind. I hated Clinton for his sexual predator nature. Liked his politics, hated him, disgusting sleazy bastard. I believe the allegations against him, they have never been proven in a court of law. So what? I’m not blind. Clinton is a sexual predator.
Today, the issue is not Clinton its not Kennedy, it is the present POTUS. Who is an utterly disgusting sexual predator. Listening to a rationalizing defence of trump’s behavior towards women just makes me ill. I don’t respect it at all, to put it as uncolorfully as I can here. . Maybe it hasn’t been proven in a court of law, like Clintons assaults were never taken to court. But nothing could be more clear and obvious than the fact that trump is a sexual predator who does exactly what he said, he grabs women first anywhere he feels like it, asks later, or never asks.
Public disrespect for and disgusting treatment of women is something our POTUS not only has done, he is PROUD of it. Its part of his machismo, his public sales job on his trump product. Powerful men, powerful people can be shits, behind the scenes. We have never had a POTUS who was flat out publically proud of it before, flaunted it, thought it was a plus. For me and many that is a new low and a very sad day for America.
Denial of all that is absurd and futile and only leads to a loss of credibility. Why should I believe you on any political question if you cannot even face the most obvious reality on trumps predatory behavior towards women that would put any non billionaire with cut throat lawyers on his payroll in deep legal trouble?
Trump is not the source of our division.
Trump is not a uniter. While maybe something desireable, that is not the role of president.
Our divisions are real, they were not created by Trump, there is a PEW study on this.
We are more polarized than ever. Oddly it is NOT over issues like race or culture wars issues – that gap is small and has been constant for several decades.
We are divided over politics.
Further the gap has widened primarily because the left has moved farther left.
And this gap arose during Obama’s presidency.
Obama divided us, not Trump. Trump is just not bringing us together.
I would also note things have worsened since the election.
But Trump has not changed. He is no more or less offensive than before.
If anything though his tweets etc remain in your face, his actions as president are better than expected. Not great, just better than Obama.
People will beleive anything – you beleive that 100K in facebook adds turned the election.
There are disturbing comparisons between Clinton and Trump.
But the credible allegations against Trump are fewer and weaker.
But again you want Trump impeached – find proof he raped someone.
I do not think anyone is “covering” for Trump.
I am just not going to hate everything he does because I hate some of the things he does.
I am certainly not going to judge him more harshly than Obama or Clinton.
To the best of my knowledge the current POTUS has not gotten a blow job from an intern in the oval office.
Your party set that as the floor to sexual misconduct.
Get more than that and we can talk impeach.
Right now what you have is talk – no blue dress.
We got it, your not happy that Trump is president. Neither am I.
You think that rather than a serial philanderer with roving hands, we should have a rape enabler. I wish that was not the choice we had,
But it is .
Regardless, Trump is still president.
The rest of us had to live through Obama and Clinton.
Get a grip we will live through Trump.
And get a clue – do not run some socialist in 2020, and move your party back to where blue colar people do not choke on voting democrat,
and while your at it quit calling everyone who disagrees with you hateful, hating haters.
Those are the changes you need to make to have a shot at winning.
What are you going to do if Trump is re-elected in 2020 ?
Have an Aneurysm ? You are so hyped up on outrage there is nowhere to go.
You can’t be serious, Roby. You actually think that, if there was clear cut evidence that Trump was an active sexual predator, like Bill Clinton or Harvey Weinstein, there would not now be multiple accusers, backed by the best lawyers money can buy, supported by all of the Hollywood and Washington DC power brokers, and reported daily in every major newspaper and on every TV news station?
And that the same people who have been frantically digging into Trump’s past for months have only been able to come up with an 11 year old tape of a conversation and a fake dossier, paid for by his political enemies, because Trump is a billionaire?
I don’t care how much Trump could spend on “cut throat lawyers” ~ it would not be enough to overcome real evidence. The money and power on the other side dwarfs his personal power and wealth.
Plus, I would guess that almost every person who voted for Trump knew exactly what kind of rude and bombastic guy they were voting for ~ he HAS been extremely famous for decades, after all. Everyone knows the story of how he cheated on his first wife, and married his mistress. Melania has been slandered repeatedly as a hooker, and the nude pictures for which she posed as a young European model, have been splashed all over the tabloids, as she has been condemned by the very same people who, just last week, wrote glowing obituaries about the guy who made nude girlie pics mainstream
Attack his policies, attack his leadership, even attack his character. But don’t try to float the partisan nonsense that he is worse than those who came before his,
We are no longer in the world where Trump’s alleged accusers are helpless facing legal king kongs.
I would imaging that Weistein would pony up several million in legal fees to get himself off the front page.
Should someone want to make a claim against Trump now – he would be the underdog.
Maybe there is an allegation in all this that is more than Cassandra Searles – “he made contestants in a beauty pagent parade arround the stage:”.
If so prove it. A credible allegation of rape would bring him down.
It does not matter how big his lawyers are now.
You can’t be serious Priscilla. But, like my Russian friend’s views on Lil Kim, sadly, you are.
trump may not be worse than Bill Clinton and Weinstein, I think they are exactly the same thing, men using their wealth and power to get away with being sexual predators. Like Cosby got away with it. It caught up with Cosby in the end, and it derailed Clinton. Its one of the many things that is derailing trump.
Why trumps case is different and worse is a very simple and obvious matter. Kennedy did not rape, as far as I know. Horny as a hound dog but all consensual and well hidden from the public. Clinton, not so well hidden but he did not brag about it in public, he was not using it as a proud selling point. trump is a POTUS who has made being a sexual predator a selling point, proudly, loudly. His voters accept it, lots admire it. That is a first, a milestone in our culture, a terrible one. I never ever expected that conservatives would swallow this, but they have. I’ve lost one of my reasons to respect conservatives, I’m not alone.
The fact that his voters don’t care is a statement about his voters, not about whether this matters.
This issue is going to come back on him and on his voters in the long run. Quite likely not in 2018, perhaps not in 2020. No party goes away forever, not even a party as inept as the Dems. They will be back in power some day and the issue of trumps voters and a large part of the GOP party having accepted and even in some cases embraced the trump view of sexual behavior is an issue that I promise you will have long legs far in the future. The outrage is very justified in the opinion of many people. There is not a thing we can to do about this now, but the well-founded outrage is being stored up as in a geological fault. The longer it waits for a release the bigger the quake is going to be.
In the end you trump voters are likely to get very little of what you wanted out of trump and you will have soiled yourselves accepting all the worst elements of his character and you will have to carry that burden in future campaigns.
I am 110% sure you would not accept trumps character if he were a democrat, if he were interested in your daughter, if he were the principle of your kids school, etc.
Now, here comes a giant pile of denial and deflection from dave. I won’t bother reading it, it could write his shpiel myself, heard it a million times. Not going to be impressed this time either. There is a political cost and a cultural cost to the trump character milestone, no amount of denial or piles of words can prevent that from landing on conservative causes, hard, at some point in the future.
Jeez, I AM wordy. Sorry about that dduck.
No one is stopping you from proving an allegation against Trump.
Seriously. You say you think he is as bad as Weinstein and Clinton.
I do not think so – but I can be persuaded.
Weinstein and Clinton threatened the crap out of people – eventually that failed.
If there is truth to the allegations against Trump – you will prevail.
But do not just spray them and pretend they have been proven.
Allegations get made alot. Sometimes they are true, sometimes they are not
McMartin PreSchool, Duke Lacross, ……
The public is jaded. Unlike Clinton I do not think that everyone alleging misconduct is entitled to be beleived in court. And I would bet I am much closer to real rape victims than she is.
Serious question, Roby: other than the tape of a private conversation, taped over a decade ago, during which Trump said ~ to one person~ that rich and famous men can get away with crude and objectionable behavior with women, because the women will put up with it (true enough, that doesn’t make it right, but we all know that Weinstein’s victims stayed silent in the interest of furthering their film careers, and Weinstein is only the latest in a long, long line of powerful Hollywood types who used “casting couch techniques,” shall we say) when has he “loudly and proudly” bragged about sexual assault?? Just one example will do…..
Do you believe that he is currently molesting 22 year old interns in the Oval Office, as Clinton did? Do you believe that his wife and children know of his supposed victims and are silencing them?
And no, as far as I know, JFK did not rape ~ and I don’t believe I ever said he did. But he did sleep with dozens of women, including an East German spy, the girlfriend of a Mafia boss and the most famous movie star of the time ~ all while he was president. Does the fact that he pretended to be a faithful husband to his wife mean that he had better character than Trump?
Sorry. I don’t like boorish behavior and I don’t admire it. But hypocrites and liars are worse than boors, in my book.
Anyway, we’re not going to find common ground here, I can see that.
I do find it fascinating though, that the news media is far more interested in who Harvey Weinstein tried to have sex with than in the tax cut plan, or the motives of the Las Vegas shooter. Even though many, if not most Americans, don’t even know who Harvey Weinstein is…….
The NYT and The National Enquirer aren’t that far apart anymore, in terms of what they consider newsworthy stories.
Based on what we know Weinstein is worse than nearly all the allegations against Trump.
I am prepared to accept otherwise – with some proof.
But I need more than jumping up and down and stamping feet.
I do not think there is any doubt that Trump has had roving hands in the past.
He should not get a pass for that.
We should not have elected him – for that.
I did not vote for him – for that.
But Rape enabler is worse, and that is the choice democrats gave us.
Regardless, the Weinstein story is still more problems for the left.
Because it is not just about Weinstein, it is about how the left enabled him.
And it is about the hypocracy – not of weinstein, but the left.
The very same people protecting Weinstein were maligning the virtue of half the country.
Trump can survive everything short of rape.
Weinstein is incredibly corrosive. It gets democrats right at their core values.
And it goes well beyond Weinstein.
I remember when you had a far different reaction to trump and his behavior towards women. That is the fascinating part to me, you, times tens of millions, have drastically changed your values over the last year or so. When the tape came out you threw in the towel, said it was unacceptable, the race was over, you were giving up on him. Prior to that many times you stated that to your nearly personal knowledge that trump IS a pig with women. As in the case of the opinion of the GOP base on the characters of putin and assange, which I never dreamed could be the smallest bit favorable, nearly everything I thought I understood about GOP voters as a statistical group has turned out to be wrong The places I actually admired or agreed with conservatives have been sliding fluidly away. trump IS a pig. Once upon a time you could say that clearly, now you defend him if someone makes the slightest comment about him. Denial went to acceptance. That is what interests me.
No, no common ground, not here, and not almost anywhere anymore. You seem to have accepted the idea that Clinton was a rapist, and Weinberg too, without any need for a court or formal proof. (I have too) Every sex related accusation made about hillary or bill you are totally on board with, no need for any trial or proof Ah, but trump, here you turn on the defense lawyer mode, all those women who have accused him, its just an unproven nothing berger, there could not be anything there.
This is pure hypocrisy. The amount of evidence you need totally depends on political side.
What is more, you are ignoring my main point: the difference this time is that trump has an enormous public history of proudly being a Pig. That is new and wretched. The POTUS is a Pig. Are you going to deny it?
In a similar vein on the subject of hypocrisy, Dave gleefully wrote all that scatalogical stuff about trump shiting and pissing in the liberal temples, I never heard a complaint from you about disgustng scatalogical attacks on liberals. When he had done it for about the 4th time I threw his scatalogical rhetoric back at him. In you came and saw the whole exchange in the light of me making a disgusting attack on conservatives and gave ME a lecture! Unbelievable! You have not the smallest remnant of objectivity left. The pathetic defense of trumps pussy grabbing by shifting the topic to the clintons is just one of many cases. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that trump grabbed women by their private parts constantly. He may be taking a holiday from it at present. Will be back at it in the future That is not rape, its sexual assault, which is criminal if one is not rich. Defending it is pathetic.
It’s a waste of time conversing with her about 95% of the topics discussed here.
To me she’s a cross between Edith-Ann (one ringee-dingee) and KellyAnn (ding-batty Alternate-factee). A quaint but destructive combination.
This is what President ShitHead said today – and it is with certainty #Trumpanzees will rationalize and defend it:
Jay ya’all need to cool your heels and look for something else to complain about. I said the same thing about people who constantly complained about Obama. And he was in office for 8 years. Donald J Trump has screwed himself to a toilet wall and he will never get anything accomplished now that he has pissed off everyone Northeast Maine to Southwest California and everywhere in between. His agenda is DEAD!. He has no influence with congress. And congress is not going to do anything that gives him a win. Obamacare is alive and well. The GOP might gives him a one base hit on tax cuts, but no where near the home run he is asking for. The wall is a dream and will stay that way. And little will happen with infrastructure funding. And that has not even come up.
What he has doing is solidifying the power of the government as it was intended in the constitution. The President was suppose to be weak, the power was suppose to be centered in the House and the Senate was there to make sure the house did not go off without any oversight. And that is exactly what we have today.
The house came up with a idiotic repeal of Obamacare bill and the senate rejected it. The house may come up with some other stuff and the senate will reject that also. Trump has been and will continue to be relegated to tweets, campaign trips and late night jokes. He has no influence whatsoever and as this becomes more apparent, his tweets will become more abrasive.
He will be the target in the 2020 primary and I suspect if he does not drop out, or chooses not to run at all (due to age or other factors), he will spread his potty mouth attacking his opponent, but this time there will be no “little Marco” or “Low Energy Bush”. That person will be ready and loaded with appropriate responses and will cause Trump to finally lose it completely since he can not stand to lose. Dirty campaign, you ain’t seen anything yet.
Trump will get his 35% base, but with just one chosen replacement by the GOP, they will get the other 60%+ and Trump will only be a bad dream when election time comes around.
So cool your heels, your only raising your blood pressure for no reason as you can not do a dang thing now to get rid of him.
“TRUMP HASTA GO” (Or just copy this and paste it whenever you need to say something.)
KellyAnne Conway is the first women ever to manage a winning presidential campaign.
She won. You did not.
Trump’s remark was about free press not free speach.
I do not like the remark – any more than
“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.”
Priscilla is far more rational than you.
She has not lost her marbles, and gone out of her gourd because a lying fraud, and rape apologist was not elected president.
Tell me you voted for Stein or Johnson and your outrage is more credible.
But you can not claim Trump is unqualified and then vote for Hillary with your integrity intact.
I do not know if you are after Priscilla or me.
But what you are saying fits me.
But I did NOT vote for him.
You do not grasp that just because Trump does not meet my standards, because Trump is a pig, does not make Hillary not worse.
I chose not to vote for the lessor evil.
My candidate lost.
Trump is president.
He won without my vote. He won despite being a pig.
He won because Hillary was worse.
With respect to Clinton – your right, no court, no formal proof.
But there is that blue dress and the dna match and the lying under oath and the large settlement to Paula Jones.
All those are reasons to beleive the other accusers of Clinton.
With respect to Weinstein – numerous secret settlements.
His admission that some of this is true.
And a history going back 4 decades.
Plus none of the allegations are coming from Gold Diggers.
These are people who would get destroyed if these allegations prove false.
Trump – no settlements, few went to court at all.
Most of the allegations are like Cassandra Searles.
Look the Access Hollywood tape did it for me – no that is not true. I was probably never going to vote for Trump.
But he still got elected.
I am not happy that a many with roaming hands is president.
But I am happy that someone with more of a clue about the economy and foreign affairs is.
And Trump is not stellar at either, it is just so long since we have had a C+ president that he actually looks good.
You are right Trump proudly publicly being a pig makes a difference – it makes Weinstein and the democrats worse.
No one had to cover up for Trump. No one else is complicit (or atleast very few),
The elite of the left are complicit in protecting Weinstein.
The flagship media organisations of the left had this story in 2004 and 2008 – if not far earlier. They killed it. They are complicit.
“Dave gleefully wrote all that scatalogical stuff about trump shiting and pissing in the liberal temples,”
So if I say Weinstein force oral sex on some starlet – I am guilty of something, and should be chastised.
Trump shitting in the temple is a metaphor – a very powerful one.
It is also a very true one.
But it is not litterally true – therefore it is not “scatalogical”.
And if it actually was litterally true, noting it is not something I should be chastized for.
The point – as we see a bit of this in the NFL thing is that Trump quite frequently nails things regarding symbols.
I think the entire NFL thing was cold and calculated.
A few players were predictably going to take a knee during the anthem.
Trump could know that was likely months ago.
He also had an excellent sense to know that fans would be upset,
and that if he made it a national issue they would be even more upset.
The whole thing was about symbols.
Kneeling was symbolic.
But standing for the anthem is too.
Trump bet – easily and correctly than the symbol of standing for the anthem was more powerful than the symbol of kneeling for it.
He bet that what the players were trying to make a positive that he could teurn to a negative.
And he was right.
Trump has not nuked anyone yet. He has not really done anything justifying the 24×7 outrage of the left.
But he has shat in your temple.
BTW this is exactly the same reason that Berkely whigged out over Milo, and Ben Shapiro, and why UVA went apoplectic over Tiki Torches.
Had that women not been run down Charlotesville would have come off as a victory for the statue protestors.
They shat on UVA and Charlottesville and got away with it.
Milo did not – but he made the left look psychotic.
Ben Shapiro got away with it – and made the left look bad.
When you go appolplectic because someone shit in your temple,
that is because you are a religion.
We only react as the left is reacting when someone “shits in our temple”.
Would you be upset if Trump shit in a toilet ?
Yes, by all means, whatever you say, Jay….
Roby, I’m going to take one more crack at resolving this with you, because we have a lot of history here, I often find your point of view pretty fair and occasionally we even agree.
First of all, if you were merely parodying Dave with your “shitting and pissing” diatribe from a few weeks ago, then I owe you an apology. I was really taken aback by the virulence of your comments about conservatives, and especially by your language, which seemed out of character for you (although it also seems out of character for Dave)!
Truth is, I often go days without reading TNM, and when I come back I sometimes skim many of the posts, if they get too wordy (I can be wordy too, so I forgive anyone who skims mine). So, I must not have read the posts of Dave’s to which you refer, and I did get very huffy there with you. So, I missed your point. And I’m sorry. Really.
And I will say for probably the thousandth time (ok, maybe an exaggeration) that I often find Trump’s boorishness difficult to accept. Certainly the crude language from the Access Hollywood tape was offensive and upsetting. So, if that is the standard by which we’re calling him a pig, fine, he’s a pig.
My larger point, which I clearly failed to make, has to do with two things: 1) powerful men throughout history have been known to be misogynists and philanderers ~ it’s nothing new. Many, if not the vast majority of them suffer few if any consequences for their sexual profligacy. This is particularly true of politicians and Hollywood types. There is very little to suggest that, since he became a politician, that Trump has behaved as a misogynist or a sexual deviant. But, no altar boy, true. 2) The news media has great power and great responsibility. When they choose to ignore important stories to focus on gossip and innuendo, they become no better than gossip writers. I don’t mean to minimize the seriousness of accusations by women against powerful men. But I think that, if the media is going to report it, they should make sure that they also report on those people who have enabled it to continue. And give equal time to other, arguably more important, stories.
Priscilla;
I am sort of sorry if I offended.
But I think everyone is misreading the metaphor – or taking it to litterally.
It was very deliberately intended to denote that Trump had deliberately violated something sacred to the left. More than violated. I really do not know how to convey the proper meaning without as Roby says scatology. Because that really is what this is about.
Am I somewhat gleeful about it ? Yes.
The left pretends they are not religious – but they absolutely are. We would not have this outrage, if Trump had not defecated all over sacred religious values.
You do not get this kind of outrage without sacrilege – and more than sacrilege,
scatalogical sacrellege.
I got the metaphor I beleive from Prof. Haidt in reference to Charles Murray’s attempt to speak at middlebury.
Haidt is really really good at picking up on things touching our “moral foundations”
And he noted that these students do not care if Murray speaks. They care if he speaks on campus. Haidt noted that when the protestors were told Murray was going to speak – but off campus – they were happy.
The objective was not to silence him but to keep him out of their sacred space.
The college campus has become the sacred space of the far left.
They own it, it is a religious shrine not a place of education.
That is why consrvative speakers are whigging out the left.
Ben Shapiro and Milo, and Ann and … speak all the time.
But when they speak on Campus violence explodes.
They are “shitting in the temple” and that is why the outrage.
There is also a reason the protestors at charlottesville marched arround UVA with Tiki torches the night before and why even though to some of us it made them look too nazi like, it was still very very effective – UVA is the temple. The Lee Statue is merely a symbol.
But the protestors wanted the campus angry and out the next day.
They wanted much of what they got – though they wanted a spin more like Shapiro going to Berkeley. They wanted to be beat up and defending themselves,
I am not sure they would have gotten that without the dodge killing, but they might have.
But one twist blew their whole spin.
Trump too is “shiting in the temple” – though different temples.
One of the temples he is shitting in is that of the media.
And Trump is winning this.
I do not hold a strong view on the NFL issue.
But that was a beautiful play on his part.
The players should have capitluated when the fans booed – it was over at that point.
Regardless, Trump gave red meat to his base, and took an issue the left created and made it so that only the left did not see it his way.
That was a big win. That energized his base and demoralized the left.
That was actually the reverse.
The players kneeling were “shitting in the temple”.
They did not quite realize that.
Regardless “shitting in the temple” is very dangerous – as the players are learning.
But it can be dangerous for both sides.
Depends on the power of your message and how deeply and broadly held it was.
Trump is MAGA and MAGA is the flag and the anthem and the veterans, and it is a powerful symbol.
The players pit BLM against MAGA and found their symbol was way weaker.
MAGA is probably Trump’s most powerful symbol.
This speaks to most of us viscerally.
But it does not speak to most on the left at all.
It is irreconcilable with greivance politicts with intersectionality, with identity politics.
and atleast for today MAGA is the more powerful symbol.
**him.
Terrific, RonP. Still if Trump is out in 2020, does that mean we will get Pence and some Yahoo for VP? Oh boy, this is still a mess, I don’t see much good coming out of the GOP. 😦
dduck, my crystal ball can’t see who will be the opposition
However, I really don’t see Pence challenging him because he is Trumps strongest mouthpiece right now and I would think it would take something BIG for him to turn on Trump. I might go as far to say I can image it most likely being a governor from a more centrist wing of the “establishment” that does not have the baggage of congress around his/her neck.
I would put money on -0- chance of a “do nothing” member of congress is going to accomplish defeating the democrat ion 2010. Its going to take someone with government experience, but from outside Washington for a GOP to even come close in 2020.
Absent:
economic melt down,
or something really really bad with NK that is largely – i.e. not merely by Jay and Roby, seen as Trump’s fault,
or proof that Trump raped someone.
Mueller coming up with something that convinces Republicans in congress to impeach trump
Trump is going to be the GOP candidate, he is not going to face a strong challenger – if any and he has going to win the election handily.
The left can not keep the entire country at a high level of outrage forever.
Remember Clinton’s favorables were very high when he was impeached.
If you keep people amped up and you can not deliver – you get blamed.
We have a log way to go to 2020.
But absent Trump actually damaging himself seriously – that means more than the constant fake outrage has done, he will be the incumbent in 2020.
And unless the democrats get their act together he is going to face someone that is too far to the left to survive.
No matter how offensive you think Trump is, in 2020 he will be the status quo.
He will be the known quantity. Unless something really bad happens – the economy topples, or a war that he is blamed for, he will be seen as the LESS dangerous choice.
I have also qualified “war” with “war he is blamed for” very specifically.
The united states has NEVER voted a president out of office during a war – not even Bush.
I am not sure if Afghanistan counts – but Obama survived 2012.
If NK became hot, and most americans did not beleive Trump created the problem,
then Trump gets re-elected.
My prediction is 2020 looks like nixon/mcgovern or Reagan/mondale.
The dems are going left, when they should move to the center.
They can only win, if things go very wrong.
I would like to see somebody besides Trump on the GOP – that is not happening.
I would like to see Dems run a moderate – that is not going to happen.
Hillary would have beaten Trump if she were not so corrupt in 2016.
But a clean hillary clone will not likely beat Trump in 2020.
And someone further to the left will lose worse.
Two “crystal balls” Two different predictions. Sure hope your wrong as the handful of centrist voters that swung to Trump could change in a heart beat and we could have Elzabeth Warren as our next real” socialist president.
You keeo talking about the economy, etc,etc and how Trump will survive, But the past election was way to close for comfort and that fraction of voters that may switch or stay home may make all the difference next election.
I keep talking about the economy – because it is the single most important factor in the coming elections in my view.
On the one hand I beleive Trump is actually doing most of what can be done by the president unilaterally to improve things.
One the other I beleive we are overdue for a recession, that the stock market might be a Fed induced bubble, and that the negative consequences of stupid choices we made over the past 8 years may not have been fully mitigated yet.
There is reason to hope and to fear.
It is near certain that a strengthening economy is Trump’s fault.
It is unlikely that a failing one is.
But Trump and republicans will get the credit or blame regardless.
I can only guess where the economy is in 2018 and 2020.
But more than anything else we discuss – I think that will determine those elections.
In 2020 with a strong economy – any republican will beat any democrat.
with a weak one any democrat will beat any republican.
That is for president.
I beleive that the house and senate are slowly setting in to more stable orientations.
Almost all blue states have Blue senators
but many red states still have blue senators. The GOP still has a few senate seats to gain.
After that the “great sorting” will be complete, and changes in the house and senate will likely be very slow.
Mostly that is good. It will make it much harder for either party to accomplish anything regardless of who is president.
I hope we do not get Warren as president – but should that happen, we will live.
I also do not think the left grasps how badly out of touch they are with the country.
Though I think Trump will get reelected in 2020. that is not the real issue.
Democrats have swung too far left.
Just reading the tea leaves here.
This is not the same as reporting on facts.
If I am wrong it just means my crystal ball is foggy.
But I would bet that Republicans are going to do well in 2018.
They will hold the house, They will likely lose some seats but fewer than expected.
And I think they will be +2-+4 in the senate.
And in 2020 Trump gets re-elected, probably in a landslide.
Mueller has to hit big game to harm Trump.
There is zero evidence he is getting passed Maneforte, and probably not getting him.
The economy is a key variable. A weak economy and republicans are cruicified.
Democrats are burning out their base and themselves.
This 24×7 outrage all the time weakens them and strenghtens enemies.
Upcoming VA might be a clue. Northam will likely win.
But Trump lost VA by 6 and Gillespie is down 5.
Gillespie is not Trump, further he has a reputation as a closer.
Regardless, unless Gillespie loses by more than Trump did in 2016 that suggest things have not changed much.
Though there are still local factors, VA is not a referendum on Trump and Gillespie has not tied himself to Trump.
Regardless, the generic ballot is +7 D, If Gillespie does nto lose by almost 10 that strongly suggests the generic is wrong.
This is an off off year – that favors republicans, but 2018 is an off year – also favors republicans.
I would also note that Moore in AL as well as Blackburn in TN suggest R’s are responding to the left shift of D’s and the failures of congress by moving further right.
That might cause them to lose – but you should also think about what if it doesn’t ?
What if you get Moore ? Replace Corker with Blackburn.
Get Arpiao. and probably Ward when McCain dies.
What are you going to do if the country starts voting more “Trumpanzee’s” into office ?
How much higher can the left’s outrage go.
The left is very successfully causing people to hate government.
But they are not causing them to like the left.
Dave, Va depends on turnout. Usually around 42% vote in the governors race. Could be much closer than one thinks. Real Clear Politics had McAuliff up by 6% and the final was 2.5. Sorry to say the Libertarian swung the vote to Terry, but that the way it goes when voting principle over stink.
RCP has Northam up 6.8%, so it could come down to getting the Northern Democrats to the polls or this election might be different.
From what little I could tell neither Northam nor Gillispie are horrible choices.
Your analysis seems good to me.
Regardless the point is the race will be close.
That should be foreboding for democrats. If Trump is so politically toxic Gillespie should lose by nearly 10.
We are mis understanding polls – particularly negatives.
The polls suggested that Republicans were going to be cruicified over the shutdown – instead they made large gains.
Trumps negatives were supposed to assure he lost. Yet, he won.
The left is selling one election distorted by Russia.
But the GOP has been gaining ground since 2009.
And they are doing so against what is supposed to be destiny.
I do not want to say I do not trust the polls.
It is more than I do not think we correctly understand what they mean.
Oprah sat down 6 Trump voters and 6 clinton voters recently and interviewed them together. Not only has nothing changed, but the Trump voters are pretty happy with Trump. These are not mostly, the lessor of two evils voters.
These are people who see Trump as their voice and they have had no voice.
I really do not think the left understands the breadth or depth of the anger in this country with them. Worse they do not understand that their own anger and refusal to accept the results of the election are making things worse – much worse.
We keep fighting over this russia nonsense. I can say whatever I want and so can Jay and Roby.
But ultimately it either bears fruit or dies. Worse it seems to do more than die, it rots and stinks.
Roby has correctly noted the corrosive and addictive political atmosphere.
It is like the election continues on and on.
I think right now growth would be about 1/2% higher but for the political environment.
But we are going to burn out from all of this. Absent finding substance the big losers are the media and the left.
I beleive in markets and freedom and one aspect of that is that when you keep trying to sell rotting fruit eventually people quit buying.
Dave, I have not said anything about the russia investigation for months. I could care less. When and if something comes of the investigation, then I will comment on the outcome. So far nothing is being revealed.
You keep talking about the far left supporters and the Trump supporters and nothing has changed since the election with those people. I keep talking about the 35% base that will stick with him regardless. I beleive the ones you reference and the ones I reference is the same.
But I also keep talking about the handful of voters in a few key states that turn this election. How many of those were not like me who looked at Clinton and Trump and said “no f’ing way” and voted for johnson? many more looked at those two and said “oh crap” and then voted for one or the other. And in those few states more voted for Trump than clinton.
Point…..Had the Democrats ran a centrist who did not think the government could tax the crap out of everyone and everything and give free healthcare, free education, free child care, free…. or a candidate that thought it was :her time” and she was entitled, I believe fully that Trump would have been defeated. And if they run that type candidate in 2020, that handful of voters might switch back and cause Trumps defeat.
It not the supporters, its the tepid support from “hes the least worse” who may now thing “no way will I vote for him again”
I appreciate your argument – and it does make sense.
But everytime I read something in the press where they actually bother to go to flyover country and interview Trump voters, they are happy.
And I specifically mean the rust belt, union, blue collar democrats who are primarily responsible for electing Trump.
I do not want to get into a feud over this. Reading tea leaves is not a hill I want to die on.
But I think that the media, the polls, the left vastly overestimates The magnitude of Trump’s unpopularity.
We had a version of this during the last government shutdown.
Polls were near universally against republicans. Yet in elections a year later the GOP did very well.
But if you looked at the polls, at the same time people were negative about republicans,
they were also saying bu 75% that the debt limit should not be raised.
I just tripped over some poll regarding Milenials.
Something like 65% have a favorable view of socialsim.
At the same time, in the same polls, 75% beleive that you are only entitled to what you work for.
The Hillary was a poor choice meme has alot of merit.
But it has baggage too. It presumes that Hillaries baggage came with no advantages.
Hillary Clinton remains one of the most significant polliticians in modern history.
Alot of people could not vote for Crooked Hillary, but for alot Hillary was an institution.
No rising Democrat will have that stature.
No rising democrat will be someone you can hold your nose and vote for.
Neither Warren nor Sanders will reach that status of democratic institution before they die.
I do not think democrats would have won with Sanders or Warren, or Biden.
I do not think they had, or have someone in the middle with enough stature and credibility,
and they are doing nothing that will produce that person in the future.
I am mostly not interested in regaming 2016. Whatif’s or pure speculation.
2020 is different.
I do not think democrats can move to the center – they would have had to start immediately after the election.
Candidates and their support do not arise from thin air.
A centrist that could beat Trump would need to be a known person with atleast some stature today.
In 2020 Trump will be the incumbent.
All the people who held their noses and voted for him in 2016 will be saying, the world did not end, the economy is doing fine. Go with the devil I know rather than the one I don’t.
“I believe my rights are not derived from the Constitution. My rights are not derived from any government. My rights are not denied by any majority. My rights are because I exist.”
Sen. Joe Biden
That’s interesting. He’s right, but I wonder if he knows what he means.
His statement is a fundimental distinction between “liberals” and modern progressives.
With a bit of effort I can probably identify the specific philosopher that “my rights are because I exist” came from.
If Jay and Roby would merely accept that rights exist outside of govenrment and are not subject to the whim of the majority, the vast majority of the rest of what we argue would disapear.
Sorry, RonP, I was following the meme that Trump would drop out. Then Pence is going for the pres and who knows.
dduck, if that happened, then you could not believe how fast big tax reform and infrastructure would happen. But death is the onlky way he will leave before 2020.
Hopefully infrastructure will NOT happen.
Do we really need a repeat of the disaster that was ARRA ?
Stimulus spending does not work.
What we should do is completely end federal highway spending and end the federal gas tax. Let states impose their own gas tax and make their own highway spending decisions.
The gas tax provided far more than enough revenue to take care of roads and bridges.
Dave your living under a rock! The gas tax is a dying tax. Each year more and more cars are on the road that do not use gas or use much less gas. So the roads are being damaged at the same rate, but the revenues are not there to provide the funding needed to replace the roads that need replacing. And you will tell me all about the revenues being spent on stuff that are not roads and i get it. But looking forward, the states are going to have to tax cars based on some formula other than gas used. Then we will not have revenues from one states going to another for roads people pay for that they never drive on.
But whats the solution in states that have many bridges but fewer cars. Interstates where thousands travel through the state and use the bridge, but never spend money in that state? Would you support paying for a bi-annual government list of bridges on interstates listing their probability of collapse so one could make an informed decision on if they wanted to cross that bridge or not?
In two decades federal and state combined gas tax revenues have fallen from 100B/yr to 80B/yr.
But the fundimental problem is not the decline in revenue, but that gas taxes are quite often NOT used for highways.
There is a small issue related to electric cars. That may grow over time, but we can find a solution to that.
Regardless, given that we are likely to continue to have government pay for roads we should look to pay for roads based on use. gas taxes are a reasonable proxy for use.
Get rid of CAFE standards and let people buy efficient cars if they CHOSE to.
Highway issues are not linear with miles traveled. The cost to build, and the cost to maintain a road are radically different.
Cars are also getting lighter and that has a significant reduction in wear.
But the primary factor wearing roads is trucks and they loads.
Bridges and roads have a high cost to build, but resurfacing is cheap, and the life expectancy is huge.
Most of our highway construction is NOT rebuilding end of life roads, but expanding roads – i.e. it is expansion, not end of life replacement.
Here is reasons highway assessment.
The short version is slight improvement over time. Things are NOT going to hell.
http://reason.org/news/show/21st-annual-highway-report
We can also tell that historically with that sensitive instrument the Mark I eyeball.
All the roads I have to deal with everywhere are better than they were 40 years ago.
If gas taxes need raised – fine, if we need to tax something related to electric cars – fine.
But if we are going to have government manage roads, we should pay for them with taxes on the use of roads.
We should not use that money for other things.
We should not use other money for that.
The impact of ARRA was actually bad.
First it pulled alot of labor from elsewhere into road construction and then when ARRA expired the road construction industry tanked.
We do not want feast and famine, and we do not want roads to be a stupid (and ineffective) form of economic stimulus.
BTW I am pretty sure Amtrak and other public transportation projects are paid for out of gas taxes. That too is a mistake.
Public transportation should be paid for by the cost of public transportation.
The worst roads in our country are confined to a handful of states, they are URBAN highways, and very heavily travelled.
They are not in states with lots of roads and bridges and little travel.
Again we are in ouija board territory – but why is Trump dropping out ?
I think he is enjoying being president. I think he tweets this inflamatory stuff because it makes him happy. I do not think he is quitting or dropping out.
I do not think the GOP can or will force that.
I do not think they will seriously try.
Anything is possible. He could have a stroke, he is passed the age where heart attacks are likely. The economy could tank. Mueller could find the tape of him plotting everything with Putin. Pigs could fly.
But speculating Trump is not running in 2020 is wishful thinking.
I would like to see the GOP run someone else – but it is not happening.
I do not recall an instance ever where the party in power has switched presidential candidates after the first term.
Here is one immigrant the left does not seem to want in!
Nothing to do with GC but thinking in general: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/opinion/the-art-of-thinking-well.html?_r=0
dduck, very interesting. Good article.
I would question one comment though. ” But the real way to persuade people is to create an attractive community that people want to join. If you do that, they’ll bend their opinions to yours.”
In this day and age, will people REALLY bend their opinions to yours, or will they be relentless to try and bend your opinion to their own if they join to begin with?.
I think Rick has created an attractive “community” for “moderates” to discuss various issues, but I see no one changing any of their opinions concerning anything we discuss. We all have our own opinions and we all try to change the others to our way of thinking.
And if there ever is a point in the discussion that one of us pokes a hole in the others argument, instead of responding to that situation, we seem to shut up until something else comes along so we do not have to change our opinion that is based on some degree of inaccurate information.
Today the attractive community seems to be like minded people gathered in a group so their is no opposition thinking instead a various thinkers debating issues and finding common ground.
If you want to study thinking – try Kant, or Kierkegaard, or Aristotle or myriads of others.
I like David Brooks but he would not be my go to person to understand or improve thought.
Thaler, the recent Nobel winner is the hero of left libertarians, such a Zwolinski and Sunstein. His work is the foundation of Sunsteins “nudge”.
The premise is that govenrment on many things should not command, but incentivize.
I am not even sure that is an improvement or possible. Nudges from govenrment are ultimately commands. Further government has an abysmal record for creating horrible incentives. The black family survived slavery, survived jim crow, but did not survive the great society.
There is very little movement in trench warfare.
President SHitHead followed up on his earlier tweet with this one:
Why aren’t you speaking out against this blatant attack against the 1st Amendment by a sitting president Pricilla? Dave? Ron?
Do you not understand how UNAMERICAN it is for the president to say something like this?
Jay, anytime anyone attacks the rights of others it is a concern. But just as the press is protected , so to is the president to say what he finds necessary. I do not follow what he says constantly on twitter. I do not have twitter account active. I don’t have the time to waste following Trump and what he says unlike some people that follow each word he may write.
But here he said something to the effect that some news agency reported he said X and he said he did not say X and someone should look into it. Now he most likely said X and is now lying. Just like most of his comments.
I think you can go back over a years worth of comments on this site and I suspect you will find that I have made not more than 10 comments where I may have supported Trump in whatever the subject may have been. But I am also a realist and know I could post 50 comments daily on this site about 50 different things negative things about Trump and what he does and the only thing it will do is piss everyone off because it is way to many comments and Dave will respond with 100 to what I said.
I can not do anything between now and 2020 when he may be the candidate and then voice my positions on why the Libertarian needs the vote of the centrist voters. And at that time, if he is running and the democrats run the loony left against him, that is exactly what I will do.
“Do you not understand how UNAMERICAN it is for the president to say something like this?”..Jay I understand full well what this is, but what the hell can I do about it? Even his daughter who is one of the 2 or 3 people he may listen to can not get him to shut up.
Here are Trumps actual remarks.
It is even more innocuous if you play the clip.
The clip is about our nuclear capability.
Trump aparently ordered (or said he ordered as this could be a head fake to little kim),
that the existing nuclear capability be examined and everything brought to perfect working condition. The press then reported that he wanted to expand our nuclear capability by a factor of 10, The quote is a response to a question about the press report that he claimed he wanted to increase our nuclear force by a factor of 10.
so he responds:
President Trump: “It’s frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write, and people should look into it.”
and then returns back to the nuclear issue.
Now, if the press can back up the claim that sometime since the election Trump said he wanted a nuclear force 10 times as large – then Trump is lying.
Otherwise his remark is spot on.
But no matter what Scarboro and Jay are seriously misrepresenting the remark.
I guess Mattis must be a liar too then, right? Because he says that the NBC report is “absolutely false”.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/11/james-mattis-responds-nbc-news-nuclear-arsena-243680
If Trump wants to unload on a dishonest network, fine by me. It seems more American than a blatant attempt to inflame partisan divisions.
And Trump doesn’t control the FCC anymore than he controls the NFL…..so relax, Jay.
I would greatly prefer that the president were more careful about what he says.
I am not bothered by the off the cuff remark in the middle of the nuclear weapons interview – it is actually correct. The media reports were reckless.
I am more worried by the stronger threat to look into licenses.
I was deeply disturbed by Obama’s remarks that Hillary had done nothing wrong.
But the whole mess of presidential speach is complicated.
The argument is circular.
The president should choose his words carefully – because the world changes based on subtle nuances in the presidents words.
That is a good argument. It is a reason Obama should not have declared Clinton’s innocence publicly in the middle of the investigation.
At the same time Trump talks so much and so off the cuff, that little importance should be given to the details of what he says.
That is his style.
I am pretty sure that the noise and disonance of his remarks is somewhat deliberate – and I think it is often effective.
I think he constantly says provocative things and then those he is negotiating with breath a sigh of releif when they end up giving him what he actually wanted.
I suspect that Tillerson and Mattis and Kelley and … may on frequent occasion be frustrated by him. I think Tillerson may well has said he was a moron after one meeting.
That neither makes it true, nor means Tillerson is quitting, nor means that either Trump or Tillerson are doing a bad job.
I think thus far Tillerson is doing an excellent job, but I think that Trump shares alot of the credit for that.
I have one serious concern regarding Trump – I think his way of dealing with the world burns through good people fast. I think he gets alot from them. But he is demanding and frustrating.
Trump has coverted the executive branch to “the apprentice”, and it is working in the sense that it produces good results, but it is very very hard on people.
I also think that the whitehouse and Kelley thing they are managing Trump.
I think Trump is managing them.
I do not think Trump is that committed to specific policies.
But he is committed to accomplishing things.
He goes into a meeting on nuclear weapons – his takeaway is “I need the rest of the world to beleive the US is a formidable nuclear power” and Tillerson and Mattis and …. think it is about the number of nuclear weapons. Trump does not care about the numbers or the details. What he cares about is that the US has the biggest stick.
He does not even care that specifically what the biggest stick means.
But he does care that other countries and the US people beleive that whatever the biggest stick means – the US has it.
Dave, as long as shortbread in North Korea thinks Trump is crazier than he is, then that might not be a bad persona to keep NK from being even more bold.
North Korea scares the shit out of me.
I do not think I linked it here, but I tripped over something interesting about the “internet era”.
We now have essentially private intelligence think tanks.
These are doing the same jobs as NSA and CIA, but they are doing it using public information and providing their analysis publicly.
These guys have been dead on right so far. And their analysis is very good. They were able to locate secret launch sites, and calculate the range and payload of rockets.
They beleive that NK can hit NYC NOW! not a couple of years from now.
That the recent flurry of activity is mostly to perfect the last bits of problems with a complete nuclear ICBM system.
They also suggested that we have not shot down a north korean ICBM – because we can’t and a failed attempt would be politically disasterous.
There are basically 3 US ABM systems that can engage North Korean Missles.
Two are in the ascent phase which is very very hard. You have a very narrow time window, before you end up in a tail chase that you will always loose.
ABM missles are like torpedoes, they are very small and very fast, but short range.
The launch at high speed and maintain speed until they run out of fuel – which happens fast. While the missle they are chasing launches slow and gets faster and faster and does not run out of fuel quickly. There is a time window of a few minutes at most in which a tail chaser can bring down an ICBM.
The third system is a US based interceptor system. That goes for a high speed head to head collision with the warhead. The interception is in space or high atmosphere.
Targeting is harder – you can just chase the heat signature on a burning rocket. This is like hitting a bullet with a bullet. It is doable but hard.
That is our only workable defence against an NK ICBM and I beleive tests so far have about a 50/50 success rate.
The optimal system would be space based. But we do not have such a system deployed or possibly developed. That is the best arrangement to take out an ICBM. It requires a smaller weapon and has more time to work out targetting.
Like i said, if shortbread thinks Trump is a loose cannon and would put the full rampage of our systems onto Korea and level that country to look like the Northern California fire area now and leave him with nothing except dust from the south Korean border to China, then that might be all that keeps him from launching one toward the USA.
but he is never going to give up his nukes. he saw what happened to every other leader that relented to the demands of America. Their all dead. He believes if he gives up nukes, then somehow he will end up dead also.
The estimated impact of a NK ICBM strike in NYC is about 500K dead,
about 1/2T in immediate damage, and deep global recession.
And that does not count any other consequences such as our military response.
So what would you propose?
I honestly do not know the answer.
But I know that I can not criticize Trump’s handling of NK, because I have no better idea.
You may be right I may be crazy But it just may be a lunatic you’re looking for
Scarboro and by implication you are misrepresenting.
Trump said that what the press was saying was disgusting – which some of it is, and someone should do something about it – which they should.
Unless he is saying Government should do something about it, he is not attacking the 1st amendment. With Trump you never know. Maybe he does want government to act.
But he did not say he did and therefore Scarboro and you are lying.
There is nothing wrong with criticizing the free speach of another.
Were the peaceful counter protestors at charlottesvile anti-free speech ?
Some maybe, but one of the things you do about disgusting speech is speak MORE.
Speak out against it.
In fact most anything you “do about it” short of violence or govenrment intervention is acceptable.
Has the entire left gone mad ?
Do you have to twist everything Trump says ?
He does not need your help to actually say something stupid.
When you misrepresent what he says, it is you that looks stupid.
The NFL players are learning what guaranteed free speech means, and that someone can “do something about it” and still have the right to free speech.
I know that is hard for lefties to grasp.
I do think that newspapers should fire biased reporters, I think they should fire reporters for serious mistakes.
Firing a reporter for being biased is neither an assault on the free press or free speach.
But government can not make the press fire reporters.
I also BTW think reporters can be biased and say whatever they want – so long as their editor lets them get away with it, which will be so long as their readers do.
Is everyone on the left clueless about the difference between governmnent and people ?
RonP, do you think, if Trump dropped out, and Pence ran for Pres., that he could win? And, a choice of VP would be critical. I don’t agree with this: “dduck, if that happened, then you could not believe how fast big tax reform and infrastructure would happen.”
I don’t like to talk about anyone dying, BTW. However, if Trump feels his “administration” is dead, he may “move on”.
dduck, I suspect if Trump decided not to run that Pence would have a decent chance of winning. The reason being that the same dynamics that existed when Trump ran exist even more so today. And it would depend completely on the democrats choice for president. They will have to go to the senate or the house for their candidate since they have so few governors to to choose from. They have a couple, but the ones that might get picked are from what I consider the loony left. In that case, many Trump voters would stick with Pence.
What we have today in the parties and their agendas are very different than just a few years ago. And I think that is one reason we hear so much about “fake” news. The news may not be fake, but the divide in this country has created a situation where certain issues may arise and each party has different facts concerning those issues. When two parties will not come together to even discuss problems facing the country, the media reports news based on the facts given to them from their sources. That drives two completely different stories and then one is fake and one is real. Both are real, its just the facts in one of the cases is fake,.
And the rigid right accepts the facts as presented by the GOP. The loony left accepts the facts as presented by the democrats. Many moderates are not paying attention and the centrist just might be fact checking before voting.
The scary part of all this is we end up with Clinton/Trump, two completely incompetent bozos, one entitled to be president and one energizing and playing on emotion to garner just enough votes to win.
As for Trump moving on and Pence taking over, I think congress would be much more open to his efforts than those of Trump. He was powerful in the house when he was there and has not done anything to alienate elected officials, unlike Trumps daily hit list.
The people elected Trump not Pence.
Very few votes were impacted by the choice of Pence.
One of the things we all need to come to grips with is that the country elected Trump exactly as he is.
We knew what we were getting.
To the extent that an election accurately reflects what we want, we wanted Trump – as he is.
If you are given a choice between chocolate and vanila, and you pick chocolate.
you can not conclude from that, that if you had the choice of Strawberry you would have picked that instead. All we know is that the electorate picked Trump.
That many of us want a do over, does not change the choices that was made.
Dave, “To the extent that an election accurately reflects what we want, we wanted Trump – as he is.”
I agree with most of what you said with one exception. I don’t think people expected Trump to piss off so many people in his own party, making passing much he stood for almost impossible. He was the grand negotiator and was going to get stuff done by negotiating.
He has done no negotiating, he has pissed off most every important member in congress and when you do that, you can kiss your ass goodbye the next time you need someone to support you in whatever you ask.
Do you even think McCain even gave Trump a chance to talk to him about healthcare? And now he pisses off Corker. Corker is going to tell him to go to hell if and when he calls and asked for his support of tax reform if there is any hint it will increase the debt.
So in that regard, no people did not vote for that Trump.
“I agree with most of what you said with one exception. I don’t think people expected Trump to piss off so many people in his own party”
I actually think they did. This is also why I think the GOP is going to run more Roy Moore types in 2018.
If the GOP is looking for “radicals”, I wish they would look towards Austin Petersen, rather than Roy Moore or Sherrif Joe.
Regardless, I am predicting few moderate republicans in 2018.
As whether voters wanted him to passing things. I do not know.
Oprah’s interviews of Trump voters found them very happy as a whole.
I think Trump was elected more to poke at the hornets nest than to get things done.
I think voters were smart enough to know that Congress was not going to accomplish anything just because Trump was elected.
BTW there are articles about Rand Paul coming out calling him the “trump whisperer”.
Trump does not attack Rand – atleast not personally. Rand does not attack Trump.
They are quite often at odds on policy. But the keep the conflict to policy.
Apparently Rand and Trump and talking several times a week. They do not agree much.
But they listen to each other. Rand does not ask Trump for anything Trump does not ask Rand for anything. There are no favors, no political debts. They are a very odd couple. They should be natural enemies. But Rand has on numerous occasions influenced Trump.
This is all very interesting, because Rand is actually demonstrating that Trump responds in kind. That is you argue policy, he will argue policy, but if you make it personal, he will make it personal. If you criticize him, he will criticise you. That you can not ask for favors –
or you will owe favors. But if you do not make it personal – you can work with him.
I think McCain is a war hero and his military service is not something smart people question, and Trump’s attack on McCain’s service was revolting.
I have alot less respect for McCain the politician.
The Corker thing is getting alot of press too – and I am sorry, I am not reading it is good for Corker. I have not fully grasped the details. Trump is as he typically does misrepresenting things. But it is becoming evident that so is Corker.
Corker apparently wanted out of the Senate for some time. He wanted Sec. State, and did not get it. It is possible that some of the stress between Tillerson and Trump is either caused or amplified by Corker.
It also looks like Corker was doing the opposite of what Paul has been doing with Trump.
Corker has been trying to trade favors, and has not gotten what he wanted, and is pissed.
I am speculating here a bit, but I think that Trump likes people coming to him and asking for favors. I think he likes being fawned over. But I think that he concurrently loses respect for those who do. I think that is why Paul and Trump are getting along, and Corker and Trump are not.
I also think that both the left and Trump exaggerate his power.
Trump voters are not going to pick a different candidate for house or senate because Trump campaigns for them or against them.
I think Trump remains far more electable than most of us beleive.
I think he is not only going to win in 2020 but win big – as long as the economy grows.
But he has no coattails.
Republicans as an example Picked Moore in AL, because they wanted another Trump of sorts. NOT because they wanted the man Trump wanted.
Here is an excellent – albeit long Interview of Julian Assange on all of this – as well as what he rightly thinks is more important at the end.
The fact that those on the left seem to think that Assange is a Trump supporter should alone cause you to question the left.
Regardless, Assange makes it clear, as far as he is concerned the entire collusion/Russia nonsense is a giant and very successful troll of the US left that has become entirely unhinged.
He made absolutely clear that no one who publicly claimed to know what wikileaks was doing before it happened, was doing anything more than regurgitating things that wikileaks has said first.
He said the story is:
We acquired data, we publicly said we were going to release, others said we were going to release it, and then we released it. anyone claiming prescience or collusion based on knowing what wikileaks was going to do AFTER wikileaks told the public what it was going to do, is chasing the ball over the cliff.
The last 1/3 of the interview he got frustrated and forced the converstation to an issue he cared about. One of importance to the world. One that should be to the US left, that we are completely ignoring.
I do not entirely agree with Assange. He is too far LEFT for my tastes, but you either have to beleive that someone who has been on the left his entire life has become a Trump Troll or that he is telling the truth.
The Gucifer 2.0 story has been discredited. The Russia Hacked the DNC story is pretty well discredited.
Wikileaks has maintained from the begining that both were false, and hinted this was a leak not a hack. And right now they are the only source with their credibility intact
LOVE IT. Wish this would allow me to copy and paste into facebook post. Amazing this is all he has gotten done, AND YOU SAY HE WILL BE REELECTED?????
The clip came from twitter.
Trump’s re-election will depend on the economy.
That is my read of the tea leaves, ouija board, crystal ball.
And I am sticking to it.
I know Roby and Jay do not grasp that – but I can complain about Trump.
People overall do not think what matters to me is important – or important enough.
What Roby and Jay do not understand is that despite the outrage in the temple of the left, over Trump defications, people do not mostly care over what matters to them either.
This is a more disturbing free press tweet.
Of course the solution is to eliminate broadcast licenses, then no one can pull them.
And then there is this from the left moral light of the country.
And you wonder why Weinstein is only the tip of the iceberg ?
Those evil racist americans
“First of all, if you were merely parodying Dave with your “shitting and pissing” diatribe from a few weeks ago, then I owe you an apology. ”
Priscilla, At the top of my offending post were Daves words, in quotes. I was clearly talking to dave abut his glee that, in his words, trump was shitting and pissing in the liberal temples. Believe it or not, Dave gets WAY out there, not rarely. How you have missed that I do not know.
In any case I certainly accept your apology and offer my own for getting very testy, pointy, overheated. You and Ron (and Dduck) manage to keep out of the overheated state, Jay, Dave, and I do not. I applaud all of you who can do that.
Grabbing women by the pussy without some kind of courtship procedure is not “boorish,” it is sexual assault. I looked trumps sexual assault record up on wiki and provided the list of allegations here. Yes, money and nasty lawyers can buy that off and shut it up. Incredibly, you choose not to believe that, I am not going to pound my head against that denial wall. You have chosen to believe the unproven allegations of Clinton’s assaults (Monica was not an assault) but do not chose to believe the allegations about trump. trump does not rape. He does not need to, his is filthy rich, his money does the work. But he does grab, fondle, invade, degrade, and he is even proud of it. Its Unacceptable in a POTUS and acceptance of it by trumps supporters is a new cultural low.
I am just going to be repetitive here. You believe that trump is innocent of sexual assault, I believe that he does just what he says and the list of women who were making allegations that he does that are telling the truth. It boggles my mind that you accept the allegations against Clinton and hold that against bill and hillary but hold allegations against trump to a different standard. As I have said, the issue is not really you, its you times several tens of millions. I have watched tens of millions of conservatives walk away from what I had believed were their values for the sake of partisan politics. Its really creeping me out.
In any case we have a POTUS who is on record saying all the unbelievably derogatory and vile things he has said in public, many of them during the campaign, about women. I have a huge problem with that, you do not. Time will tell what the repercussions are of that in American politics.
I say that they will eventually be huge.
Priscilla, you are a partisan. I do very badly with partisans, liberal or conservative. In fact, I have jumped all over every liberal partisan who has ever briefly shown up here, Moogie is a good example. Partisan thinking makes my teeth itch. Its how I am wired.
I’ve said it before but I will repeat it. You and Ron occupy a very similar place ideologically. He is conservative but not a partisan republican, you are. I have a completely different reaction to you and Ron as a result. Being a partisan leads you to accepting trumps character and defending it. Being non-partisan leads Ron to see trump more or less as I do. Our interactions on what I will call your trump denial are never going to be cordial. They drive Jay nuts as well, and I understand Jay’s reaction, its the same as mine.
I Hate this political cesspool. I have a new approach to my life. I get up early, do my work (my job) on the computer, do not look at the news and try to finish by noon and then I turn off the computer and leave it for the day leaving me free to work on cars, complete the honey-do list, stack wood, fix stuff, putter, go for walks by the river with my dog, and play music. I have been trying to give up my TNM addiction as well, but yesterday I was weak and looked in and weak again and commented. I really do not want to read about politics and comment about politics any longer. But I am weak regarding TNM, addicted. I have had no trouble turning off the news, that part has been easy. I have not seen the news or anything political other than TNM in more than a week and I have not missed it. Turning off TNM and going through withdrawal may take me a few more tries, but I will get there and be free of dave and any form of arguing with trump denial, or anything else.
I know that you try to get yourself out of here and end up coming back, Roby. And selfishly, I’m glad that you do come back ~ not because I like to torture you with my “trump denial” but because I like to get your take on things, at least when you’re not getting overheated.
I think that the election of Trump has thrown everyone, partisans and non-partisans alike, into a more overheated state than usual, and it’s its not entirely Trump’s fault, although he certainly does not calm the waters, if, in fact, they could be calmed.
(I didn’t even realize that the first part of your “shitting and pissing” comment was a block quote and not your own words, btw. So, once more, my apologies, and thanks for not rhetorically bludgeoning me with my self-righteousness)
Priscilla, one apology is 500% more contrition and taking responsibility than occurs from the average online poster. Doubling up on it is really gilding the lily. A tempest in a teapot. If only all of our problems were so small as a misread post or an overheated poster.
Just imagine life without following the news or politics, Priscilla. If I can’t entice you to leave the partisan world can I entice you to just leave the world of closely following all this political drama, period? You have no idea how good I feel NOT having directly read a single news story in more than a week. No drama, no anger, much more free time!
Give it a shot!
There is merit in your arguments about leaving the political angst.
You need not avoid all discussions of anything political to do so.
You need not pretend parts of the world do not exist.
You merely need to grasp that the world is not likely ending,
that the latest thing that is outraging you is nothing more than the latest thing and that your outrage is a choice.
I have my own obsessions – but I am not anticipating the world ending – even if I fear some things – maybe different things than you.
You and Jay keep calling people Trump denialists – denying what ?
That he is a boor ? That we could have done better ?
We can debate alot of things regarding Trump we not agree on exactly how bad he is or what things he might not be bad at. But he is not likely the end of the world.
And he is no more likely the end of the world than Hillary.
One of the things I am trying to get through is that the election of Trump is a SYMPTOM
not a cause.
The PEW data that several of us refered to that is noting much greater polarization, reflects a trend that STARTED with Obama’s election.
Hidden in that data is the split is not so much because the right moved further right – it has not, but because the left is moving further left.
The country has overall moved further left – meaning the center is further to the left.
But we no longer are a bell curve with ripples at the top, but a two humped camel.
Further the left and right are no longer their own separate overlapping bell curves but left and right facing wedges. The left peak is pretty far left, and the right peak pretty far right.
The middle is thining. The gulf is not only larger but empty.
Trump did not create this world. While I think this polarization started long before Obama, the most radical shifts occurred during Obama.
Trump did not divide us, he merely reflects that we are divided.
Obama and the left divided us.
While I want to be clear on causes – because Roby and Jay have them wrong.
And misunderstanding causes results in poor conclusions.
Even the causes are not critical.
It does nto matter whether the polarization is caused by the left or right.
It matters what the consequences are.
What we are seeing with Trump is a consequence not a cause.
The empty gulf is going to make it very hard for either party to move to the middle.
Until this changes future presidents are likely to be Trump like or Warren like.
and are going to be bitterly divided.
My guess is what will end this is one party or the other actually succeeding.
I keep returning to the economy.
The consequences of a strong economy in 2018 and 2020 are not only retained and possibly expanded GOP control, but public validation of “Trumpism”
And that will cause some voters on the left to shift towards the center.
The same would happen if the left took control AND SUCCEEDED
The “shitting in the temple” metaphor is beautiful and accurate.
It explains why 1/4 of the country is frothing at the mouth and the rest of us are trying to understand what is going on.
Many of the rest of us do not respond as the left and the media do – because Trump is not shitting on something sacred to us, he is shitting on something sacred to you.
Yes, I am gleeful. This metaphor is so accurate on so many levels and so illuminating.
We do not share the same sense of what is sacred.
What is Sacred to Trump voters is extremely different from what is sacred to the left.
Further the left pretends to be intellectual and yet this is quite obviously a religious fight.
BTW the left has been shitting and pissing over the sacred space of much of the country for decades – which is part of why the glee that Trump is doing the same to you.
I am bothered when Trump talks about suspending the license of NBC.
That is wrong and should he actually try – I would oppose him.
But yes, a tiny part of me relishes the threat – why ?
Because the left has been doing that for 50 years.
I beleive in free speach for everyone – YOU do not. You only beleive in free speach for you. We have listened to left weanies talk about using government to restrict unacceptable speach for 50 years.
No I do not want to see your speach restricted, but I can still be happy that you are worried about it – because you threaten everyone else’s all the time.
Something like 2/3 of progressives beleive that something undefinable called hate speach can be criminalized. So long as you are fixated on the nonsensical beleif that some speach can be criminalized, I can get a little joy from Trump yanking your chain now and then – so long as he does not actually act on what he says.
The above was about speach – but the core pervades myriads of values – some such as speach that are important to me, and some that are important to others but not so important to me.
But the point is the left has been demeaning the values of others in this country for decades. I am not personally prolife. I am very uncomfortable with abortion later in the pregnancy. But I beleive in a persons right to control of their own body.
But I do not beleive that people who are prolife are evil or stupid or mysoginist or antiwomen. They are quite sincere. Catholics in particular are prolife and anti death penalty – they are consistently prolife.
The left does not just disagree with these people, it must demonize them, transform them into dolts, piss all over what is sacred to them. It must make them evil.
The left beleives it is acceptable to force nuns to participate in things they beleive are immoral, or abandon their charitable work.
You are incapable of grasping that everyone does not share your moral values, or that you get to decide what is an acceptable moral accomidation for someone else.
You have defined nearly everything that is a freedom or a right as a privilidge and converted things that are not rights into rights. And then find it acceptable to decide what others can do. You have destroyed institutions such as minority families and now you seek to destroy individual charity.
You have no sense of the extent to which you have pissed and shat in everyone else’s sacred space.
So yes, the rest of us can be gleeful what Trump shits in yours.
Dave, “I beleive in free speach for everyone – YOU do not. You only beleive in free speach for you. We have listened to left weanies talk about using government to restrict unacceptable speach for 50 years.”
Do you really believe this? 50 years ago was 1968. That was when the free speech movement (basically free anything) started. Best know is the Berkeley sit in because students wanted to have their voices heard and the voices of those they wanted to hear. Establishment leaders (government and college administrators)did not want to hear anything but what they approved, so riots, sit-ins and protest were daily occurrences in the late 60’s and early 70’s on college campuses and in college towns. What my generation fought for was considered far left loony crap and the leaders did not want to hear anything about it. We won. And now the left is trying to shut down free speech, what was fought for so hard by the left hippie agitators of my day.
I think the difference today is how all this is reported. The left have their facts. The right have their facts. And neither group of facts are the same for the same situation.
I appologize for an inaccurate generalization.
The left has sought to limit speach for more than 100 years.
60’s Liberals are an aberration, they were almost actually liberal.
Separately I am also aware that the left is not the only group that sought to limit free speach.
I am cognizant of the potential dangers of an ascendant right as well its some of the past abuses of the right. They are not the most serious threat to freedom today.
The left lean of the media is more than 50 years old.
And yes there is a left media sensorship in the 50’s
Try reading Fred Friendly “the good guys, the bad guys, and the first amendment” about the fairness doctrine rules that were effectively used to shut down emerging right media.
Red Lion V FCC was 1969
On occasion I was forced to listen to WGCB and Rev. Carl McIntyre on the way to school.
I live in the radio footprint of Red Lion Broadcasting.
You listed a bunch of names. That is all.
The very first one I checked was a total fizzle.
The typical left moral equivalences.
Being boorish is the same as being touchy is the same as harrassment, is the same as assault is the same as rape.
You also confuse what people say with what they door.
The access hollywood tape is offensive. That Trump would say such things is disturbing.
It is not the same as having done them.
I am aware of only one allegation against Trump that goes beyond borrish.
That is the purported rape of a 13yr old. That allegation keeps making the rounds, it has identically be made against several people – including Bill Clinton. It has gotten filed in court 3 times, it can not survive a motion for summary judgement.
Put some substance to it and I will support impeachment.
The credible allegations I am aware of do not rise to the level of most of Clinton’s misconduct. They were sufficient that I could not vote for Trump, but not sufficient for me to demand his impeachment.
Listing a bunch of names is not enough.
While proving something to the standards of a court would certainly work,
proving them to the same standards we are holding Clinton and Weinstein to would be sufficient. You do not have that.
Yo my knowledge Trump never settled any such claims.
I know that you think expensive lawyers Trump the truth – and sometimes they do.
But not always.
Nor do I think a settlement is proof of guilt.
But there is a vast gulf between never settling and never losing and constantly settling with non-disclosures.
No one denies Trump.
Most off us just do not think he has 666 carved under his combover.
I can not like many things about Trump without beleiving he is the antichrist.
There are things I worry about regarding Trump – but I would worry about the same if Clinton had won.
North Korea was going to be a big problem no matter what, I do not think Trump knows what he is doing, I do not think Hillary would, I do not think any of us do.
I am worried about the economy. But I am LESS worried that I would be if Clinton was president.
Most of the rest of Trump’s irritants – are just not that bad after Bush, clinton, bush and Obama.
I think the wall is stupid. The world will not end if Trump builds the wall.
I have issues with everybody on immigration. but we will survive.
In fact one of the reasons I think Trump was elected is that the worst that Trump is likely to do, is less of a disaster than the worst another 4 years of democrats would do.
Of all the evil things of all republicans that have any chance of actually happening would occur, that is relatively minor in comparison to just having another mess like ObamaCare inflicted on us.
When a 2nd rate idiot is in charge, disaster follows.
Dumbbell Donald hasn’t a clue about cause and effect in complex systems.
He’s screwed out future, and those who keep enabling him will pay the price with the rest of us.
https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/918498486684999680
Jay what this is going to do is make this a market based system. If the democrats did not want this approach available to use, why the hell did they include the possibility of this happening in the legislation they passed. They had plenty of time to read, re-read and then have someone read it again when they had control of congress and they could have tweaked the legislation until the GOP got control. But no, they left this in because they thought someday it might be needed.
So now that 55 year old woman that has her own business will not have to buy a plan that covers maternity.
The 25 year old single male will not have to buy coverage that covers maternity or birth control medication.
The man or woman self employed that makes 100,000 a year and has an HSA can buy a low end plan and cover their healthcare cost with a high deductible and then only when high cost are incurred, then the insurance kicks in.
The mom and pop that own a craft store and belong to “American Crafters Association” can now pool with all the people in the “American Crafters Association” and buy into a plan where maybe 200-300 people are members. They will have a choice and will not have to buy an Obamacare plan.
And the millions with Obamacare will still get Obamacare and they will still get their subsidized plans where the have little to no premiums.
I thought you were just anti-Trump. I did not think you were Anti-American and Anti-American Liberty.
But you keep spouting off that liberal loony bull shit. Your friends might believe you if you say it enough, but those that have had to buy insurance to cover services they will never use and have had to pay extremely high premiums because they make too much for the sugar daddy government to pay their premiums will know what you are saying is complete and utter nonsense.
Do I think Trump understands ObamaCare – no.
Do I think Obama understood ObamaCare – no.
There is a huge difference between knowing the regulations inside and out and knowing how it will work in the real world.
If I were to guess – Trump has a better understanding of how it will work in the real world – no matter how much worse his understanding of the regulations is than Trump.
Nearly every smart person thinks they could run the world better if they were in charge.
Really smart people no they can’t and that the world works best when no one is in charge.
All arguments for more limited government.
You and I might not agree on what constitutes a 2nd rate idiot.
But we likely agree on the damage that can be done by a 2nd rate idiot as president.
I would suspect that even if we can not agree on which presidents are 2nd rate idiots and which are not, we can agree that it is possible for a 2nd rate idiot to become president.
Any scheme of government that depends on putting perfect people in power will fail horribly. Any scheme that does not work even with 2nd rate idiots in power will fail horribly.
As to Trump. He seems to be pretty good at Left baiting.
In fact he seems to be pretty brilliant at cause and effect.
He is doing a great job of getting the left to threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue.
Dave, don’t forget to wear you new hat…
Jay he will wear it when you and Dave meet for dinner.
I knew as I was pressing the Post Command button that someone was going to make that statement 😼
President Waste-Our-Money continues to fritter away the national wealth.
Schiff is an idiot. Even Assange thinks he is a light weight being played.
We can play these other games all you want. Purportedly Obama’s vacations in 2016 cost the government over $1m.
I have no problems agreeing to rules as to how all of these things are dealt with.
That issue arrose with price – Lynch spent more than Price did.
But there are actually times when very high ranking government officials need their own plane. And there are times they do not.
We should not be playing this But DeVos, But Price, But Lynch nonsense.
We should establish reasonable rules and abide by them.
Trump is not responsible for the secret service. He has very limited control of what they do, and what they spend.
I would note that every time he shows up at one of his own golf clubs – he probably shuts it down so he is costing himself a great deal of money too.
Again there should be rules regarding government expenditures. They should be followed.
They should be the same whether it is Obama or Trump.
This is the sort of thing that few in the media ever worried about when Obama was president. It was occasionally noted that Michelle Obama seemed to have a habit of going off on glamorous vacations of her own, often with her daughters, and also traveled separately from the president, even when they were going to the same destination, incurring millions in extra security and travel costs.
There is no reason that presidents and first ladies should live like royalty at the tax payers’ expense. But picayune whining about how much it costs to pay for Secret Service golf carts is just stupid. If Trump paid for them, Schiff would complain that it was a conflict, or that he was profiting from the office.
But, Schiff is a partisan hack, and he does what partisan hacks do ~ attack the opposite party indiscriminately. He’s a “Party first” kinda guy.
This bothers me.
It bothers me when Obama and officials do it,
it bothers me when Trump does.
Some of it is actually necescary.
I do nto want the Sec. State flying coach to an emergency Mid-east peace conference.
We need rules. They need followed.
We should not fire anyone following the rules because of the “optics”.
We should change the rules.
“Schiff is an idiot”
Pot calling the kettle black..
Provable by your moronic mention of Obama vacation cost: Trump & Family has already spent more on vacation and self indulgence US Taxpayer money than the Obamas did in two terms.
Calling you asinine is a complimentary understatement.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/politics/donald-trump-obama-travel-costs/index.html
First, Schiff is an idiot. That is pretty much a given.
Next we can play these golf, vacation, cabinet secretary games to the end of the earth.
I would note that you are comparing Secret Service costs, not total costs or some other measure.
What I said before and what I said to Prisicilla stands.
We need rules. If the rules are wrong we need to change them.
I do not think the president should control secret service costs.
But I do think the president and first lady should cover the non-security costs of their own recreation and vacations.
But I am guessing the cost of a round of golf is small compared to shtting down the golf course so the secret service can control it.
Dave, I don’t think we disagree on this. I agree that there should be rules.
All I was saying is that Schiff knows damn well that Trump can’t play golf without the Secret Service. I’m sure that Obama’s frequent golf games cost a fortune in security as well. To imply that Trump somehow benefits financially from this, or that it’s a waste of money is just petty and stupid.
I suspect that Trump does benefit. He plays at his own courses, and stays in his own facilities. The SS has to buy from Trump’s enterprises.
I doubt that Trump is deliberately trying to run up the tab.
I also do not care much.
Again their just need to be rules, and everyone held equally to the rules.
Even the Price thing I have not yet heard any discussion of whether what Price was doing was unusual or unnecescary. The optics were bad, but the media was not fixated on every cabinet members travel in the Obama administration.
I have no clue as an example whether AG Lynch was in a government plane in Phoenix because of some critical need to fly straight to phoenix, or because she just did nto want to fly commercial.
Regardless, congress and specifically the house controls the purse.
Obama may have known a lot about the ACA plan he championed, but either he didn’t listen, or ignored, people that really know health insurance that probably told him it was not a good plan.
Trump probably knows more about golf courses and “Trump” signs than he knows about health plans, and he probably wasn’t exposed to those same health insurance experts.
Same bad result in both cases though.
Simpler plan which would help the problem (I know, scoring points is more important) would be to drain the swamp of older less healthy folks by slowly lowering the eligibility age for Medicare. This would improve the overall pool for all the ACA plans, which could lead to stabilizing, or lowering their premiums.
Yes, you got it, Medicare premiums might go up, but there is no free lunch (sorry Obama, you lied).
dduck, there might be a way to add individuals to the medicare program, but that program needs to be fixed before adding anything that will increase cost. The following summary is an independent auditors report, actuary study actually, that shows medicare will continue to show decreased revenues and by 2029 the current reserves will be used up and the fund will have a 12% deficit. By 2041 the fund will be running a 18% deficit.
I know it is hard for some to accept the fact that government can not continue to provide services through the “free lunch” programs, but at some time in the future people buying our debt are going to find a better safer place to put their funds..
Can the economy afford a 12% increase in payroll taxes in 2029, or a 6% increase in 2023 and another one in 2029 to fund these expenses? And if you read the social security section, that needs an increase in tax rates also.
If one looks at the origin of “there is no free lunch” one will find that nothing is free!!!
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
When you allow consumption without concern for cost, you will get skyrocking cost.
Obama’s problem was not lack of expert advice.
Particularly not lack of expert advice on healthcare.
It was the typical hubris of the left and experts that they can do better than markets on their own.
What is wrong with PPACA is not a lack of expertise in HealthCare.
It is the delusion that markets will do what you want them to do.
They will not.
I do not think that you need armies of experts to improve PPACA.
The simplest improvement would be to kill it.
As bad as the mess we had before was – it was better.
The next is to let it fail on its own.
In the mean time there are myriads of things Trump could simply do to blunt stupid effects.
Such as get rid of the assorted mandates.
Those will not make it good. They will just make it less evil while it fails.
From what I can tell the recent Trump HC changes are probably small potatos.
They are good ideas, but not big ideas, they will effect small numbers of people.
They are likely to be very popular because:
Aside from slightly speeding up the PPACA death spiral they otherwise harm no one.
The largest group benefitting is Small business owners who can not get insurance from an employer and are not large enough to get their own good business plan.
This is a group that was decimated by PPACA. They are likely to be incredibly happy.
They can go back to doing exactly what they did before PPACA – by very high deductible plans covering only serious problems and covering basic healthcare from an HSA or out of pocket – which is exactly what smart people would do given the choice.
The other beneficiaries are the religious groups targeted by PPACA.
Again this will be popular among Trump supporters and hurt no one.
Medicare is the single most destructive force to good free market healthcare – exanding it is an abysmal idea. Ending it a better on.
RonP: thank you for your intelligent remarks. But I still think my plan could work- of course with no free lunch- if some in Congress really tried to do more for their fellow countrymen then themselves. Any well thought out plan beats schmucko’s anti-insurance 101 band aids.
Of course the ACA is like Humpty Dumpty, a broken mess, so it ain’t easy.
All the king’s horse and all the king’s men…..
http://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/20-million/
This is a little long, but factual and not opinion for the most part.
I have been looking at some associations that provide healthcare data that is not usually tainted by right or left leaning media. The above link is to a center right leaning organization that uses government data for information purposes. Before listing their findings, this data is also verified very close by Modern Healthcare, a healthcare publication for doctors and hospital management personel. Their findings are in their “Vast majority of ACA enrollees still receiving subsidies” article of march 11 2016. I can not link that as two links go to the “moderation ” dump to never be found.
So the findings are about 21 million individuals achieved insurance through the ACA legislation. Of these:
9.6 Million now qualify for Medcaid
5.8 Million receive insurance through the individual marketplace
1.3 Million additional covered lives are due to expanded employer coverage
4.2 Million have insurance from the parents policies due to being under 26 years old.
Modern Healthcare reported 83% of those covered by Federal and State pl;ans receive subsidized policies at around $300.00 per month.
Apply that 83% to the 5.8 million purchasing coverage on the federal and state plan marketplace results in 4,814,000 individuals covered by a subsidized plan.
Those not subsidized is 986,000
So now the new Trump plan impacts right at 1 million people out of the 21 million that have insurance due to Obamacare.
Now one must ask:
How many of these 1 million have insurance that covers what they need or what the government says they need.
If this small number of individuals are removed from the marketplace plans now in effect, how is that going to affect subsidized plans. You pay what you can afford on these plans for the most part, so the subsidies will increase for the most part for any change in premiums.
Now opinion!!! As a moderate libertarian, I see this as a win for most everyone based on all the data I can find. I believe people with severe health problems need assistance and with the subsidized plans, they will still have their insurance. The left leaning media will publish all this crap about premiums rising double digit percentages, but the government is going to cover that increase through the subsidies for the most part. Why do they through mud on this plan that increases government spending when spending money is their theme song. And those people like the 50 year old self employed woman or the 28 year old single male will not have to pay for maternity coverage. Do liberal just want to control peoples lives and base that on their own twisted facts?
Someone needs top tell me why all this data is wrong and why the lefts outrage is right.
Why is the number of insured or not insured meaningful ?
What I see is that:
We have moved a bunch of numbers from one column to another.
We have transfered a huge amoung of wealth,
both from one set of people to another and from one part of the economy to another.
And with all of this we have done pretty much zippo with respect to actual healthcare.
You note alot of this is medcare or medicaid.
Well the Oregon experiment (as well as others) tells us that health insurance, and specifically medicaid has pretty much not meaningful effect on health.
This is an extremely common problem with government programs.
They move numbers arround. But they do not make any changes of substance.
Dave.
1. I said nothing about Medicare. medicare has nothing to do with ACA other than they took alot of funding from that to cover ACA expenses.
2. The numbers are important since the liberal media is making it sound like allowing low cost plans will cause funding to be reduced by massive amounts. I was simply taking “facts” and using them to dispel the inaccurate image that the liberal media is trying to promote so people at this site would have a better understanding of the impact of the changes Trump has made.
As for your continual statements about healthcare having little impact on the health of the nation, the number of people who were previously uninsurable is a small number compared to the total in the healthcare universe. So when you improve the life of those people and extend their life, it will have no impact on the overall statistics of the healthcare universe.
HOWEVER, if you are that person and you live 5 years longer because you got followup chemo treatments for a recurrence, it does have a tremendous impact on your life expectancy. It just does not show up in the statistics you keep quoting.
I beleive the site you linked to did.
Regardless, it does not matter what form your insurance is in.
Its value is fiscal, not medical.
I am not particularly concerned what the left media says.
If funding is reduced – that would be a good thing.
Are you saying that the fed’s are spending 1.6T/decade, consumers and additional almost 2T and the economy being depressed by about 5T and we are getting no measurable health benefit ?
If you hit the economy even to the cost of 1.6T – I can assure that the harm to human life will exceed whatever you think the benefit is from PPACA.
Though again – the Oregon experiment (and many other studies) showed no measureable benefit.
Are you really arguing that there is a benefit, but it is too small for us to see, and that we should spend Trillions on something that we will never be able to demonstrate actually exists ?
I do not understand the entire PPACA debate – kill the sucker. No measureable benefits, significant costs. This is a no brainer.
Then we can talk about what should be done about what we had before.
Second try, Did not finish posting 1st try
http://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/20-million/
This is a little long, but factual and not opinion for the most part.
I have been looking at some associations that provide healthcare data that is not usually tainted by right or left leaning media. The above link is to a center right leaning organization that uses government data for information purposes. Before listing their findings, this data is also verified very close by Modern Healthcare, a healthcare publication for doctors and hospital management personel. Their findings are in their “Vast majority of ACA enrollees still receiving subsidies” article of march 11 2016. I can not link that as two links go to the “moderation ” dump to never be found.
So the findings are about 21 million individuals achieved insurance through the ACA legislation. Of these:
9.6 Million now qualify for Medcaid
5.8 Million receive insurance through the individual marketplace
1.3 Million additional covered lives are due to expanded employer coverage
4.2 Million have insurance from the parents policies due to being under 26 years old.
Modern Healthcare reported 83% of those covered by Federal and State pl;ans receive subsidized policies at around $300.00 per month.
Apply that 83% to the 5.8 million purchasing coverage on the federal and state plan marketplace results in 4,814,000 individuals covered by a subsidized plan.
Those not subsidized is 986,000
So now the new Trump plan impacts right at 1 million people out of the 21 million that have insurance due to Obamacare.
Now one must ask:
How many of these 1 million have insurance that covers what they need or what the government says they need.
If this small number of individuals are removed from the marketplace plans now in effect, how is that going to affect subsidized plans. You pay what you can afford on these plans for the most part, so the subsidies will increase for the most part for any change in premiums.
Now opinion!!! As a moderate libertarian, I see this as a win for most everyone based on all the data I can find. I believe people with severe health problems need assistance and with the subsidized plans, they will still have their insurance. The left leaning media will publish all this crap about premiums rising double digit percentages, but the government is going to cover that increase through the subsidies for the most part. Why do they through mud on this plan that increases government spending when spending money is their theme song. And those people like the 50 year old self employed woman or the 28 year old single male will not have to pay for maternity coverage. Do liberal just want to control peoples lives and base that on their own twisted facts?
Someone needs top tell me why all this data is wrong and why the lefts outrage is right.
OK before anyone has a cow from my previous post, I just heard the Trump has issued an EO that stops subsidies for Obamacare plans.
And I understand that Obama sent this request to be included in the ACA legislation and the democrats said no, they did not want that in the legislation.
I also understand that Obama then said the treasury department will cover the subsidies which was not legal. Link follows with data:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452660/obamacare-subsidy-payments%3A-trump-illegal-subsidies
So do I think what Trump is doing is bad. Yes and No!!!!
Yes, because like I said in the previous comments I think people need assistance when they have life threatening illnesses and can not afford insurance.
No, because congress did not authorize this in the legislation for these payments to be made.
If congress, both Democrats or Republicans would stop playing their asinine games when they write legislation to support their reelection instead of supporting the people, we would not have these problems. Had they not worried about their record of excessive spending which would have come up in the next election, we would not be where we are now.
THE CONSTITUTION WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO MAKE THE PRESIDENT WEAK AND GIVE HIM/HER ONLY POWER IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When congress writes laws and then allows the president to legislate by E.O. illegally, it does nothing but make our government weaker.. On May 12, 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled these subsidies were illegal since congress did not authorize the funding in the legislation and the main responsibility of the House is to legislate revenues and expenses. That was not included in the legislation.
So now we have a situation where people have received something they were not authorized to receive because the President over stepped his authority and now a president that is following the constitution and is going to take a billion pounds of crap because he is reversing an illegal E.O.
Had I been Trump, I think I would have used the courts to reverse the subsidies, but like always he wants to be front and center and be the news, be it good or bad.
The president does not need and should not go to court to reverse the actions of a prior presidient – legal, constitutional or otherwise.
Anything one president can do unilaterally another can undo.
ObamaCare is not and never was about those instances where people develop life threatening illnesses and do not have insurance.
That never was a problem. In the US you get treatment. You may go bankrupt, but you get treatment.
Frankly you got treatment if you had the flu and no insurance and no money.
This was more about aesthetics than anything else.
But them much of what the left does is about appearances and feelings, it is not about facts.
Dave I am trying to be understanding in some of your remarks to my comments, but sometimes it is hard when you continually miss the point. I know full well one president can EO out any EO the previous president put into effect. I believe I said just that when I said the ACA legislation was piss poor legislation because congress wrote it in such a way that gave broad powers to the president to EO into the rules almost anything he wanted.
My point with Trump letting this go through the courts was to get him out of the lime light and getting all the bad press he is going to get for months about how so many people will not be able to afford insurance because too many are opting for low cost short term plans. My point is he just want press coverage, good, bad or whatever because he wants the attention, just like the kid in school that is the trouble maker. He lust for attention and if he can only get it by causing trouble, then trouble in school is what he does. Its just Trump never grew up.
I beleive that the constitutionality of Obama’s EO’s is still being decided by the courts – though it might be moot now.
No PPACA did not give the president the broad authority that Obama took via EO.
It may have given the president broad authority in other areas,
But Obama is famous for unconstitutional EO’s.
The Obama administation has far more SCOTUS reversals than any prior administration, and by far the largest number of 9-0 reversals.
I sort of understand your point, but I am sorry, the right thing for a president to do regarding the previous presidents unconstitutional overreaches – is to end them ASAP.
That is what he did on DACA.
The overwhelming majority of us want DACA – but legitimately, through congress.
And then we want a real debate over what we are going to agree to.
I do think that all or most of those who crossed into the US as kids, should be permitted to stay (I beleive in open borders).
But I do not have a problem with citizenship being difficult to obtain.
I am not sure I have a problem with granting many “illegals” resident status, without any guaranteed path to citizenship.
I do nto think that getting a college degree should give you a path to citizenship.
I do think that serving in the US military should.
Anyway I am being verbose.
The point is Congress needs to work this out – not the president unilaterally.
Not Trump, Not Obama, not the courts.
And if it can not work it out – then we vote.
I understand your frustration with Trump’s style.
I do not like it either.
But there is some evidence that it is actually effective.
You and I do not get to speak for everyone regarding style.
Yep, we dont get to speak for others. Where you think people believe like you and support Trump’s actions, I believe there are enough people that think like myself that will cost the GOP the White Hkuse in 2020.
Will see then wh is right
We are in agreement that something different would be greatly prefered.
I think we are in agreement that our looming fiscal mess is the elephant in the room that keeps getting ignored.
I am not trying to speak for Trump voters. While I think I understand them more than say sanders voters, I do not understand them.
But the evidence I am getting from those actually willing to go out and talk with them and from my encounters with some of them in life, is this full on anti-trump media blitz has not phased them at all. That Trumps failures have not phased them. That they are happy.
They are even happy that he is combative.
Anyway as you say we will see.
I think VA will give us some clues.
Ron, I thought that the courts had already weighed in on the subsidies.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-court-ruling-20160512-snap-story.html
This will continue to work its way up to SCOTUS, but since it was an EO that ordered the subsidies, and EO can rescind them, for now. So, Trump was well within his powers to do so. And it could take years before SCOTUS gets the case, if it ever does.
As far as providing assistance for non-insured people who develop life threatening illnesses, this is the crux of the whole debate. If insurance is truly affordable, the only people who are uninsured should be the very poor, and that is the role of a safety net program like Medicaid. As far as people who may end up uninsured through some temporary hardship, or children whose parents have been irresponsible enough to put their families at risk, this is where charity donations to hospitals should come in.
The O-Care subsidies were nothing more than corporate cronyism, payoffs from the government to private insurers, to get them to agree to be in the exchanges. And Obama made this deal with the insurance companies illegally and unilaterally. As you say, Trump is throwing the problem back to Congress, where it should have be worked out in the first place. He’s done the same thing with DACA.
God forbid that Congress should be made to do its job!
Ron, I re-read your last comment, and you did say that the federal judge had declared Obama’s EO unconstitutional. But I’m not sure how Trump would use the courts to reverse the subsidies, other than to wait for the Supremes to have the final say. Did you mean that he should have the DOJ pursue it?
Well maybe this is his way to speed up the case through SCOTUS. He blocks payments, liberal states appeal, his EO is put on hold, he appeals and that forces a fast track through the legal process.
Good point. That’s probably a likelihood.
Sorry Priscilla, but Bunk.
This was never about people who could not afford insurance and got life threatening health problems. That number is tiny and the cost to deal with it is non-existant, because the system already dealt with it.
While I think we could have done better.
PPACA was nto about better.
PPACA was not about catastrophe.
PPACA was about creating the next new big government program like SS and Medicare that would get the left remembered fondly for ever.
It is a huge stupid mistake, and is probably 80% of the weakness in the economy.
But it is bunk that is not going to go away, Dave Because it was that bunk that propelled the public demand for healthcare insurance reform. Americans don’t understand the ins and outs of the healthcare system, but they don’t want insurance policies that drop sick people or allow those who have become sick to be turned away.
The irony is that “universal coverage” has made things worse, as many people who HAD insurance lost their non-compliant plans, and could not afford plans that allowed them to be treated at the same hospitals by the same doctors. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” was not only the lie of the year, it was undoubtedly the lie of the century.
Absolutely, most politics is bunk.
Nearly every claim that there is a problem government must act on is bunk.
We are debating many things related to Healthcare and health insurance – both politicians, and ourselves, and much of what is said is bunk.
Yes, the public does nto understand the complexities of health care or health insurance.
But neither do the politicians or those in health care or health insurance.
I do not want to piss on knowledge and expertise, it is very important.
But markets – even non-free ones are incredibly complex – because people are complex.
And no one fully understands those.
I beleive I can do a pretty good job of analyszing market failures AFTER THE FACT.
And the causes usually are simple. But they are not simple before the fact.
I look at where we are and what the future will be – and we are doing a bunch of things right and some wrong. I can tell you that the things we are doing right will have certain scale of benefits in the future. But I can not tell you whether the things we are doing wrong are just blips, or whether they are potentially worse than the housing bubble.
In approx. 2000 we have the tech bubble – this was one of several bubbles that were all interconnected running arround the world, for several years.
The tech bubble bursting was huge, but it was an economic blip. It appears that relatively wealthy people getting massacred in the stock market has negligable economic impact.
But the housing bubble bursting was absolutely disasterous.
We near certainly have a huge fed caused securities bubble right now – several Trillion in size. But because it is in securities the impacts might not be as brutal.
Though there are still complexities, because the tech stock bubble has no impact on government, the current securities bubble could drive interest rates on government borrowing up.
I can go on, but my point is that the economy is ridiculously complicated. Further everything is interconnected. You mess with healthcare in certain ways and there are impacts in immigration, and foreign trade and ….
This is part of why the “people will die” claim is crap. Even Ron’s revised “but only in numbers so small as to not be statistically visible” – probably true. But it is also true that the same polices that “save” statically invisible people, also kill statistically invisible people in ways we do not even see. Because everything we do has myriads of small impacts all over that we did not see.
But back to my point. Anyone claiming to really KNOW any more than the cursory impacts of government changes to healthcare is an idiot – no matter how expert or well educated they are. Even if they are lucky enough to be right, they are still clueless about the 2ndary and tertiary effects.
This is not the only reason central planning is bad, but it is a very big one.
One of the reasons that free markets work is because everyone is NOT going in the same direction. Because whatever you do someone bets against you. Because whatever you do someone tries a different way.
Everything going the same direction is ALWAYS bad. No matter how large the obvious effects are and how small the secondary effects are the problems will be cumulative.
One of the lessons we should learn from:
The great depression
Stagflation
and the great recession
is that small cumulative errors in government policies on anything always eventually result in disaster.
The cause of double digit interest, inflation, and unemployment, was a monetary response to unemployment that WORKED, for two decades. But the positive effects were temporary and the negative effects cumulative.
Even if the experts are right about some aspect of greater state control in healthcare.
I can still state with absolute certainty that the NET effect will be negative.
Even if they are right about their own area, they are not right – not even thinking about the much larger and more widespread effects.
Put more simply – there is virtually never an instance we should guide govenrment policy by experts. If government wishes to do something and the input of experts is needed to “do it right” – the answer is simple “don’t do it”!!!!
Here a comment from a former insurance company exec that I respect for his knowledge of the business, I hope it explains why Trump’s first bomb could make things worse:
“jdledell • 2 hours ago
After 30+ years in the Health Insurance business, this move by Trump is asinine. Association plans have been around every since I started in the business. Many Association plans have been started by hucksters who set low premiums to maximize their initial marketing results. After they get 10’s of thousands of small businesses and individuals (more about the latter later) they drain the coffers reimbursing themselves for high expenses, do not set up the required reserves for the the fact that claims arrive long after the health expenses have been incurred, and magically a year or two later there is no money to pay claims and they declare bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the promoters of the association are newly minted millionaires.
The issue of selling across state lines is a loophole the dishonest can use. They set up an association in Delaware which has a small 5 man office of Insurance which cannot really oversee the association plan and the promoters start selling in NY whose Insurance Department would have caught the shenanigans before any plan could be sold. The promoters know to pick the most understaffed insurance Dept. to get licensed and then sell across the country.
Most of these association plans are not for legitimate associations, they are made up associations done by the promoters. Expect to see things like ” The American Association of Internet Users” where anyone can join. Even though technically Trumps directive calls for small business associations, anyone with a side job who files a proprietorship tax return is eligible to join a small business association. I’ve seen associations with mom’s who made an extra $200 babysitting able to join a small business association.
I think the trump administration will come out with the most flexible regulations in this area possible. Even though his EO technically does not extend to individuals, the promoters will get around this easily. Within a year, these associations will be selling to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the country. They will self-insure and thus under ERISA exempt from state and federal rules and be able to medically underwrite to eliminate any unhealthy person. This will crater the ACA and we will be right back to the Pre-ACA days where sick folks could not get coverage and annual and lifetime caps will return.
The return of the bad old days will be blamed by the GOP on the terrible ACA but in reality Trump’s actions is nothing more than a repeal of the ACA which Congress could not do. Unfortunately, most Americans are far too dumb to understand and the Democrats are going to be blamed and essentially wiped out in the 2018 elections. This is a brilliant political move for Republicans but devastating for the American people.
Tonight, I had a parent of one my students bring this subject up. He runs a small bookkeeping and accounting office in town with only himself and his wife as a part time employee. He has had coverage though the ACA and it paid for his wife’s breast cancer treatment earlier this year. I told him he was probably going to lose his ACA coverage with Trumps action and not be able to replace his health insurance because of the pre-existing condition and his exact words were ” I don’t care – this was a big and bold move by Trump as opposed to that wimp Obama.”
Needless to say – I remain speechless.”
I become highly suspicious when people start spraying words like huckster fraud and loopholes.
In the real world there are crooks – and we here about the m on the news.
In fact we hear about people who are not crooks, but are merely called crooks on the news.
But in fact real large scale fraud is unbleievably rare. How many Bernie Maddoffs have their been in the past 50 years ?
And if you ever bother to really learn the Micheal Miliken Story – he got railroaded.
He uses socalled “junk bonds” to finance Leveraged Buyouts.
The long term preformance of his “junk bonds” greatly exceeded his models.
There were a few failures, but less than predicted. Pretty much everything that failed was going to fail anyway. Miliken got blamed because a less than expected portion of billions of investments went south.
Selling accross state lines is not a panacea – it is not a “loophole” either.
There are many degrees of freedom necescary for a functional free market,
Competitive individual sales are one of these.
I not only see no reason that insurance companies should be barred from selling accross state lines. I see no reason that government should have any business dictating the attributes of an insurance policy.
From what I understand Trump’s EO will neither be the great catastrophe the left imagines or the great fix Trump claims.
What it MIGHT do is make it possible for a couple of million small bussiness owners and others who used to purchase health insurance in the individual market to return to buying plans similar to what they chose before PPACA.
Most of these people are among the most savy health insurance purchasers.
They buy High Deductible plans which are cheap but useless EXCEPT in a real healthcare disaster, and use HSA’s or pay out of pocket for all other heathcare.
As noted by others PPACA was supposed to be protection from catastrophe for those who could not afford it. Then why did PPACA mandate anything but catastrophic coverage.
dduck, respecting an insurance executive and his opinion is like respecting a used car salesman and his recommendation on a used car.
Sorry that I can not put much credence into comments made by someone who ran companies in a business environment that took premiums from people for years and then when they developed health problems, cancelled the plans at the first chance they could.
Insurance companies are partially responsible for the debacle we now have and many of the requirements in the ACA are direct responses to insurance companies requests. They sure as hell are not going to say anything good about anything that may impact their bottom line!
“dduck, respecting an insurance executive and his opinion is like respecting a used car salesman and his recommendation on a used car.”
Agreed! First of all, it WAS largely the insurance companies refusing to cover high risk people for any amount of money that created the problem that led to the need for reform. Not entirely their fault, there is plenty of blame to go around, but they would be near the top of the list.
And, the insurance and pharmaceutical companies were totally complicit in the Frankenstein mess that is Obamacare. The insurance companies were guaranteed money through the subsidies, no matter what, and any real competition was completely eliminated. The Big Pharma companies made sure that no new drugs, no matter how effective, were covered on the OCare Formulary, so people who need those drugs have to pay out of pocket, even if they have insurance.
Sorry you are generalizing about all insurance company execs and insurance companies.
I have been involved with life and health insurance for over 40 years (retired now) as a field agent and I have dealt health insurance at street level.
I know you don’t know me, but I can vouch for JDL’s honesty and first hand knowledge. He recently wrote this, and I agree 100%:
“Just as their are sleazy insurance companies and operators who ruin the health insurance market, we also have sleazy doctors. One of the biggest scams going is ” out of network” fees. Even when someone goes to an “in network” hospital not all docs practicing in that hospital are ” in network”. Thus you can have a situation where a patient has an operation – the hospital charges are in network, the surgeon is in network, the assistant surgeon is in network, the anesthesiologist is in network but the assistant anesthesiologist, unknown to the patient is not in network.”
I remember a case where the assistant anesthesiologist was not in network and charged $40,000 to be available if needed. By law we had to pay $32,000 (80%) and the patient had to cover $8,000 more than the out of pocket for this operation from all the other parties. The usual and customary fee for an assistant anesthesiologist was $600. From my experience running health claim divisions about half the unit’s costs were spent fighting out of network fees. This kind of crap is very common and legislation in many states to stop it are sidetracked by campaign contributions.”
I recently wrote this in that blog: “And, to be fair, many sleazy insureds.
I heard this anecdotal story: A continuing disability claim from an insured filed from another country. Company required a thumb print to verify identity. Insured complied. Problem was he was dead and the perpetrators preserved his thumb for the purpose of continuing the claim.
Some people abuse policies by claiming things like tissues and indoor lap pools, etc.”
This doesn’t even get into how bad some state insurance departments are.
So calling him and by extension all insurance professionals, used car salesmen is highly insulting; I think he and I know a little more than most commenters here, and certainly more than the last two presidents.
OK sorry, maybe there are insurance companies that dont cancel coverage after someone gets cancer or has open heart surgery. Maybe if more of them did not descriminate based on lre existing conditions, we would not have Obamacare today and we would not be debatingvwhat Trump is doing.
Healthcare finance is a joke today anyway. If GM sold cars like healthcare providers bill patients, their cars would have $100,000 sticker prices and based on some group buyers were part of, they would be paying the $35,000 to $40,000 cars sell for today. Hospital gross revenue is reported at one level, but net revenues after contract discount,there actual revenues are 40% to 45% of gross.
You can not use the failures of a highly regulated market as a rationale to justify even more regulation.
Dave, I have a request. Can you enter the individuals name into the first word of your comments so the reader knows who you are responding to. In my email it says “dhlii commented on Taking a Knee for Polarization.in response to Ron P:” but this comment
“You can not use the failures of a highly regulated market as a rationale to justify even more regulation.” does not seem to address anything I said. It is very confusing trying to figure out which comment someone is addressing the way Word Press works.
Now in response to your comment, I fully agree with using more regulation to fix an already screwed up regulated market. I read an article today where a real estate agent was highly concerned about the changes Trump was making in health insurance and they said she was paying $1100.00 per month for insurance. That is $13,200 per year. I think I would find me a cheap unqualified high deductible catastrophic plan, pay the penalty at 2.5% of taxable income ($2,500 on $100,000 income example if she made more than twice the national average income), and bank the difference per year.
But the problem is the regulations to begin with. Look at your EOB’s when they come in. Lab charge $75.00, plan paid $18.50. Physician visit $150.00, plan paid $65,00. XYZ drug $350.00, plan paid $75.00, hospital charges $75,000, plan paid $35,000. Get the government out of regulating the way providers bill for services and then Insurance companies could contract based on services and providers could bill based on contracted service. Hip replacement $35,000 (not $75,000 and the discounted) or Physician Visit 30 minutes $65,00 (Not $150 discounted). AND YES!!!! it is government that started this asinine way to pay for services and is the reason it continues.
Ron
I try to cite who I am replying to.
On rare occaisons I address someone different from the post I am littlerally replying to.
Ron;
Except as demonstrations of the failure of government and regulation, I try to avoid getting into the weeds of polices and regulations, and ideas.
Various ideas of how things should be here – may well be the (or better a) right choice.
That is determined by how well they work in the actual market.
That is another reason we should not regulate. Regulation is not testing ideas, it is imposing them by force.
I do not care if you wish to join a voluntary commune.
Do not impose it by force.
The fact still is we can not know enough to regulate the market – not any of us here, not Trump, not Obama, not the smartest healthcare expert.
But we can try different peoples ideas – in a free market.
And that process works radically different from regulation.
Ideas that work reasonably well and actually appeal to people – attract the markets interests. But no idea works perfectly – and so those ideas are continuously refined.
Further no idea suits everyone – so parts of the market will always go a different direction.
There are somethings that we do absolutely know about free markets – that are not true of any other approach.
That they inexorably drive costs/prices lower,
That the inevitably raise standard of living.
That nothing else meets the divergent needs of individuals as well.
Free markets are NOT the ideas about how to make healthcare work.
They are the crucible to test and refine ideas.
Regulation is the idiocy that we need not test ideas, that we can impost them by force,
and that one size fits all.
I am sure that you do know more about some things than many of us.
But there are several problems.
Narrow domain knowledge is nearly meaningless in predicting market responses to changes.
Domain knowledge has little value outside the domain.
Absent a free market to test knowledge, the value of domain knowledge even inside the domain is poor.
The circumstances you described are not possible in an actual free market.
That the exist autmoatically means two things you do not have a free market and what you do have is mismanaged.
A different perspective regarding where Trump sits with the general public.
The gist is his support is alot stronger than you think.
That often the very things that get him in the most trouble, ultimately leave him stronger.
I think the author misreads Republican prospects in 2018.
The public is angry at Congress – not Trump for failing to advance the Republican legislative agenda. But it is most angry with leadership and with those who are not keeping Republican promises.
Rather than see Republicans as a whole lose in 2018, you are going to see moderates lose. Apparently Corker was very likely to lose a Republic Primary. Regardless, he will near certainly be replaced by a Republican who is a reliable vote for Trump’s issues.
McCain is unlikely to remain though 2018 because of his health issues, and Flake is likely to be primaried. As I had suggested before – prepare for more Roy Moore’s and Sherriff’s joe’s in congress.
And just so that Jay and Roby understand – I am NOT gleeful about that.
It is just how I read the Tea Leaves.
Also noteworthy in the article is thus far Republicans are running significantly ahead in the special elections of where the nationwide R/D splits say they should be.
This Northam/Gillespie election may sharpen that picture. If Gillespie is even close, D’s should be very worried about 2018. If Gillespie loses by double Digits R’s should be very worried.
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/355066-why-the-polls-are-still-wrong
Well you keep saying congress will stay in the hands od the GOP, and then say more Roy Moores will run, then I say your predictions have questions.
We have seen in past elections where the Roy Moore anti-personal freedom,
anti-gay, anti pre-k , cram christian beliefs down your throat candidates lost in elections where GOP were sure bet winners before the election. If the current right senators are replaced by further right candidates, this country needs help.
Ron;
I am just reading tea leaves.
I do not like some aspects of what I think is occuring.
Yes, sometimes the Roy Moore types have lost in the past.
I think Moore is an abysmal mistake for AL.
Maybe you are right and Moore will result in AL electing a democrat.
But I would bet not.
No Roy Moore is not getting elected in OH.
But I think that alot of Moderate Republicans are in danger. Particularly those in red rather than pink or purple states.
I also think that as I keep noting, we are near complete “the great sorting”.
We are very near the point where:
Cities will always go Blue
Rural areas will always go red.
and suburban areas will mostly go red.
Given the demographics of the states – you are going to need to see more bluing of states like NC to flip the Senate back to democrats – that is not happening quickly.
It has taken 4 decades to flip the south red – but that is pretty close to done.
There are going to be a few states nationwide that may slowly blue as a result of immigration or growing cities or democrats migrating from big cities.
But that is going to be slow. In the meantime democrats are not controlling the senate for a long time.
The split in the house is going to depend on suburban districts – and that is where you are going to get your moderates from both parties.
I think Moore and Arpiao are at the extreme end of things.
The culture war is over – or more accurately it is now defensive.
We will be fighting over whether bakers can refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings.
That is not dangerous turf even for moderate republicans.
The GOP can talk about abortion. They can not do much beyond maybe this ban after 20weeks.
And they appear to be smart enough to understand that.
I am a liberal.
Those on the left are illiberal.
https://beinglibertarian.com/time-reclaim-word-liberal/
Away from healthcare for the moment. I have heard very little on the news that does not revolve around Harvey Weinstein and his serial abuse of women.
Look, no doubt the guy is a pig, but I have a problem with some of the women who are coming forward to accuse him. There is a difference between a proposition and an assault. In some ways, it’s like the difference between being approached by a panhandler and being robbed. In the first case, you can say no, and in the second, you, realistically, cannot, because you are not being asked.
I am sympathetic to the argument that Weinstein preyed on young actresses trying to get their big break, and when he promised them a part in one of his films, in exchange for sexual favors, they felt that they had no choice, if they wanted to fulfill their dreams. On the other hand, they DID have a choice, they made it, and now they are portraying the choice as the result of assault.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for Weinstein ~ I think he is disgusting, and as I said in my exchange with Roby, he is only the latest in a long, long line of powerful men in Hollywood to pressure, abuse, and possibly assault women. But many of the same women who are “bravely” stepping forward today, are the very same women who excoriated Monica Lewinsky for her role in the Clinton impeachment, and excused Clinton’s behavior as “only sex” and implied that Lewinsky was an adult, and that any sex acts were consensual.
Hillary Clinton is praising the women who have accused Weinstein. Is that not the height of hypocrisy? Am I wrong here?
There are myriads or women – and likely far more than we are hearing about.
Purportedly there are many large settlements – these have non-disclosures and these women are not coming forward. Further they either had better lawyers, better stories or more proof, or they would not have gotten a settlement.
With respect to the panoply or women – yes their stories are different, and many amount to little more than workplace coercion. Which is what many of the Trump stories are.
But several of them are criminal sexual assaults – not all, but some.
And in a trial ALL are getting in as pattern evidence.
Further the stories are very consistent. Everyone is saying much the same thing.
With just enough differences to reflect that reality is never exactly the same.
But Weinstein is NOT the big story. The conspiracy of silence that enabled him for 40 years is the big story. It is increasingly clear that EVERYBODY knew.
If unknowns with less than 6 months in Hollywood knew before meeting him, then Meryl Streep and Judi Dench knew. Further though many A list players are claiming to have known nothing or just keeping quite – a few are not only speaking out, but have been speaking out for sometime – even if quietly.
This has absolutely destroyed Hollywoods moral authority.
Absolutely no one wants to hear what Meryl Streep thinks of Trump or Health Care or …
Just to be clear, I still think Streep is a great actor, and will likely see all of her movies.
But I do not take my morality and politics from celebrities and now a whole lot of people will be joining me.
Further this is apparently spreading through Hollywood.
We are now starting to here some stories leak out about a peodophilia ring involving child actors that goes back to Polanksi.
Weinstein makes all stories about Hollywood suddenly beleiveable.
Some will prove false – but all will not.
To a lessor extent this is a big story of the hypocracy of the left – mostly it is a story of the hypocracy of the elite, even Trump gets caught in pictures with Weinstein.
But the elite and the left are close to congruent. While this does nto specifically undermine the anti-trump crowd, it does significantly undermine the left, the PC crowd, the intersectionality and social justice warriors, the hate speach warriors, ..
It is also really corrosive to the media. There are stories that outlets had this story in the late 80’s. There are repeated interests of the media killing this.
NBC ran the access hollywood story without thinking, yet with Weinstein on audio they would not run his story because it was not solid enough yet.
While I agree with much of what you said, the Weinstein stories run the gamut from Trump style Boorish conduct to rape with all kinds of permutations in between.
A large portion of it appears to NOT be criminal.
Though I will note from the sex crimes cases in my county, coercing someone with a significant disparity in power to perform sex acts in return for a job, will likely get you convicted. Older guys have been convicted of using access to computer game systems as a means of getting 16 yr old boys to have sex with them.
And yes, this is a lose, lose for Hillary. There is no way for her to come out looking good.
There are an awful lot of powerful men in Hollywood, and in Washington too, who are sweating bullets right now, because they have put themselves out there as very pro-feminist, while behaving as male chauvinist pigs.
And, as you say, Dave, most of these guys have been doing this for years…behaving as if they were shocked, simply shocked, at Trump’s language on the Access Hollywood tape, while behaving in exactly the ways that they self-righteously condemned.
I don’t want to let some of these Hollywood women off the hook though. Women who knew what was going on, but wanted the Oscar winning parts in films that Weinstein produced, so they kept their mouths shut. Not women that Weinstein abused,necessarily, but women like Gwyneth Paltrow, who claims that Weinstein sexually harrassed her, but she subsequently went on to star in “Shakespeare in Love,” won an Oscar, and posed happily for pictures with the guy who she now says was a serial abuser of women. She got hers, so to hell with the women who came after her?
And, as you say, the media, which systematically ignored stories about famous Hollywood liberals, and Democratic politicians (let’s not forget the media blackout on John Edward’s mistress, with whom he fathered a child), while calling Mitt Romney a misogynist for requesting binders full of women’s resumes, so that he could put them in high-paying jobs.
I wonder if this signals an end to the kind of hypocrisy and lying that has gone on, or if this will be old news by next week…..
Ok RonP, and Priscilla, so all the rest of your insults stand as is. Sorry, maybe all commenters are not so equal.
dduck 12
dduck, as I said I apologize for putting 100% of insurance executives in a bad light. After working in healthcare for 40 years and hearing the stories of people not being covered after diagnosis of a major illness, I have a poor outlook on insurance companies. I probably have already said this before, but will say again. We had a nurse at the hospital, single mom, that had coverage through the company that the hospital used for employee coverage. She had medical problems and finally had a liver transplant in the early 90’s. Once that service was paid for, she was dropped from coverage. She could not afford anti-rejection drugs nor could she cover her kids on our plan because she was not on it. So the employees had a community fund raising that created a trust for her and her kids health cost. Had it not been for this fund, not sure how she would have covered cost.
And many more insurance companies followed that model than continued coverage for these individuals.
The nurses problem was resolved.
Next, did your hospital continue insurance through that provider ?
If so you are all complicit.
Did the hospital employees demand changes to insurance – if so they are complicit.
We all have to make choices. Coverage for pre-existing conditions is at the top of nearly everyone’s list. It polls incredibly well.
But ask people if they will pay more for it, even a little more, and support tanks.
Free markets respond to consumer demands if possible.
Regulated markets don’t.
Dave, “Next, did your hospital continue insurance through that provider ?
If so you are all complicit.
Did the hospital employees demand changes to insurance – if so they are complicit.”
Yes, the hospital began looking at alternatives and at the next benefit years change we went to a self funded plan where we controlled the qualification of the plan. Not sure what the employees demanded since HR issues were kept in HR and complaints were not openly discussed the managers other than with those that needed to know that information.
As for the nurse, the trust fund was large enough so interest earned was adequate to pay for her health expenses at that time. The trust was managed by the hospital endowment fund managers and co-mingled with other restricted funds to increase the principal; balance in the investment account that created opportunities for increased earnings above what the balance would have earned had it been stand alone.
However, you AGAIN!!!!! miss the point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is just one case USED AN EXAMPLE OUT OF millions that occur where the employer may not have the opportunity to self fund a plan. It may not be large enough for employees to raise enough money like the 1800 hospital employees did. WHAT THEN????????
Ron;
You used an example, that is arguably as unique to your environment as your solution.
I would still note that a solution did arrise.
If HR did not allow the problem out of HR – that is likely because HR did not want an employee revolt or a public black eye.
You say this solution is not generally applicable – of course not. Nor is the problem inherently general. Other employers already have provisions to prevent this.
Or have different tools when such problems occur.
It has been a long time since I had a role in health insurance – but for 22 years I was a key person in selecting the insurance that covered about 55 people.
We were constantly balancing between cost and the fact that these were people that we cared about – partly out of self interest, but partly because we too are human.
That evolution arises automatically as countries develop.
When most of the people do not have enough food, employers are not going to care much about healthcare or workplace safety.
I keep stressing this over and over – even the concept of healthcare as a “right” requires a very high standard of living. No one who can not get the food to live to the end of the month is going to care much whether they have free healthcare.
I have my own stories vaguely similar to yours.
I had to fire an older employee. He was a bad hire, we never found a fit for him. Worse he was engaged in proselytizing at work and going to get us in trouble.
But both he and his wife had serious health issues – his wifes were life threatening.
He was laid off, he was offered Cobra. He declined it. I arranged to have it paid anyway.
I did so because I could not live with myself if his wife had heart failure and died.
This person actually sued me, claiming myriads of forms of discrimination – including that we had terminated him because of the cost of his insurance.
When I testified that we were sill paying his insurance, the lawsuit ended.
I did not fund his insurance to win a lawsuit. And I would not do that for every employee.
We had another employee who was in a very serious auto accident on the job.
He very nearly lost his left arm. And likely would have without our intervention.
After calling 911, he called us. We sent somebody to the scene – 2 hours away, immediately. We arranged to have him medivaced to where the best trauma surgeon for his problem was. They operated on him for 6 hours. We brought his wife up to stay near him. We payed his full salary for the next 2 years. He volunatarily returned the favor by sharing what time he had and what knowledge and insight he had of his projects.
Again I would not have done this for every employee. Decisions get made on a case by case basis. But I would likely have for most.
Further the entire office watched our handling of this.
We did this because it was the right thing to do.
But it significantly improved our relationships with our staff.
This is apart of how markets work.
They do not deliver uniform results all the time.
What your hospitial did with your nurse, what I did with some employees, is unusual.
Though it grows to become the norm where we have a standard of living to support it.
Nor is everything constrained to healthcare.
I told you I would not do the same thing for every employee.
Every employee is different. They have unique needs and wants.
What I do not want as an employer is a bunch of rules that says I must treat them exactly the same.
I might chose to help an otherwise valuable employee with an alcohol problem through rehab.
I might chose to given an employee with a new child more schedule flexibility
I might chose to ignore the poor performance of an employee that just lost a spouse.
But I can not do all of those things concurrently for all employees.
Further, there are employees that I just will not do those things for at all.
That is the way the world works.
An apology worthy of Trump, RonP.
dd12, I generalized about insurance companies in general. I absolutely agree with you that there are many doctors and hospitals that have participated in fraudulent and wasteful claims that have driven up the cost of coverage.
I think that it’s fair to say that the Big Insurance and Big Pharma lobbies played a major role in the way that Obamacare was structured, and that the end result has been that certain big companies were able to guarantee that, if their policies are not competitively priced, they will get their money anyway, through subsidies.
The problem isn’t with the insurance business per se, but with the cronyism between business and government. When Obama decided that insurance companies would be forced to cover pre-existing conditions, without charging higher premiums, those companies very realistically demanded subsidies in order to agree to do what was clearly against their business model. An insurance company that cannot rate its policies, and vary its premiums according to those ratings, has to make money some other way.
Priscilla, a little ray of sunshine from you. Thanks, from a used car salesman.
The whole health care system is a mess, and as I and the commenter I quoted- again a good insurance exec-, pointed out some of the sides that share in the blame.
I am more concerned here on TNM with accepting opinions at face value and not broad brushing without actually discussing or acknowledging other commenter’s opinion and playing the “credence card” and launching away to lambast in another cause it feels good.
JDL, and I have given first hand information, which was not discussed- the association scams- and described abuses on some sides, insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, patients, state insurance departments, regulators and governments/politicians, lawmakers and more are in the whole mix.
Health care is a highly complex subject, not looking at all sides and demonizing one side is stupid. Proof of that is the ACA and Trump’s clumsy EOs.
One of my primary criticism’s nearly always, is that you can discuss whatever you want, you can make whatever choices you wish for yourself, you can choose to be informed – or not, but you can not impose you will on others by force.
You can not do so because you are better informed that others.
A separate argument – that applies both individually and to government is that you can not have sufficient knowledge to make choices about even a part of the market that you may impose on others.
You can bet your knowledge give you an advantage in your own life.
You can not bet it gives you an advantage that allows you to control others.
Little Miss Sunshine, that’s me 🙂
Trump is unraveling the ACA the only way that it can be done right now. Congress has made it clear that it is unwilling to do anything, unless forced to do so. So, he has ended the subsidies, and told Congress that they need to figure out how to fix what was a blatantly illegal transfer of taxpayer dollars to private corporations.
And asking members of Congress to actually DO anything, makes them really, really, really mad. Especially if it’s fixing a big complicated mess that they made in the first place.
Easier to blame the president for everything.
Priscilla;
I will be very happy any time Trump rolls back an Obama action or EO that is unconstitutional or unsupported by the law.
I do not think there is a chance in hell we can fix healthcare.
But whatever we do, we should not be holding PPACA together with bailing wire and duct tape in the meantime. Administer the law as written. If it fails it is congresses job to fix it.
I do think there are sane thing that can be done with DACA.
But democrats are going to have to come to the table.
I do not think I will like the final result.
but I do not like what we had or what we have either.
Punishing actual fraud is a legitimate role of government.
When you give power to government those with the most resources – big corporations will always seek and mostly succeed in getting it wielded as they desire.
Is this what we call “draining the swamp”? Another example of one administration hiding something a previous administration did. Another example of you scratch my back, Ill scratch yours if you get in trouble after you leave office!
If Jeff Sessions FBI knew this was available and did not release any and all information that was pertinent and unclassified and they did not, instead “hiding” the information until someone finally outside the FBI found evidence it existed, then Trumps administration is no better than any other that protected prior administrations.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/fbi-finds-30-pages-clinton-lynch-tarmac-meeting-documents-wants-six-weeks-turn-docs/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=ads&utm_campaign=promoted+content
All this should tell you is that the “deep state” protects itself, and the power of Trump and Sessions is more limited than you beleive.
Draining the swamp is difficult to near impossible, and will not occur over night.
Frankly it is not going to happen. But a few swamp creatures might be terminated.
Dave “and the power of Trump and Sessions is more limited than you beleive.”
You can believe this if you want. I will believe what I want and that is current administrations protect prior administrations so they are immune from prosecution should anything turn up that could be considered illegal.
“You scratch my back, i’ll scratch yours.”
Trump is no different when it comes to self preservation.
Current administrations do protect prior administrations.
Because 99.99% of the prior administration still works in the current administration.
There is limits to Trump’s power to compel the FBI to rat itself out.
Remember if Obama administration political appointees misbehaved, they did so with the knowledge and complicity of myraids of permanent staff.
These people are going to stall any efforts to even gain information on their former bosses, because it will be bad for them.
Priscilla, you don’t mind that association plans may make the problem worse? Has Trump thought this out, did he know what JDL and I knew about them. Did he care? Does he just want to score points, perhaps with people like you and RonP. If that is his strategy, then I understand. I don’t like it just I as I hated Obama for doling the same thing with these stupid and reversible EOs.
Sorry, act in haste (or worse in Trump’s case) and regret at your leisure. Except we Americans get the result from an ego-centric policy by president’s and a dysfunctional congress that lets the fox into the chicken house.
Now, about that used car, it will work on sunshine and platitudes.
How will association plans make things worse? Serious question ~ let’s say that there is a woman who works two part time retail jobs. I see that commonly, since retail is a business of long hours and low pay, and many retail companies only offer health benefits to full time management.
So, what would be the problem with forming an association of part time retail workers, say in Alabama and Georgia, and getting an insurance company to underwrite individual and family plans that would provide them with coverage options?
dduck12
I neither presume that association plans will make things worse – nor mind if they do.
The argument you have made against them is that they will engauge in fraud.
Fraud has been illegal since Moses.
It is the legitimate role of the government to prosecute fraud.
I do not tend to beleive claims of massive fraud in actual free markets.
Because it does not happen. That does nto mean there is never fraud.
It just means that large scale systemic fraud always requires government.
I also beleive that whatever degree of freedom Trump has given “association plans”, a few will exploit that, and many will make the best possible use of it. The results will be better with greater freedom. but the resultes will ultimately be as good as the amount of additional freedom provided allows.
It is very very rare that increasing market freedom is not an improvement – often only a small one, but still an improvement.
As to having though them out or caring what others think.
The details are unimportant – greater market freedom and less govenrment subsidies. will be net beneficial. Exactly how is not knowable ahead – just as claims for specific means of failure are not.
What you claim to know is not all that important, because it presumes a static and unfree market.
An AUTHENTIC Conservative’s view of President Excretion and VP Toilet Wipe:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sinister-figures-lurk-around-our-careless-president/2017/10/13/09c9448c-af6e-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html
“With eyes wide open, Mike Pence eagerly auditioned for the role as Donald Trump’s poodle. Now comfortably leashed, he deserves the degradations that he seems too sycophantic to recognize as such. He did Trump’s adolescent bidding with last Sunday’s preplanned virtue pageant of scripted indignation — his flight from the predictable sight of players kneeling during the national anthem at a football game. No unblinkered observer can still cling to the hope that Pence has the inclination, never mind the capacity, to restrain, never mind educate, the man who elevated him to his current glory. Pence is a reminder that no one can have sustained transactions with Trump without becoming too soiled for subsequent scrubbing.”
The good stuff follows after this intro..
What JJ said.
I love Will,. but it is wrong to identify him as either republican or conservative.
He has increasingly distanced himself from both labels and is playing with identifying himself as classical liberal or libertarian.
I doubt I would disagree with much of what Will said – except any implication that it is unique to Trump. Obama, Hillary – all much the same.
Their style may be different, but that is all.
What disturbs me most more recently about Trump is that his whitehouse is becoming more homogenous. I am very disturbed by “the generals”.
Trump was elected to raise hell, to throw sand in the wheels, and “the generals” are slowly converting him into a carciture of all former presidents.
That is a mistake.
It is not the voice of “the generals” I lament. it is that they have succeeded in driving out other voices.
With a few exceptions I think Trump put excellent people in power.
I do not care if some of them call him a “moron”. I want tension and conflict between them.
I want disparate ideas to be proposed and criticised,
I do not want peace and calm and decorum.
I do not want mattis or tillerson or bannon to prevail all the time.
I want the best idea for the particular problem to prevail.
It is Trumps advisors roles to vigorously advocate what they see as best.
It is Trumps role to decide between competing ideas.
Priscilla, I know you know how to read, but here it is again. If you wish to ignore facts from the past and/or think this Trump government will somehow do a better job, then I give up. Live in your conservative bubble. I wish you well.
JDL said: “After 30+ years in the Health Insurance business, this move by Trump is asinine. Association plans have been around every since I started in the business. Many Association plans have been started by hucksters who set low premiums to maximize their initial marketing results. After they get 10’s of thousands of small businesses and individuals (more about the latter later) they drain the coffers reimbursing themselves for high expenses, do not set up the required reserves for the the fact that claims arrive long after the health expenses have been incurred, and magically a year or two later there is no money to pay claims and they declare bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the promoters of the association are newly minted millionaires.
The issue of selling across state lines is a loophole the dishonest can use. They set up an association in Delaware which has a small 5 man office of Insurance which cannot really oversee the association plan and the promoters start selling in NY whose Insurance Department would have caught the shenanigans before any plan could be sold. The promoters know to pick the most understaffed insurance Dept. to get licensed and then sell across the country.
Most of these association plans are not for legitimate associations, they are made up associations done by the promoters. Expect to see things like ” The American Association of Internet Users” where anyone can join. Even though technically Trumps directive calls for small business associations, anyone with a side job who files a proprietorship tax return is eligible to join a small business association. I’ve seen associations with mom’s who made an extra $200 babysitting able to join a small business association.
Ok, dd12, so if I am reading you correctly, you and JDL are opposed to allowing associations of people to form and to seek group underwriting by insurance companies, because there are many illegitimate associations and not enough regulation of the companies that insure them.
As you say prior to the ACA, there have been association health plans (AHP’s) that did exactly this, many of them formed by small businesses that joined together and either negotiated or self-insured coverage for their employees. Both the associations and the insurance companies were subject to state and federal regulations.
I know that my brother ,for example, who is a professional photographer, purchased coverage through a national association of free-lance photographers. If I recall correctly, he was hospitalized~ maybe twice~ once during the time of his coverage, and had no particular issues regarding his plan. That plan was cancelled after the ACA was implemented, because it did not comply with all of the mandatory coverage requirements of OCare. My brother was forced into the NJ OCare exchange, where he bought a very expensive policy through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. It provided less coverage than his association plan, but he hung in there until he became eligible for Medicare last year.
I would guess that association plans would be more difficult to regulate, especially if they are sold in more than one state, so I get your and JDL’s concern. However, since other forms of insurance (life, property, etc) are sold to professional and trade associations, I assume that there are controls for fraud. Those controls may need expansion and people like JDL, who are aware of the ways that hucksters game the system, should be consulted to determine what the regulations should be.
Any insurance plan, including government insurance, such as Medicare, is subject to fraud and abuse. I don’t need to tell you how many billions are stolen and/or wasted through Medicare fraud, but some extimates are as high as $140B:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439919/medicaid-frauds-staggering-cost-140-billion
So, are you saying that a single-payer government system would be less subject to this sort of fraud and abuse than a regulated private system?
Fraud is inherently more common the more heavily government is involved.
Medicare likes to tout that it is administratively light compared to private insurance.
But private insurers actually bother to check that they are delivered what they are paying for. Sometimes they are overzealous, but ultimately they seek a balance, and those that survive find one that works for them.
Medicare lost atleast 8B just on these mobility scooter frauds.
There are real people who really need these, but it is estimated that over a decade the govenrment paid 4 times what it should have for them and more than 50% of those purchased were never used.
Right now Sen. Menendez is on trial for political corruption basically helping smooth the waters for some doctor who bilked medicare out of millions.
Maddoff is the most clear evidence of the problems of government.
Myriads of investors and reporters and people in the financial community have said over the years that Maddoff had to be a fraud. But SEC looked into him repeatedly and found nothing until his ponzi scheme was bursting.
The only reason that people trusted Maddoff was because the SEC had blessed him.
A small portion of people are going to cheat and engage in fraud.
It is not that large a portion, It is incredibly rare among the successful – because trust is the most important currency of the free market.
It does not matter what your personal moral fiber is. If you wish to succeed you must inspire sufficient Trust.
I keep noting this with regard to Trump. Trust does not mean – make everybody happy.
I do not care what your view of Trump’s trustworthyness is if you did not have to do business with him. But I do care greatly that for over 40 years people were willing to enter risky ventures with him involving millions of dollars. Trust does not mean succeeding all the time. It does not mean that you do not spin things. But it does mean you do not engage in outright fraud. Every Trump business venture was intended to succeed.
It was run to succeed, It was run to benefit investors and customers. The objective was for everyone to win. Quite often that does not happen – only 1 in 7 startups survive.
But you only get to rip people off once, before they never come back and word gets arround. Even a Sociopathic CEO of a fortune 500 company is going to be trustworthy – ruthless, but still trustworthy. Why ? Because you can only get caught committing fraud in a reasonable profile ONCE. No one is ever investing with Maddoff or anyone associated with them again.
The only place Trust is not so highly valued is in dealing with the government.
I would like to see a truly free market in healthcare.
Regulation is an impediment to value, not a benefit.
Government is responsibile to punish actual fraud. It is not preventable and not there to prevent it. The most effective preventtion is to prosecute those who commit fraud.
From what I can tell this Trump “plan” is worthwhile, but unlikely to be as significant as it is hyped. It is too small a change.
But it is still a worthwhile change for a group that was absolutely shafted by PPACA.
Further the target audiences, the people who this would be the best fit for, are the saviest healthcare consumers.
The left is screaming that this will destroy PPACA.
It might make that happen faster.
Regardless, this is more stupid economic nonsense of the left.
Markets work by destroying bad ideas.
Whatever the dominant trends in the market – we WANT others to try to bring to market new products that will destroy the existing ones.
That is how things improve. Most of the time the new product fails.
That occurs because the entrenched product would not be entrenched if it was not better than prior choices.
But we want a new product to destroy it – that only happens when the new thing is better.
If this Trump/Paul plan destroys PPACA – that would be what we want,
to replace something with something better.
What we do not want is systems that only work by leveraging the force of government.
I do not know or care alot if this new plan is good or bad.
My biggest problem is that it is only one option.
Markets do not work by pitting B against A.
They work by allowing anything someone can conceive of the attempt to unseat A.
One of the problems with government and legislative solutions and with all this rot about experts, is the concept that there is a single knowable best way ahead of time.
Markets work by taking those same experts and making them compete against each other.
Each has to get some company to accept their ideas and offer a product based on them.
that product has to appeal to people in the real world, and then it has to work.
Not only does it have to do all of that but at the same time dozens of other experts are doing the same thing with their permutation of the best approach, and of those dozens only a few are going to succeed.
The worst thing we can do is put those same experts in front of a government committee and instead of having to prove the merritt of their knowledge and ideas in the market place, Have them have to persuade a few congressmen to impose their ideas by force.
Priscilla, thank you for taking the time to reread the comments.
Yes, some associations were and could be good. But with out strict monitoring, Trump won’t do that, they could evolve as the past ones. I remember that in the old days, some associations exploded after they attracted less healthy people, who had greater claims, which led to the more healthy dropping out after premium increases, which led to a very unhealthy pool, and so on, and the plans terminated leaving the very less healthy to scramble for coverage.
Second subject: I am currently advocating a slow decrease in the Medicare eligibility age so we can see how that works out.
Sure there is plenty of fraud in the Medicare system, that should be addressed and minimized.
Ideally, a single payer plan would be nice if possible in this messed up country but it would take lawmakers that know what they are doing and honest to boot. so I’m pessimistic at this point.
You do not think that if a small business person buys insurance from some association, that he is not going to pay attention and “monitor” his own insurance ?
You describe some cycle from the past.
I do not doubt something like that may have happened.
But a common failure of “planning” is to misundestand failure.
Failure is important and necescary in the market – it is one of the more important ways we learn.
We assume that anything less than total perfection is complete failure.
You described a process that lead to failure. Well no business chooses to fail.
Wise businesses learn from the failure of others. and figure out how to avoid repeating it.
BTW you are very nearly describing how PPACA is failing.
I would also note that the most likely participants in this are those who would choose essentially catastrophic healthcare plans on their own. These are the people who pay for their own basic healthcare.
Approx 2/3 of the cost of health insurance today is coverage for basic care.
Many things drive up the cost of healthcare, but the largest factor in the past 50 years has been over consumption of basic healthcare, and the moral hazard created when you do not pay the price for what you consume.
These plans do not suffer from that.
Can you tell me a single healthcare expert that did not gain their expertise in the health insurance system that has had a rate of price inflation 3 times that of the rest of the market ?
Why am I supposed to beleive the socalled healthcare experts – when these are either the cause of or the product of the system that got us into the mess we are in ?
What I want are those who are capable of thinking differently.
Because the answer is NOT to tweak the old mistakes.
169,000 people agree with this tweet that Trump is a fucking moron.
That may or may not include many of his Advisors… by now it should include everyone on this site who considers themselves human…
Can you name anyway ever that the approach of the left has actually worked ?
Given that you seem to want to blow a gasket on this, I would suggest finding the entire exchange.
Trump responded to a criticism that he had said nothing publicly about the Ambush in nigeria.
He noted that letters were going out to those killed and that there would be calls.
And then said that He made more calls than Obama.
He never said no president made calls. More specifically he never mentioned Bush.
He incorrectly claimed to do better than other presidents.
It is unlikely any president has ever done more for those killed while he was president than George Bush. Whatever the rest of his faults that is not one of them.
Obama’s dealing with military casualties was an order of magnitude less than Bush’s.
At this point it does nto appear that Trump’s is close to Bush’s, it is too early to tell whether he is doing better or worse than Obama.
Still this is another typical left wing nut attack on Trump for not living up to the lefts standards of rhetorical precision.
Prior to Obama Presidents were reluctant to criticise prior presidents.
And former presidents never criticised current presidents.
Obama breached both of those rules of etiquette.
Trump has gone well beyond Obama in criticism of the prior president.
But it is not a tactic he started.
The way the left sees the world
Trump kills off stupid Obama era “guidance” on campus sexual assault
California tries to restore it legislatively and
Gov. Jerry Brown vetoes it because it violates due process rights.
What does it take for those of you on the left to get that you do not get to make it up as you go along ? That fake good intentions and appeals to emotions are not enough
Why ObamaCare is a fraud.
By claiming Trump’s EO might destroy ObamaCare, PPACA supporters are admitting, that it can not succeed without force.
https://fee.org/articles/the-scandalous-truth-about-obamacare-is-laid-bare/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/452704/no-theres-no-excuse-conservative-shout-downs?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=59e5c03d04d3014fd38b3018&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
More reason to trust the government
http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/16/man-busted-for-meth-that-was-actually-do
Why is being an SJW a prequalification for being a Math Professor ?
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9939
Let’s let the kid die rather that give him a kidney from his father with a criminal record.
Maybe getting his fathers kidney will turn the son into a criminal ?
http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/16/hospital-wont-let-dad-donate-kidney-to-h
Jay, Tell us again that sweet fairy tale of how Hillary’s uranium sale to the Russians was totally on the up and up, and was, in no way, the result of bribery and pay-to-play on the part of the Clinton’s:
“They (the FBI) also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.”
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration
The bigger question is why given what was known long before the election there was not an FBI investigation ?
This is not about Hillary, or about Trump.
One of the problems is that we are entirely backwards at the moment.
Individual conduct – outside of government should not be subject to government intrusion absent meeting a high standard of proof that something actually occurred.
Conversely the conduct of government, and of those in government must be rigorously subject to scrutiny.
We are doing the opposite.
There WAS an FBI investigation. And it discovered that Russian was bribing both public and private officials. And, President Obama was aware of it, and Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State was aware of it ~ hell, Hilliary and her hubby, the ex-POTUS were being paid off.
And the results of the FBI investigation was summarily ignored.
I assume that by saying that this is not about Hillary or Trump, you mean that it is bigger than that, and it is. But in a sane world, this would be bigger than any Harvey Weinstein scandal. And, as usual, the Clintons are at the heart of it.
Priscilla;
Sorry, all of this is so convoluted.
Yes, there was SOME investigation.
This issue was explored during the election – though we no MORE now.
McCabe – who has links to McCaulfie through his wife, who has links to Clinton was running the investigation in NYC at the time.
The Russia investigation was presented to the media as an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
The FBI presented what they had to DOJ – which apparently is this stuff we are finding out now, but what we were told was that it was just CF got money from people dealing with State, and Hillary purportedly was “hands off” on anything having to do with CF.
DOJ terminated the investigation. ‘
This was similar to what happened with the Email investigation – were DOJ refused the FBI request for a Grand Jury and subpeona power.
The Clinton email investigation would have also vaporized but for two things.
Judicial Watch used an FOIA for Clinton’s State Department Email and was told that State had NONE. And JW went to court and said that is complete horseshit, there is no way Clinton never sent an email ever as Sec State. It was the JW FOIA request that revealed the existance of Clinton’s private email server.
That triggered the Benghazi committee to look into Clinton’s email server.
The FBI was NEVER given a grand jury or subpeona power in the Clinton Email investigation either.
But they were able to get information from the Ben Ghazi Committee and from the JW Subpeona’s, and they were able to leverage that to get Clinton and others to “cooperate” and “voluntarily” provide what they could not subpeona.
The lack of subpeona power and a Grand Jury is why there are so many odd quirks in the Clinton email investigation.
Why as an example Cheryl Mills was allowed to sort the emails into personal/government, why Cheryl was able to represent Clinton in here FBI interview.
Despite the fact that Mills herself was/is an investigation target.
She was on Clinton’s staff at State, and she too was using a private email account on the same server (as was Abedin and several other staffers). Mills was ALSO on the board of the CF at the same time, and during the investigation.
Mills role in all of this is as if JR Haldeman had represented Nixon personally during Watergate.
The entire investigation reeks from end to end of deliberate sloppyness and corruption.
I have tripped over this in myriads of other contexts before.
One of the most effective ways to get the results you want – in an investigation or any other role where you have relatively unchecked power, is to appear to conduct your work negligently. Usually those involved try to minimize the appearance of negligence – to avoid their personal reputations from being harmed, but once you are committed to getting a specific outcome, there is no end to the number of careless mistakes you can appear to make.
The government is capable of being ruthlessly efficient when it really wants to get someone. Mueller has two grand juries and subpeona power in an investigation where no actual crime has yet been alleged, and thus far nothing has been made public that is sufficient to get a warrant.
But the FBI could not get a gend jury and subpeona power in atleast 3 different investigations of clinton – atleast one of which they already had evidence of bribery,
The other of which we have admissions that Clinton was trying to avoid FOIA requests, and clear evidence that she perjured herself in both the Benghazi hearing and in sworn statements in the JW FOIA case.
When I say this is not about Clinton or Trump or Weinstein I mean:
I have only small interest in who goes to jail.
But huge interest in assuring that all the shenanigans that went on during the Obama administration do not occur again.
I think that the political spying during the obama administration was WORSE than watergate.
I think the IRS targeting is absolutely despicable and we must never have anything like that again.
I think that Fast and Furious was criminally evil and we must never have that happen again.
I think Clinton’s pushing criminal prosecution of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to have a scapegoat for Benghazi is itself corrupt and criminal and must never happen again.
Benghazi itself is an example of incompetence, political corruption and coverup – I am not sure there is any actual crime.
The email scandal is only a big deal, in that anyone else would have been prosecuted and convicted. I doubt Clinton would have gone to Jail – Deutch had his sentence Commuted by Bill Clinton. But her political career would have been over.
Comey was correct in the sense that Clinton was never going to jail for 10 years for her email negligence. But he was wrong that she should not have been prosecuted and convicted, almost certainly the sentence would have been mild and would have been commuted. But she would have been a political albatross.
A major reason she was not elected is because voters understood that.
But again the point is NOT clinton. It is that if we do not enforce the law.
Then we have the rule of man, not law.
Though I had a poor view of Obama’s policies as president I had a good opinion of his integrity.
That is GONE. As I noted before this is worse corruption that Watergate.
You have to be talking the stories about Lyndon Johnson to get this kind of corruption.
I have seen nothing occur that precludes it happening again.
Nothing that Trump might have done rises to the level of what the Obama administration actually did.
This is also important because the left sells itself as better than the rest of us.
They “care”, they are more moral.
Both the Weinstein thing and all the Obama/Clinton stuff reveal that to be absolute CRAP.
Weinstein is a pig – got that. There are pigs of all ideologies.
In an odd way the access hollywood tape and Trumps statement “innoculate” him here.
Trump is also a pig – which is why I did not vote for him.
But Trump is NOT a hypocrite who has made a moral issue of everyone else committing the sin he is committing himself.
At the same time the left is condemning – possibly deservedly, Trump for being a pig, Some on the left are busy quietly engaging in the same or worse conduct, and more importantly the entire top of the left is actively engaged in covering that up.
You can not be calling half the rest of the country sexist pigs, while you are allowing one of your own to prey upon the people you claim to care about and want to protect.
That is the big deal here.
The Big deal about Clinton and Weinstein, and the Obama political spying, is that ALL of these are not about specific individuals, but about extremely wide ranging corruption that taints the entire ideology.
Wide spread hypocrisy is the huge problem.
And keep in mind that, During this investigation, Robert Mueller was head of the FBI, Andrew McCabe was deputy director, and, at the DOJ, under Eric Holder, the deputy attorney general overseeing the investigation was Rod Rosenstein.
But, none of these guys have any conflict of interest in the investigation of Russian interference in the election…….
Pithy post.
I was not aware that Rosenstein was part of this.
Does anyone wonder why “draining the swamp” is resonating with the voters ?
This is simple. Either we can clean house and get rid of all of these people who at the very least appear to be corrupt.
Public service is a priviledge not a right.
I do not need proof that will get a criminal conviction to demand that everyone in the list you mentioned NEVER hold a position of public trust again.
The mere suspicion of corruption should be sufficient.
The ONLY alternative is very limited government.
Either the left figures out how to make government incorruptable – even avoiding the appearance of corruption, or we severely limit government so the impact of corruption is small.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/17/alexander-and-murray-say-theyve-struck-bipartisan-obamacare-deal-243872
Lets see just how many GOP members who said they were against Obamacare wil reveal their true colors and vote for this. This ” temporary” fix will be about as temporary as the federal income tax was temporary.
Looks like a mistake to me.
The GOP should not rush. They have nothing to gain from doing so.
There has to be some sort of transition from the subsidized plans to whatever is coming next, and Trump has made clear that Congress is going to have to come up with both the transition and the next plan, now that Obamacare is as good as dead.
The problem, of course, is that Congress has had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, even to come up with this very vague transition plan, and it may very well end up being permanent, simply because that’s what Congress wants, and/or they’re far too gutless and lazy to come up with something better.
Either way, it’s not the job of the POTUS to dictate healthcare policy, and he’s done the right thing in stopping the illegal subsidies. As far as the GOP is concerned? I have no confidence that they are motivated in any way to stop single payer. As long as they get out of office before the country is bankrupted by the reckless policies both parties, they will take no responsibility for the disaster that follows. And they will retain excellent private health care at our expense….
Do you “transition” from a ford Taurus to an Audi ?
Did we “transition” to pPACA in the first place ?
During the 80’s and 90’s an economic approach to “transitioning” from failing statist systems – such as Uraguay or Poland or the former USSR was developed called “shock therapy”.
The gist was “just do it”. The evidence is that surprise instant transistions to truly better arrangements actually work best.
Intermediate steps are hard to construct, and have a high risk of being a greater disaster than what they are trying to fix, or alternately getting trapped at the intermediate step.
Poland, Uraguay, and most of eastern europe worked on transition plans in secret using very few people, and sprung them abruptly.
This avoided myriads of opportunities for corruption.
These countries transitioned from state run economies to free markets in 1 day.
Poland as an example had serious shortages of everything, and within 2 weeks of the free market transition, all goods were readily available and prices had stabilized to affordable levels.
The big counter example is Russia itself – Yeltsin’s people put together a shock treatment plan, bit Yeltsin could not get it through the Duma, the result is they moved much more slowly, and all the former communist party members get slices of the pie. Many of those became the current Russian Oligarchs.
In a free market you get wealthy by delivering value to consumers.
The less free the market is the greater the ability to get wealthy by leveraging govenrment power.
We DID transition to the ACA to begin with. it wasn’t just a one day, “ok, you’re in the exchanges now.”
Of course, the easy stuff, the good stuff was front loaded into the plan….kids staying on the parents plan until they were 26 (a hedge against joblessness for a few more years), and the elimination of insurance companies dropping those with certain pre-existing conditions. Also, the money for the huge Medicaid expansion was federally funded for a temporary period, to give the states time to rework their budgets, i.e. raise taxes. to find the extra millions or billions necessary for the tens of thousands of extra Medicaid recipients.
But, plans had to be cancelled, insurance companies had to come up with new offerings and premiums, the exchange website (which turned out to be an expensive disaster) had to be built, etc…..
I don’t see how you can tell families who have been receiving subsidies that they’re no longer going to be able to afford their insurance, because Obama illegally approved the subsidies….it would be devastating to them.
But, you’re right, as is Ron, to say that any transition has the potential for being a never-ending one, given the reluctance of Congress to do anything that might be politically damaging to its members .
A different view of washington and Trump
NRO finds there is no difference between Ta Nehisi Coates and Richard Spencer.
That the actually agree on Race.
And are both wrong.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452684/alt-right-white-supremacism-left-right-conservatives-ta-nehisi-coates-ben-shapiro-federalist
And the sex scandal grows.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/hollywoods-other-open-secret-besides-harvey-weinstein-preying-on-young-boys
To Jay and Roby and those on the left.
It is very significant that this is occurring in the left capital of the world.
Not because others do not engage in similarly revolting and immoral conduct,
But because the left claims to be morally superior to the rest of us.
Because the left claims its inherent goodness allows it to judge and guide the rest of us.
Humans sometimes do reprehensible things to other humans.
And we need a government that punishes those who use force or fraud to harm others.
But we should not forget that it is humans who will make up that government, humans who are attracted to impose their will by force or fraud on others.
Whatever we fear privately is all the worse in government.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1378/0791/products/mockup-17f76711_grande.jpg?v=1478586501
Economic freedom corelates strongly to gender equality (probably all other equality to)
https://economics21.org/html/economic-freedom-and-gender-equality-go-hand-hand-2607.html?utm_content=buffer47ba2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Dave, you keep saying Trumps supporters will not
go away. He carried A!abama by double digit percentages. This may change in 6 weeks but it may show something disturbing to the GOP controlled senate right now. i thought hell would freeze over before Alabama would ever consider a democrat these days.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/17/fox-news-poll-alabama-senate-race-all-tied-up.html
I do not know much about the democrat.
But I still hope Moore loses.
But I doubt that.
At the same time Gillespie is +1 in one poll tie in another and -3.5 in the RCP average – with momentum substantially towards him with three weeks to go.
Northam needs Obama to campaign for him to pull this off.
I expect that Moore will win.
I do not expect it will be close.
Though I hope he loses.
I do not say Trump voters will not abandon him – that is what Polls and interviews etc are saying.
Moore losing in AL will be a shock to the GOP, should that happen.
Though at worst it reflects a bad candidate more than anything.
Gillespie winning in VA will be a shock to Democrats – though Gillespie is NOT a Trump republican.
Manchin is purportedly in deep trouble – and he is a popular centrist democrat.
Iowa is purportedly turning from a swing starting to solidly republican.
Casey and Wolf are both very weak in PA. Though that is likely because they have both done poorly.
McCaskill is incredibly weak – though she has managed to win from behind before.
Flake who is an nevertrump republican is in deep trouble in the primary in AZ.
Several other democrats are vulnerable – they have a good chance of winning, but the races will be close and they can not make a mistake.
One big mistake is being too strongly tied to democrats.
Shelby and Sessions were the first Republicans to win the AL Senate in more than a century.
AL did not shift solid blue until 2010.
We continue to forget that until very recently the south was democratic.
Republicans started to make inroads in the 70’s, but it has taken decades to flip the south.
I hope Moore loses and I am disappointed in Rand Paul for endorsing him.
but I am still betting he wins.
I would also note that contra the media the south is NOT Trump country.
Trump southern support primarily is because most of the south has not voted democratic in a presidential election since 1976.
Trump’s keep support is in the rust belt.
This is not a problem unique to the Supreme court.
All courts suffer from bad facts.
Issues regarding facts have almost no basis for being in appellate court cases.
Determiniation of facts occurs at Trial courts. Appellate courts absent evidence of egregious error are supposed to leave the facts of lower courts alone.
But even that is problematic as a trial court that wishes to make its decision unappealable just has to make sure the facts it finds lead to the right legal conclusions and the case becomes unappealable.
And I can assure you trial courts are very bad at getting facts right.
Nor are government agencies and the legislature.
Which is again an argument for limited government.
When a private participant gets facts or science wrong – they suffer.
When the government gets facts or science wrong – we suffer.
https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find
Re-read and think about the conclusion of this article.
Doctors and Hospitals know far more about the needs of their patients than Government HealthCare boards.
Doctors and Hospitals – like all of us make mistakes.
But as an excellent rule of thumb the closer decision making is to the individual the better it is – regardless of the expertise that those further up the chain might have.
Pennsylvania knows more about the healthcare needs of pennsylvanians, than Congress or HHS, Philadelphia knows more than PA, UofP medical center more than Phila. The doctor Treating you more than the hospital, and in all likelyhood, you more than your doctor.
Absolutely that is NOT universally true. But it is probably true 90% of the time.
http://www.insidesources.com/hospitals-beg-permission-save-lives/
A different model for healthcare.
Try Number 3..Word Press is doing its thing
Jay very good article about what is going on in this country today. And the divide is only going to continue to get worse as the GOP will offer more Bannon, Cruz, Trump, Moore type candidates while the democrats will continue to move left and offer Michele Obama (yes she has been mentioned), Warren, Sanders, Keith Ellison type candidates. This will only further divide the country leaving the moderates with fewer voices in politics that support their point of view. We now have a country were only 57% of the eligible voters participate. With the further movement to the extremes in both parties, what happens when less than 50% of the population votes and the majority of the population does not believe they have a voice?
I hate to say this, but I believe the violence that we have seen recently is only going to escalate as the division continues and the parties continue to move further in their extremes. The answer lies in a strong centrist party that represents the moderate middle majority, but that will never happen. The special interest on the left and the right where the money exists would lose to much power in Washington.
One starting point is for people to realize that if the opposition party has a extreme candidate and they are opposed by one just as extreme on the other side of the issue that this is not an acceptable situation. Right now we have people that are so pissed off with Trump that they would accept almost anything the Democrats offered from the left. And that in itself is a road map to someone much worse than Obama and a fast track to a government that crams down one thinking and offers few alternatives. (ie, single payer)
I’m having word press log on problems again.
The site doesn’t remember me, and for EVERY comment I want to post, I have to log in again. This one as well. Annoying and time wasting!
“This will only further divide the country leaving the moderates with fewer voices in politics that support their point of view…..I hate to say this, but I believe the violence that we have seen recently is only going to escalate”
Wasn’t this the purpose of the Russian Social Media interfearance? To sow divisive anger and resentment and undermine unity?
You are starting to get a clue – and BTW that is also what the intelligence community said.
Russia’s primary purpose for meddling in our election was NOT to elect one candidate or another. It was to discredit our process.
And the left has bit into that hook line and sinker.
Russia sowed the seeds – but it is the left that continues to feed and water them.
Get a clue. Russia did not alter the outcome of the election, They did not even try.
But they did alter YOUR confidence in the election.
They got an unbelievable payback.
What is most interesting is that Trump voters – generally less educated, were NOT influenced by this nonsense, and are wise enough to understand that Russian efforts did not, could not, and did not even try to actually alter the electio.
But purportedly well educated left wing nuts do not have the simple logic skills to grasp that. You are going nuts because Russia did what ?
Ran a few pro gun adds ? ramped up BLM ?
Trump was outspent by Hillary 2:1. Add in all Russian spending – much of which was pushing democrat issues, and you get 1.99999:1.
You want to work yourself into a lather over something you can not stop and did not change anything.
If you want something to be concerned about regarding social media – it is well known that Facebook and Twitter are actively hostile to conservatives. And this Russia crap is only making that worse.
I do not personally give a crap if anonymous possibly russians advocated for Trump or Hillary on FB. I do care that FB and Twitter are now purging anonymous accounts. and censoring suspending and filtering accounts based on content.
While I beleive private actors are not prohibited from doing so – it is still a bad thing.
Anonymous speach is actually an important part of the first amendment.
Our founders were notorious for publishing under psydonyms.
If you try to purge Russians – you are going to stiffle anonymous social media political speach – that is a BAD thing.
And why is it that we seem to think that the US owns the internet ?
Why aren’t people in Russia and France and Iran entitled to have views on US elections ?
We have views on theirs ?
Jay. ” Wasn’t this the purpose of the Russian Social Media interfearance? To sow divisive anger and resentment and undermine unity?”
Thats one of their primary objectives. But Trump and Clinton were results of the division, not the cause. If the country was led by the Manchins on the left and the Kasich on the right, those. trying to sow desention would have a much more difficult time and their social media propaganda would fall on many more deaf ears/eyes.
Ron
Do you honestly believe that a tiny amount of social media adds – amounting to something like 1/1000 of a percent of one candidates advertising, Adds that were mostly for issues not candidates and mostly were in support of democratic issues, not candidates.
Flipped something like 70,000 rust belt voters from Clinton to Trump ?
Was your vote changed by purportedly Russian Facebook posts supporting BLM ?
Do you know anyone who changed their vote to Trump because of anything they saw on facebook – much less something they saw that was from Russia ?
Clinton outspent Trump by almost 2:1 – if political advertising, social media posts, political money in any form was determinative of the outcome of this election – Clinton would have won easily.
I am very concerned where this is already going.
I do not want the federal govenrment deciding or regulating who can say what or where about politics PERIOD.
I do not want an end to anonymity on the web – which BTW is a first amendment right.
I do not want Facebook and twitter making decisions based on the political content of posts, or based on inquiries into the identities of posters. I do not want Facebook or Twitter “DOXing” their users.
If that means Russians or chinese get to use social medial to voice their views on US politics, that is a tiny price to pay for free expression.
Congress is already unconstitutionally (and illegally) threatening Facebook and Twitter with regulation if they do not start censoring their own content.
Their is already ample evidence that social media companies are exhibiting biased censorship. We do not want to make that any worse.
In small ways I am happy that Der Stormer was chased off much of the web.
But despite my glee that is still a BAD thing.
The appropriate response to bad speach is good speach not enforced silence.
Even Glenn Greenwald and numerous others have noted that government mandated political censorship ultimately gets used against minorities.
Dave “Do You Want…..”
I believe there are people in this country that will believe anything that is on social media. What I want and what will happen are two vastly different things. I want people to take a couple minutes when they see something on social media to do a search and see if that “news” is being distributed by the more established press. If not I want them to not share it until it is verified. What will happen is the knee jerk reaction of those on the far left and far right where they hit “share” and move on. Much like Trump does with his unverified tweets that are found to be unverified crap.
But there is a difference between social media and “freedom of the press” When I send letters to the editor in my local paper, not all of those letters will be printed for one reason or the other. They choose which ones to print. When I post something on Facebook, I can create an official looking document that accuses anyone of any crime and post it on the page. Absolutely no truth what-so-ever and the odds of being charged with any attack on anyone character is extremely low. Unlike the newspaper that may have read the letter to the editor and refused to print it, social media allows any crap that anyone wants to post and it can get thousands of hits and thousands of people believing that junk. And they talk to friends, etc.
You say Hillary outspent Trump. True, and he won because he had a much better understanding of how social media can influence elections. The more fake news is posted and the better those writing fake news gets, the more effective it will become.
So that is why I agreed with the actions taken by the Italians.
Like so many things, I think you have a belief that people are smart. I believe the majority of people are followers and believe what they are told to believe. I think you do not think people need to be made aware how to spot fake news because you think they will not believe it. I believe people will believe almost anything if it is on social media.
And I believe the actions of the Italians will give their children a better understanding on how research is done on any subject in any environment. We one the other hand give teachers test and tell them to teach this crap so the kids can be promoted to the next grade.
Ron;
First, Russia did not mostly advocate for candidates. They advocated for issues.
So is a pro NRA add going to get someone who WAS going to vote for Hillary to vote for Trump ?
Is a Pro BLM add going to get someone who WAS going to vote for Hillary to vote for Trump ?
No I do not actually beleive Social Media, or even advertising change peoples minds much.
I think if you check with Advertising execs they will confirm that.
You can not persuade people to do what they do not want to do.
The best that Adds ever manage is to get people to do something they already want to do.
To buy dog food today instead of tomorow.
Look at the people here ? Has Jay convinced anyone of anything ? Roby ? You ? I ?
Actually changing peoples minds is extremely hard.
That is also why politicians – like it or not focus on negative adds.
It is easier to get someone to NOT do something that to do something.
But even that is hard.
For the most part – you, I, Roby, Jay, we find what we want – the information that supports our existing beleifs and we allow that information to reinforce what we already beleive.
Social media is no different.
Libertarians are notably LESS susceptible to confirmation bias that nearly every other group, we are intensely logical and generally strong systemetizers. We find incongruity deeply disturbing and when we see a contradiction we are driven to resolve it.
If I find a contradiction in my values or views – the kind of contradictions I point out in the rest of your positions, I can not sleep until I find the answer and fix it.
And still fighting confirmation bias is a struggle for me.
No I do not beleive that social media changes peoples minds.
It merely confirms what they already beleive.
Only a tiny few people go out of their way to find information outside their own bubble – and those people are highly likely to make good decisions, and are not going to be influence by “fake news”
The people who buy “fake news” – or are “influenced” by russia or the media – already had bought in anyway.
Actually changing peoples minds about something requires someone INSIDE their bubble, that they trust challenging their convictions – it does nto come from the outside.
Further Trump supporters – whatever their other chanracteristics – they are stubborn and loyal. This is exactly the people who are NOT going to have their view changed by “social media”
These are not people who saw some Russian facebook add one day and decided to vote for Trump.
People have lots of stupid reasons for who they choose to vote for.
My grandmother always voted for the more handsome candidate.
But she ALWAYS did that.
I am not saying that everything is not predestined. But those people who are going to change their minds, do so over time, based on alot of information, not one add.
It is possible that for some people – the access hollywood tape was the last straw, and tipped them away from Trump. Or the Comey October letter to congress about the Weiner laptop was the last straw for a few clinton voters.
But in both cases these were people already unsure.
Sorry, Russian social media adds did not and can not tip the vote enough to change the outcome of the election. People just do not work that way.
You can only beleive this, by beleiving in the incredible stupidity and ignorance of other people. There are a few people in that world who meet those criteria, but not many.
There are far far far more of us who will not change our views on something – no matter how damning the facts we are confronted with.
The Whole russia meme requires beleiving that human nature is entirely different than it is.
Dave, I am not talking specifically about the damn Russian crap. That has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am addressing all of the junk that is untrue on social media that is shaping the thinking of the younger generation in this country, If you tell them something enough, they will believe it. If you tell them in different ways that Trump is a racist KKK member, after enough times they will begin to believe it.
It is the responsibility of the education system to teach kids how to THINK!. They are NOT doing that. They are teaching them how to regurgitate information to pass a test. If the education system in this country took the example of the Italians, then our kids will accomplish two things. They would identify crap on social media and become untrusting of information they see until they prove it to be reliable. Two, they would learn how to research subjects regardless of content so they become better students.
Why is it always something about Russian influence you bring up everytime something is said about the internet crap.
I believe if you tell someone something enough times and long enough they will begin to believe it. And some people vote based on what they believe!!!!
Ron
Absolutely “fake news” comes in all flavors.
I just posted a couple of videos interviewing ivy league college students – these are he supposed cream of the crop, and these students are trivially fooled by just switching credit/blame for policies. Trump’s polices become gold – if students are told they were Obama or Sanders. Conversely Things Obama actually did are vile if attributed to Trump.
Clearly none of these kids can manage critical thinking.
Clearly none of them are making choices by thinking about the actual policies.
They are in their bubble – it is good if it it labeled Obama or Sanders and bad if it is labeled Trump without regard to the actual policies.
The problem is NOT that they so easily beleive what the get on social media.
It is that they have been raised and educated totally free from competing ideas.
They have never heard of the alternatives to their ideology framed in a way devoid of labels like left/right or Trump/Obama
These are not blue collar bumpkins. These are the college educated elite.
I would bet that the average Trump voter in Ohio or Michigan is going to be less likely to be “fooled” by changing the tags on policies (not they they are completely immune to these types of deceptions.
This is also why I posted the JFK video – because by todays standards JFK is a right wing loon.
Too much – particularly of the left, but still of all of us, of what we beleive is based on who said it or narratives. It is not based on facts, logic, reason.
That students in Universities like George Washington in DC do not know how to think logically, that they make choices based on the context of who they beleive said them, rather than what they say should really question our educational system.
No I do not beleive that social media – atleast not in the sense of Fake russian Social Media is shifting peoples views.
To a huge extent we live in bubbles.
The Main Stream Media, the Social Media, our choices in those reflect our personal desire to stay in our own bubble. To the extent they influence us – we are already pretty much all in. People are saying “tell me what Bernie advocates – because that is what I am fighting for, whatever it is”, or “Tell me what Hannity or OReilly are selling.
Trump was able to win this election because he was able to find a bunch of democratic voters in key states whose personal ideological hero was NOT Hillary, and who were willing to listen and say – Trump stands for what I stand for, even though he is republican.
They did not change their views. They just found as Reagan said 50 years ago – the democratic party left them.
To the extent the news – fake or real, social media or ANYTHING had an impact, it was NOT to change peoples views, but to connect people and their already existing views to the candidate closest to those views.
There are two exceptions to this, neither are unique to this election. though the latter played a bigger role than ever before.
The first is that negative advertising does work at keeping people from voting.
Lost of people did not vote – because Trump was to evil or Clinton was too evil, or both or cast a protest vote for Johnson or Stein.
The second is identity politics went over a tipping point.
When the left was frothing about hateful hating haters, way too many people though “you are talking about me, not Richard Spenser”.
I would note that some left leaning college media department decided to restage the Clinton Trump debates – I posted the links before. They were certain that If Trump was a woman and Clinton was a man people would have scored the debates as a win for clinton.
Basiscally they were sure we were massively sexist.
They did a very good job. They got people of the opposite genders with reasonable physical resemblance – without making it overly obvious. These actors carefully studied dialog and cadence and gestures and very nearly duplicated the presentation with only the gender changing.
The result – near universally people scored the female Trump as the big winner in the debates.
In otherwords Trump was his own worst enemy in the debates.
People did not listen – because he was Trump.
But what we miss, is that some people did.
Some people said “I am hearing what I want to hear – from a republican” and they voted accordingly.
To the extent Social Media played a role it was not persuading us to support Trump’s policies. But connecting us to the candidate that matched our pre-existing preferences – whether that was my grandmothers handsome preference, or the closet fit for our personally prefered collection of policies.
Trump voters did not elect Trump because they were duped into voting for him.
They – particularly the blue collar democrats, voted for him, because he was saying what they already beleived and no democrats in 2016 was.
Nor is it just about policies. Trump’s bare knuckle brawling with the media was seen by them as somebody sticking up for them. Somebody figuratively slugging the reporter that says because you want to control immigration you are a racist.
The left played right into Trump’s hands with identity politics, and they are doubling down on that.
This is also why they are sticking with him.
It is why despite all the things the left and some of the rest of us are flipping out about regarding President Trump – they do not care.
His midnight tweets do not piss them off, they make them feel empowered.
Trump the uncouth brawler is THEIR president.
The comparisions between Trump and Andrew Jackson are quite apt.
Dave…” Clearly none of these kids can manage critical thinking………………..
The problem is NOT that they so easily believe what the get on social media.
It is that they have been raised and educated totally free from competing ideas.
They have never heard of the alternatives to their ideology framed in a way devoid of labels like left/right or Trump/Obama”
Thanks Dave, you just made my point. What the Italians are doing is opening a methodology to introduce their children to “critical thinking” and introducing them to “competing ideas” in a way that uses current technologies and student tools they are interested in using to give their kids a better understanding of how to evaluate alternative ideas “devoid of left/right” slanted news. There are many ways of doing this and I think using the tools kids use today compared to archaic teaching methods that we were taught with is the better idea.
I am not looking to defend Trump – but Trump’s purportedly unverified tweets have a higher accuracy rate than CNN, NYT or MSNBC.
The left has successfully sold a distorted view of what constitutes Truth. This is self evident in the political fact checkers that manage to find something from those they do not like false – when it is mostly true, but might have some minor error,
While concurrently finding True something that is mostly false when it comes from sources they like.
When you decide whether something is credible or not, you need to use similar standards.
The press as an example should be held to very very high standards.
Their entire job is to report accurately – and if they are really doing their job without spin.
The media fails at that.
The role of politicians is not the same.
As Churchill note “the truth is so precious it must always be surrounded by a vanguard of lies”
I am hard pressed to think of some remark of significance by Trump that is as important a lie as numerous ones Obama uttered.
I do not as an example care about the distinction between Trump Tweeting that he was wiretapped – and thus far it turns out that only others in his campaign were.
I do not care than Multiple different reasons were given for Firing Comey.
I think there were many reasons and at any time one might be more important than the rest.
Regardless, I have found Trump’s tweets grating. often simplistic. But few lies, and none of consequence.
Mostly his tweets are to tweak the left and the press, they are left baiting, and they have proven very effective.
Dave “The press as an example should be held to very very high standards.
Their entire job is to report accurately – and if they are really doing their job without spin.”
If you do not care about what is posted on social media (which is where the majority of information is shared these days) and do not think people should know how to verity that information, why should you care about the MSM and what they report. People under 50 are getting 50% of their news from sources on the internet and social media. Read through and see how personal contact is a main source of news. Does this originate on fake new platforms on social media?
http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/
Someone with your background and how you use data to support your facts would be someone I would expect would support promoting education that teaches people how to verify data. Sounds like I am wrong with the comments you have recently made. Right?
Ron
When I say “the press should” or something like that – that is my ideal.
What the press must do is determined by their customers.
Just as the owners of the NFL are facing difficult choices.
Specifically addressing education – absolutely.
But the objective is NOT to teach them how to identify fake news – anyone trying to teach that is going to be pushing hard on a personal ideology.
The objective is to
1) improve their critical thinking
2) expose them to the viewpoints outside their bubble – hopefully in an environment they will hear.
Milo, Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, ….. all the people whose viewpoints are not automatically heard on campus today should be everything short of forced on todays college students.
Protest – fine, but also go in an LISTEN. Ask questions. I do not give a damn if you do not intend to agree.
This is a problem for all of us – but it is worse for the left.
The right is fractured – and honestly has been all my life.
The myriads of flavors of republicans duke it out – often bitterly during the election and come together in the general (usually).
This tends to mean republicans are more knowledgeable on policy – because they have heard the views of the Tea Party, Neo-Con’s social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, Moderate republicans, Libertarian Republicans, and they have had to sort out the differences, and usually had to vote for candidates that were at best 75% of what they wanted. Though this is getting worse, it has still been this way most of my lifetime.
The left has been shifting towards lockstep ideological purity (not consistency).
The left shifts further to the left and becomes more homogenous all the time.
They speak with close to one voice, and dissention is not tolerated.
This means those on the left are not exposed to the same degree and vigorousness of debate nor do they need to think as much about their views.
It is not accidental that the left today pays mere lip service to free expression, nor why they are increasingly socialist.
It is kind of the swedenization of the Left.
I have noted before you can support bigger more intrusive government the more homogenous you are.
Republicans must be for limited government – because they can not agree among themselves on many things, and because they not only do not trust the left, but they do not trust other republicans. Some of you argue differently, but I argue that is a very good thing.
The left’s problem is they are monolithic and live in homogenous enclaves
And just like monolithic european countries they think everyone thinks exactly as they do – and that is reinforced because 80% of their neighbors do. Since they do not know people who do not think differently, and they do not confront them. it is much easier for the left to think of them as a small group of stupid yokels. It is far easier to disrespect and hate people you do not know.
Large portions of the left are ready to severely restrict speach – because they beleive and everyone arround them would be unlikely to violate their laws.
Ron;
Just to be clear,
I am absolutely totally completely behind improving our education.
Teaching kids to think critically.
What I am opposed to is going away from the broad life skill of critical thinking to the narrow and highly politicisable attempts to focus on some narrow area.
I absolutely do not want course in hope to spot fake news.
I do want course in how to understand basic statistics, what an error bar means, what an Rvalue or other measures of confidence means. what 1 std dev means.
what multiple regressions mean.
I am not looking to turn people into statistical experts,
But I do want them to understand some basics – like any study that had to do multiple regressions is just a hint, a clue. You pretty much never can prove a proposition from the results of regressions. Get that and you will look at economics, climate science, and sociology all much differently. You will understand how really really strong rules – like supply and demand are probably true most of the time. but far weaker and less direct ones like government stimulus could easily prove crap.
We also need healthy skepticism. One report that I beleive I linked to was claiming that the purported claim that somewhere between 2-8% of rape reports are false – is just made up from Susan Brownmillers book – which I have read. That police departments – which are not inherently a trustworthy source either, estimate false reports are about 40%.
I would suggest reading Radley Balko’s book on the warrior cop.
Aside from the main topic Balko notes that pretty much all the crime statistics cited by federal politicians since atleast Nixon are litterlally made up. That some speach writter thought they heard some nuber somewhere or said X% sounds reasonable to me, so lets just claim that “studies show”.
Balko noted that many of the numbers were not even physcially possible.
But these were not challenged or even thought much about, now they are lore.
Regardless, my point is we need critical thinking to improve in EVERYTHING.
We should not try to fix topical “fake news”,
Did Trump run a better election that Clinton – Clearly – and starting with the Primary.
Trump defeating Hillary is not that special.
Trump beating Rubio, Cruz, Paul, Carson. Bush, …..
That was much more amazing
And no one is claiming the Russians had anything to do with that.
Trump’s campaign against Hillary was no different from his primary campaign – which was harder.
We can argue about strategies and tactics – and absolutely Trump was better at those.
There are certainly things that can be learned from Trump’s campaign.
But there is nothing that was illegal or improper
Mostly Trump foud a way to connect with alot of voters who were looking for a message differnet than democrats and other republicans were selling.
Trump used a variety of techniques to draw attention to that message.
Including such things as making controversial statements to get free airtime on the news.
Further we can always argue that If Hillary had not made this bad mistake or had that bad luck things would have gone differently.
But the same is true of Trump – without the access hollywood tape or the kerfluffle offer gold star families, he would have picked up NV and NH and probably more.
We forget that just as Trump won several states by narrow margins – he lost several by even narrower ones.
And Finally, I really do not care whether he lost or won a very close election.
The results absolutely demonstrate than a huge portion of americans are very unhappy with government. even if they are not a majority, they are entitled to not be run over roughshod by the left.
Every single thing that Trump has undone – should have been undone if Hillary had been elected.
A justice who was going to read the constitution as written, not as they wanted it to be should have been put on the court. That should be the goal of both parties.
All of Obama’s illegal EO should have been terminated. If we want them we must go through congress
The Paris withdrawl is symbolic – but we never should have entered it.
Worse it is outside the president’s unilateral powers.
The EPA rules that have been rolled back never should have been enacted.
ObamaCare should have been forced to be run as legistated and not tweaked illegally to try to keep it alive.
Those and many similar things would not have happened if Clinton had been elected.
But they should have.
Ultimately the majority can not impose its will on the minority
When we can not sustain supermajorities favoring something – it must die.
Trump actually getting elected means what should have happened regardless, did happen.
Ron
The italians are being stupid.
We need to learn critical thinking, data, logic, reason.
Not how to spot fake news – something that invariably will become how to spot what some elitist thinks is fake news.
People are followers.
But they do not follow fake russians on social media.
They follow their ACTUAL friends and associates.
Though I would strongly suggest that Trump voters are NOT followers.
While Clinton voters are.
Conformists, do not vote for Trump.
If the election was decided by followers taking direction as to how to vote – Clinton would have won in a landslide.
Trump did stronger than expected – because people were unwilling to FOLLOW.
Because they decided on their own how they are going to vote and did not tell people.
That would be the opposite of they were followers.
There are and have always been people at either extreme.
Compared to those of the past Bannon is not that extreme.
I do not think he gives a damn about most culture conservative issues
Homosexuality or abortion.
Despite left attacks he is not particularly racist, homophobic, or mysoginist.
Certainly not in ideology – Weinstein proves you your ideology and your conduct need not match.
Bannon is as he says an economic nationalist.
His core issues used to cross partly lines.
Some democrats AND some republicans were protectionist.
Some Democrats AND some Republicans were for restricted immigration.
Trump won the election by winning democratic protectionist, or restricted immigration voters. The left is doing nothing to get them back, and nothing to lure free trade, open immigration republicans.
I do not agree with either of those positions. Serious protectionism could be economically disasterous – just as increased socialism is.
Bannon’s economic nationalism – particularly as it is more sound and fury than action, is far less dangerous that the plethora of additional regulation and giveaways that Democrats are pushing.
I am not particularly interested in McCain’s thoughts of much of anything today.
Frankly given his prognosis, he should resign and spend his time with his family.
But my mother made the same mistake – working almost to the day she died of cancer.
Politically McCain is a Hawk, possibly a neocon.
I can respect him for his military service without agreeing with his politics – just as I can respect Charlie Rangle for his military service and nearly completely disagree with his politics.
I have problems with Trump and Bannon’s attacks on McCain’s military service.
Someone selling standing for the national anthem should not be pissing over McCain for being shot down and being a POW in vietnam.
I am actually glad that Obama was elected rather than McCain. I think McCain would have made a poor president – and the blame for that would fall on republicans.
Obama was worse – but atleast democrats get the blame for that.
Regardless, McCain is the past and it is time for him to go quietly.
He is not doing himself or anyone else a service.
I read parts of his recent important speach on the US position in the world and I strongly disagree.
Read “The Ugly American” – McCain is under the delusion that the major US impact on the world has been the consequence of our projection of power.
The positive influence of the US on the world has been DESPITE our belligerent and stupid exercise of military power.
Trump and Bannon are coarse. But on most of the issues that they are at odds with McCain – McCain is wrong.
I wish Trump had not caved on Afghanistan, but McCain and “the generals” prevailed.
That will cost us more lives – for nothing.
Afghanistan is the business of the Afghani’s.
Should they commit another act of war against us or their neighbors, we can destroy their govenrment again.
Otherwise the choice of afghan government is up to the afghani’s
“Right now we have people that are so pissed off with Trump that they would accept almost anything the Democrats offered from the left.”
That is true – and they voted for Hillary.
I think it is highly debateable whether Trump has lost any of his own voters, and it is nearly certain democrats have alienated some of their own.
The portion of the middle angry with both parties may be large and determinative, but they are still as likely to grit their teeth and vote for Trump – or not vote at all.
I would love to see one party or the other put forward a fiscaly conservative, limited government pro individual liberty candidate,
But that is not going to happen.
We are going to have choices of “lessor evils”
While potential democratic candidates do not have Clinton’s baggage, they also do not have her stature.
If the economy is strong in 2020 Trump is going to “win bigly”
Clinton blame for Russian Uranium Deal: 99% Crap.
It was an unanimous decision approved by multiple agencies..
If the Russians were trying to curry favor with the Clintons with bribes to the Clinton Foundation they got nothing for their money out of from the Uranium Deal – The State Department was one of NINE government agencies that had to sign off on the deals. Other federal and state regulators also had to approve them. Any evidence Russians bribed any of the other agency heads too? AND Clinton didn’t even represent the State Department on the panel of agency officials who approve deals such as the Uranium One transaction. The representative at the time, former Assistant Secretary Jose Fernandez, told the Times, “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,” referring to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. CFIUS also cannot veto transactions, only the President can.
And if the Uranium Deal is so detrimental to US interests ( it ain’t) why hasn’t Trump tried to cancel it, like he has for all other Obama projects. He badmouths Hillaryabout it, but hasn’t undermined Russian control of the Uranium (which is only allowed to be sold domestically, to US users. What does that tell you?
It tells me that you don’t understand the circumstances of the Uranium One deal at all, Jay.
The deal is done. It’s over. The sale was made in 2013. Rosatom owns the Uranium One mine, and the deal was blessed by Hillary, after the Russians paid Bill $500K for a 1 hour speech and donated tens of millions to the Clinton’s slush fund….er, foundation.
What do you expect Trump to do? Declare war on Russia because Obama’s SecState allowed our greatest geo-political foe to take over a substantial percentage of US nuclear resources.
You’ll defend Hillary and the Democrats, no matter what, it seems.
mines**
The left is terrified that Trump will start a War with North Korea,
yet the same left is practically chomping for a hot war with Russia.
Kim Is nuts and unpredictable, but he is still at best a third rate nuclear power who can possible kill a million people.
Putin is not nuts, but is still controls the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and a nudlear war with Russia could result in the destruction of nearly all life in this country.
So why is it that the left wants to restart the cold war ?
Except for that nuclear capability – Russia is a bit player on the world stage
Russian GDP is 1/16 that of the US, it is 1/2 that of the UK or France, and 1/3 that of Germany Russia is the economic equivalent of Spain – but with 4 times as many people (ie 1/4 the standard of living).
Russia is significant in the world in only one consequential way – they have the worlds largest stock of nuclear weapons.
That is it.
The left is making Russia into a boogey man they are not.
Are we bemoaning Spanish influence ?
And what agency is going to vote to disaprove a deal involving the secretary of State – Hillary Clinton, a person with a well know political reputation for a long enemies list and serving vengence up cold against those who she perceive as slighting her ?
And why are we supposed to beleive that AFTER the FBI documented bribes related to the deal that, the process fo getting other federal approvals was not further corrupted ?
BTW No it was not a “unanimous vote” – it was not a vote. The deal require the approval of numerous government agencies – including the state department.
Though Clinton fake isolated the state department decision from herself there is evidence that the person making it at state was influenced – at the very least he was making a decision that he knew quite well what his boss wanted.
Each other agency made their decision on their own. But the standard presumption – that the Obama administration repeatedly ignored for things like Keystone XL was that such deals must be approved absent a compelling reason to disapprove them.
Though bribery of foreign agents is actually a crime.
Finally, the left is constantly selling this Russia/Trump collusion nonsense.
That Putin favored Trump.
Some fruitless interactions between Trump surogates and Russians in 2015 and very early 2016 are purportedly proof that Trump is in bed with the Russians.
Yet the Trump Tower deal never went through. However Russia – certainly with Putin’s blessing did approve the Uranium One deal involving Clinton.
Clintons Chief Of Staff John Podesta remains on the board, owns and has received stock and is otherwise still entangled with Russian companies.
Clinton’s and the democrats ties to Russia and Putin are much larger than Trump’s.
Putin has long been willing to make deals that involved the Clinton’s.
The Steele Dossier was a product of Russian intelligence – that is indisputable whether its contents are true or false, Clinton’s involvement in that does violate US election laws.
All that you have regarding Trump is “hope” that he violated some law.
In every instance where some evidence arises – what emerges is that he DID NOT.
The purported social media influence of Russia – while incredibly nebulous –
essentially, the beleif that accounts that may be for pseudonyms, may be of russians who may be affiliated with Putin, but regardless, those accounts were used to push both republican and democratic issues.
Even if the actually were tilted you would have nothing.
The US does not own the internet, and has no right to suppress the speach of others on the internet – not anonymous people, not russians, not even the russian government.
Possibly the worst fallout of this is that Facebook and Twitter are actively purging anonymous accounts and getting themselves more heavily involved in censorhip choices.
While I find nothing improper about private censorship – it is not something to be encouraged, and the threats by congress to regulate social media if they do not do so themselves are unconstitutional and dangerous. And possibly create enormous liability under current law for facebook and twitter under the DMCA, which provides legal protection for providers such as Youtube and Facebook, and Twitter so longs as they are not involved in decisions regarding content and have a formal process that the follow for removing actually illegal (not offensive) content.
Do you want government twisting Facebook or Twitters arm as to what political expression can be permitted on the internet ?
You do not seem to be able to disinguish between a private deal that must be approved by government and a government treaty and accord.
The U1 deal has been approved. It is a fait acompli, it is not reversable, in the event that it was, it would expose the government to tremendous liability.
There is no federal power for government to cancel private contracts. That is explicitly barred by the contracts clause. After the fact it is also an unconstitutional taking.
Further it is entirely possible that the U1 deal may be a good deal.
That is not the point.
You are not allowed to use pollitical influence, corruption and bribery even to accomplish a good deal.
Once again the left is clueless about the rule of law.
We make acts illegal.
We do not make intents illegal.
If you murder someone – it does not matter if you had good intentions,
It does not matter, if the outcome is somehow arguably good.
It does nto matter if you murdered a rich man, or a poor man, a good man or a bad man.
Anything deviating from that is the rule of man, not the rule of law.
The uranium one deal was secured as a result of bribery and influence peddling.
Whether it is a good deal or a bad deal is irrelevant.
Whether some people gave their approval without evident bribes is irrelevant.
You can not make corruption go away by good intentions or good outcomes.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/20/hillary-clintons-russian-ghost-stories/
I’m a lover Italian food, art, design and even the Roman Empire.
I am adding Italian school curriculums to the list: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/world/europe/italy-fake-news.html
Take that “Fake News”.
Our kids will just continue in their ignorant cell phone bliss.
dduck, its not just our kids to worry about. Its the adults that eat up the news that fits their agenda that we should worry about. Cant count the #of times that something has posted to facebook that I could not verify. And Twitter, another story. How many coming out of DC can not be verified?
Ron;
I have said this before – but there is an academic project to validate published peer reviewed scientific papers.
1/3 of those reviewed todate have proven FALSE
1/3 have proven to have no statistical sginificance,
only 1/3 have validated.
This is accross disciplines – though there is a higher rate of bad papers in the soft sciences.
Here we are talking the work of purportedly the most intelligent and well educated people.
Why should you think that what is posted on facebook or the news should be of better quality than peer reviewed scientific papers.
I am not interested in screams of “fake news” – where that refers to non-traditional sources.
Who places a very high degree of trust in what they read on Facebook ?
Where we must be concerned is with the abysmal quality of news through purportedly reputable sources.
The past year has seen the traditional media burn their own credibility.
CNN, WaPo or NYT are little more trustworthy than those facebook posts you are upset by.
I beleive we are watching the self destruction of traditional media – and that is a good thing.
We already have innumerable sources outside of traditional media for information.
We have never before in human history had access to 1/10,000 the information and ordinary person does today.
But we need to learn critical thinking. We need to all learn to evaluate the quality of the information we recieve.
At the top of the list of skills required for critical thinking are those that Jay and Roby constantly poo-poo – facts, logic, reason.
There is no substitute.
If you can not practice those well – you are going to be mislead by emotions.
You are going to make poor choices for yourself, and given that far too many seem to feel they can force their decisions on others – you are going to make poor chociess for all.
Regardless, the destruction of the reputation of traditional media is a GOOD THING.
It eliminates the excuses for thinking for yourself.
It may not be possible to get people to think critically, but it is possible to remove false idols of credibility.
The fact that say “infowars” is biased and has poor credibiity, is of small consequence, compared to a fraction of the same bias and lack of credibility in NYT.
We can survive in a world of 10,000 infowars sites from left and right. And even overall make mostly reasonable choices.
We can not where a significant portion of the media is considered credible while being implicitly biased.
Sources that are openly biased are LESS dangerous than those covertly or implicitly biased.
Dave, in my mind there is a traditional word for “fake news” but Trump can’t use it for two reasons. One he would be called “nuts” and two it is not “new”
The word is propaganda. Propaganda is defined as “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”
Now how does a political movement like the Nazi’s or communist promote their political agenda?
Ron
Propoganda usually implies a state actor.
I would also suggest that “fake news” is more accessible.
Trump does nto need to be new – 2/3 of his campaign is retread Pat Buchannon.
That is pretty old.
Typical of the left.
Rather than promoting the important skill of thinking critically, whose only ideological tilt is to give on the tools to grasp the failure of bad economics and bad political philosphy,
The left determines that people need further coerced into making specific decisions specific ways.
People who have not either been taught or otherwise leaned their own self-interests, and critical thinking are not going to be able to make good decisions about anything – including “fake news”.
While those who have will be capable of recognizing bad ideas and distortions – regardless of the forumn.
We are going beyond the left left wing idiocy of staging a coup against Trump.
The left is now seeking in their anger that they lost an election they thought they had won to wreak havoc on our fundimental rights.
It is NOT governments business to decide what constitutes Truth.
The last thing we want is our elites deciding what is true and false.
Hasn’t anyone on the left ever read 1984 ?
They are bitching about Russia but at the same time want to impose on us the state run ministry of propoganda that was Pravda in the USSR.
More refutation of left wing excuses.
Aparently the people the experts tell us are being offended by “micro-agressions”
aren’t.
So we are seeking to ban speach that offends only the elites ?
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/542523/
http://theweek.com/articles/731375/hollywood-sitting-pedophilia-scandal
Yup The Uranium deal was pure as snow.
https://www.circa.com/story/2017/10/18/judiciary-committee-calls-on-former-fbi-informant-to-testify-about-uranium-one
The author does not understand what ‘illiberal means” or what our “liberal constitution” means, or the democracy is not a justification for evil.
In other words the author is a progressive.
Still even he is capable of grasping the the left has become unhinged about Trump.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-your-alarmism-over-trump-is-dangerous-for-democracy
So here is one example of how the “russians” are “helping” trump.
By retweeting something incredibly offensive by a left wing professor.
Is this really your idea of something no one should do ?
Or are you only offended if Russians are somehow involved?
https://www.thefire.org/russia-linked-twitter-account-helped-drexel-professors-white-genocide-tweet-go-viral-prompting-university-investigation/
While the claim that Russia Hacked the DNC has nearly vaporized.
And Trump could not possibly have colluded if Russia did not do it.
But lets assume the Russians did hack the DNC and send everything to Wikileaks.
While there is a crime there – there is also a crime of something quite close to it in the DNC emails.
Clearly Clinton and the DNC ad the Media were all conspiring to disenfranchise Sanders and Sanders voters.
I have no problem saying you can not use the hacked emails to convict Clinton in a court of law – that they are inadmissible. Though I can tell you as the law stands today they are getting in.
But the question is not “should we send Clinton to Jail for her conduct regarding Sanders” but should we elect her president ?
Jay and Roby and even sometimes the rest of us complain about Trump, but is Hillary Clinton – someone who slut shames the people who her husband sexually harrass and in atleast one instance likely raped, who keeps a long enemies list and seeks vengence, who is about as money grubbing and corrupt as they come, who is clearly for sale, is this the person you think should be president ?
Are we not permitted to know that Hillaries shit stinks – merely because the russians might be the ones who made her shit public ?
No one is arguing that actual dirt on Trump should not have come out.
Outside of Trump himself I am not sure anyone has argued that NBC should not have used the access hollywood tape. We might argue about how old it is or what it really means. But it still an important revelation of Trump’s character.
I have problems with what Mueller and the FBI have done – because they are government, and because the role of government is not to fig dirt on people, it is to prosecute actual crimes. But I have absolutely no problem with the media going after Trump.
My complaint about the media is that they have become the tabloids, not bothering to check stories. I do not even care if they go with a Trump rumour – but you report it as a rumour until you have more.
Regardless, Trump is fair game with respect to the press.
It is just too bad they are not capable of real investigative journalism, and did none during the obama administration.
I expect the media to find ALL the skeleton’s on politicians and government pockets.
I expect that whatever their journalistic standards – or lack, that they apply the saem standards to right and left.
Jay and Roby should like this.
The death of irony.
October 21, 2017 Rest in Peace
How to deal with Nazi’s
One year ago today
You can’t make this stuff up.
Do people on the left actually think ?
And more
So, the Wall Street Journal had an article yesterday on the fact that the US is still running on a GIGANTIC deficit….Drudge headlined it all day yesterday, but, otherwise very little in the press on this. At least I didn’t see it anywhere else (I only read the NYT on Sundays, and even then, concentrate on the Lifestyle and Entertainment sections ~ I get the rest when it’s linked by other. So if they took time from ranting about how Trump is Hitler and General Kelly is a racist, I didn’t see it).
Does anyone not think that our enemies are planning, both financially and militarily, for post-collapse America? While the do-nothing GOP Congress and the leftist Democrat “Resistance” fiddle about who says what to Gold Star families and in what tone of voice they say it, or how many ads on Facebook were paid for by people with a connection to Russia, or whether Melania Trump wore the correct shoes to get on Air Force One, Russia, China, Iran and others are stockpiling physical gold, building up their military capacities, and waiting for the US dollar to implode, and our economy to burn to the ground.
At that point, when we become a second rate power, the finger pointing won’t matter.
We do not have clear enemies. We also have very few clear friends.
We are in a world more similar to that of washington at his farewell address – except the US is the big dog. Regardless everyone is looking to their own interests.
And that is as it should be.
We need to get out of this nonsense that Russia is either our allie or our most bitter enemy. They are a nation we sometimes work with and sometimes work against.
And visa versa, and the same with China and Europe.
There is one complication. The US the the big dog – militarily – our military power dwarfs that of the top 10 other nations combined – if we are fully committed to using it, which we never will be. But even our reluctant use of force dwarfs any other nations ability to project power. Economically in two ways the world is inextricably linked to, and dependent on the US economy. We are nearly 1/3 of the world economy. We are the biggest single market for the entire rest of the world – if we sneeze the rest of the world gets the flu. The rest of the world does not like that, and it will slowly change over time as the standard of living throughout the world continues to rise as a consequence of that greater economic freedom an incredible force for good those the left fail to grasp. The other huge factor favoring the US is that the dollar is the worlds reserve currency. There are also efforts throughout the world to change that – and that change is highly likely, but will also proceed slowly. Numerous nations are far more seriously looking at gold – primarily because it disconnects them from the US dollar, which gives us a huge economic advantage. Their are also efforts by groups of nations to leave the dollar standard – atleast in trade between themselves – Russia and China are atleast partly trading in their own currency. Within the modern economy it is becoming increasingly possible to trade with different nations in different currencies – but it is more difficult and more dangerous. There were important reasons for the “gold clauses” in US contracts at the time of the depression that FDR invalidated.
In addition to gold and more trading in mixed currencies, Crypto currencies are slowly becoming far more internationally plausible. Monetary mistakes by nations like India and Venezuela have moved people on their own to adopt bitcoin in ever larger pockets throughout the world. It will remain a boutique currency in the US for a long time, but in Venezuela and parts of india it is the only protection from idiotic government.
This is also sending a message to nations globally. Paul Krugman’s afforism that no nation that prints its own money can ever go bankrupt is becoming obviously false.
Increasingly before creditors become intolerant – the nations people will.
The people of countries with monetarily untrustworthy governments are no longer stuck with their governments control of money. With every nation that acts with monetary stupidity, crypto currencies slowly become more legitimate.
We are a decade or more from their becoming commonplace in the US, but they still are on a exponential growth path, and we are likely past where the US which is actively hostile to them can stop it. The biggest domino in the US monetary hedgemony is OPEC and Saudi Arabia. Both Russia and China have aggressively pushed to get SA to move to deal in currencies other than the dollar – and so far failed. That is not likely to hold forever.
While the US faces a bright future – so long as we can get off this track of creeping socialism. The fact that much of Europe is trying to extradite itself from socialism with great difficulty should be a lesson to us. But our left worships a european model that no longer exists.
Regardless, our bright future also means existing in a world that is increasingly prosperous, that is increasingly competitive with us. We can either produce, compete and remain at the top of that pyramid – those few nations with higher standards of living than the US are more competition for connecticut than the US, or we can fall behind – as the social democracies of europe did as a result of their fetish worship of socialism.
Our public debt is a very serious problem – but it is far from our only problem. It is a great threat to our future, but we are a long way from Greece.
We can as an example gamble at the moment that tax code changes that on paper appear to increase the deficit are sufficiently stimulative to mute that concern.
We can not however increase our entitlement dependence – atleast not without substantially increasing our productivity and standard of living FIRST.
ObamaCare was just about the most stupid economic move we could possibly make.
It is likely the primary cause for the weak economy of the past almost decade.
Not merely the left, but everyone here seems to forget that nothing is free. That PPACA must be paid for, and that the cost comes from less of other things, including lower growth.
And that means lower standard of living and less new jobs. The fact that it has been poor as healthcare policy is just a bonus harm. Obamacare alone is responsible for a significant portion of the increased debt – either directly – as in the 1.3T it cost the federal government that had to be paid for, or indirectly – the lost jobs, the lost production, the lost growth that resulted from directing more of our money into healthcare without getting any noticeable gain in value. When you create the same value at higher human cost – that DECREASES standard of living. That is the drag that socialism has imposed everywhere it has been tried. It is inextricably tied to socialism. Getting perfect leaders might make socialism less bad, it will never make it competitive with free markets.
At some point we are going to have to confront our debt. Our best choice would be to get government out of the way of the fragile green shoots of economic resurgence we have at the moment – by getting our tax code out of our own way, by repealing PPACA, by reducing – or atleast slowing the increase of government spending below that of the growth int eh economy. And by getting a clue – free college and single payer healthcare are costs that we can not afford with the current economy. They will never be a good idea, but if they must happen at all, they must do so when the economy is much larger.
Finally we need to start thinking about how we handle those at the bottom.
There will always be a small class of elderly poor, disabled, mentally unhealthy people.
Like it or not we are never going to return to private charity as the best and least disruptive means of taking care of them. They are never going to be a productive part of society. But that is in reality a small part of the problem. We have a much larger body – between 15-20% of us who are capable of working – but never will be capable of even the least of jobs productive enough to give them a middle class living. Put most simply, 50% of the population will always have IQ’s below 100, and 16% will have IQ’s below 80.
We must determine how we are going to deal with these people. They are not going to become IT staff. They are not going to be part of the future high tech manufacturing workforce. Our wisest choice would be to highly incentivize them to do any work they can for whatever pay they can get, and then do whatever we can to raise their standard of living. But that is a difficult to impossible task – and we have gone about it completely wrong. We have incentivized not working, and we have used idiocy like minimum wage laws to make it ever more impossible for them to get jobs at all. What does it take to get those on the left to understand that the higher the minimum wage the more skilled and capable a person must be to get the least available job. Worse still we make it incredibly hard for individuals or small businesses to make use of these people.
At some price most of us int he middle class and above would be happy to hire these people to do tasks that we do not wish to do ourselves. But our government makes both the price to hire to high and the cost to be an employer too high. This is one of the reasons I would strongly advocate abandoning income tax as the means of public funding.
Regardless, dealing with this problem is incredibly difficult. we have done an excellent job of getting it completely wrong, and incentivizing exactly the wrong thing. Contra assertions of both the right and the left right now – our middle class is not our problem. The only thing that the middle class in the US needs right now is a robust economy. The middle class does nto need a tax cut, or more freebies. They need a growing economy, and everything else will rapidly take care of itself.
I just dropped a long response but the gist is the one thing I keep saying about the upcoming elections and all the rest of this.
If the economy starts rolling – we will still have lots of problems, but most of the “fake” problems of the moment will disappear. Most of the polarization will diminish.
Trump almost perfectly epitomizes a part of how free markets work.
It is NOT necessary to have the best ideas. It is not necessary to do things perfectly or even right. If there are 10 ways to solve a problem – 2 are fantastic, 2 are disastrous, and 6 are acceptable. But near the bottom is doing nothing.
It is not necessary for Trump to implement the perfect free market economic program.
What is necessary is to do a little better than Bush and Obama – that is all.
If we can avoid a trade war, avoid a nuclear war, and avoid getting entangled in another Iraq or Afghanistan, and avoid another asset bubble small improvements will get things moving. Doing better than the past 20 years is not very hard. It does not require perfection.
Trump doesn’t actually have to be a very good president to ultimately be regarded as a great one. All he must do is better than Bush and Obama. A very low bar.
If Trump manages to start a period of sustained 3% growth he is not only getting re-elected, he is going to be remembered as a transformative president.
All the things we are fighting over will not matter in the slightest.
Your points are well taken, Dave. However, I do think that we have enemies. They may be “frenemies,” when our interests overlap, but I don’t think for a moment that Iran, for example, does not want to see us destroyed. And, Russia is an enabler of Iran’s nuclear ambitions (it certainly has the uranium assets now, thanks to the Obama administration), so I’m going to go ahead and say that Russia is our enemy as well. Does Russia want a war with us? No. Would Russia come to our aid, if we were attacked by Iran? I doubt it.
The relationship of the nations of the world to each other is the longest duration example of a working form of “self-government” and it is “anarcho-capitalism” and has been since long before capitalism was conceived.
Different nations of different relative strengths, sometimes cooperating sometimes competing, and all too often warring. We all want to see an end to the latter.
It is unlikely we will ever see “one world govenrment” – as much as many on the left want that. BTW that is one of the underlying meme’s of CAGW – to atleast minimally ensnare the nations of the world into a scheme were they lose some of their sovereignity and are required to work in a quasi socialist international framework.
If you actually read the top Climate Scientists they are pretty much overt that the goals have little to do with future temperature and everything to do with imposing a scheme of global regulation by the intellectual elite.
Regardless, nations interact in their self interests. I do not expect Russia or Iran to be our friend. I do expect them to look out for themselves.
Iran’s fundimental problem is they are an ambitious theocracy.
But they are not self destructive. There is some danger because their religious fanaticism leads them to misunderstand how the world will respond to them.
North Korea is not actually self destructive either but they have taken a cult of personality to the level of a religion. They have much the same problems as Iran except that North Koreans actually beleive they are one of the most powerful and prosperous countries in the world – they are so heavily isolated by choice.
Some of what I have been reading recently strongly suggests that North Korea is as near starvation right now as they were during the Clinton administration.
If so that is very good – and dangerous at the same time.
They are purportedly within 6months of mass starvation.
They can not prevent that without significant support from either Russia or China, and though they will likely get more than we want, they probably will not get enough to keep them afloat.
That means we might actually be able to bring NK to negotiate – or we might drive them to wrecklessness.
This is a pretty good short video showing what the strongest Trump supporters think and feel about what is occurring.
To some extent this mirrors the way Obama supporters felt about oposition during the Obama administration.
But there are distinct differences.
Obama acted outside of the rule of law.
Opposition to Obama was aggressive but remained inside the rules.
A far larger portion of those opposing Trump are willing to use any means necessary.
Attacks on Obama were resistance to his policies.
Attacks on Trump are unconstrained.
https://www.nratv.com/series/freedoms-safest-place/episode/freedoms-safest-place-season-2-episode-5-the-ultimate-insult
Here is a different version of the same thing.
I am not advocating for nor do I share the views of Sykes or Loesch.
But Roby, and Jay and all of us should understand these people are out there.
And there are millions more who are less eloquent.
And they are angry, and it is the hatred and over reach of those on the left that have made them angry.
Of the Nazi war criminals executed at Nuremberg, none were repentant of their actions, deeds, or loyalty to the Fatherland.
Some went to their doom with ‘Heil Hitlers’ on their lips. All to their last breaths believed themselves patriotic Germans, not monsters deserving execution.
Hitler gave their lives focus and meaning. They rationalized Adolph the same way Trumpsters rationalize tRump. Like those Germans they are Mesmerized by misguided conviction, and are unable to see their complicity in evil.
Blinded by a lite weight.
Confirmation bias and ideological blindness are not unique to one specific ideology.
At this moment it should be self evident that at best there is no difference in misogyny between the left and right. Ywt the left is at best blind to their own and at worst complicit.
Nor is the blindness of those on the left limited to the Harvey Weinsteins and Bill clinton’s of the world.
There is no example of a truly working socialist state. But much broader it is self evident throughout the globe that those states with the largest governments underperform universally.
Here is the BBC on social welfare programs.
Yet you are blind to this.
Certainly there are Trump supporters blind to his flaws.
You are not only unable to see anything else. but unable to see his flaws properly.
Of the past two presidents – Obama expanded presidential power and moved closer to dangerous authoritarianism. Trump has reversed that. Yet you compare Trump to Hilter ?
Go ahead – because so long as you do – it is the totalitarianism of the left that gets exposed.
I do not want to be defending Trump. I did not vote for him. I probably could not have anyway, but the Access Hollywood tape was the last straw for me.
Trump might be as bad as Harvey Weinstein or Bill Clinton. Based on what we know that is highly unlikely. Based on what we know he is a small misogynist in comparison.
Still he is not someone I could vote for.
But Hillary Clinton was worse – her slut shaming those who accused her husband, is nearly as Bad as Bill’s conduct. AS Weinstein is exposed she says she did not know.
Just like she still claims not to know about her husband.
Regardless, Trump is an imperfect person and president, and not my choice.
But he is the choice of the country. Just as Obama was. He is as legitimately president as Obama was. You are free to thwart his actions and policies – just as republicans did.
But you have gone beyond that, you have made this personal, and you do not gather that you are not merely attacking Trump you are attacking those who voted for him, you are attacking those like myself who did not vote for him but believe in the rule of law.
You are harming yourself, and your own credibility.
I do not know what the future holds. But I have expressed my guesses. They may be wrong. If they are right – you will be Goering in the docket still believing in your own politics of hate. While no one is coming to hang you, a failed Obama presidency followed by a successful Trump one will be damning to the left.
Yes I would prefer a different reality, someone lest caustic and a stronger advocate of real freedom. But it does not matter, The left having done worse than Trump is not a good measure.
What does it take for YOU to take off the ideological blinders and see the real world.
trump has morally destroyed the rectitude of the Presidency.
He, and his enablers, are truly despicable.
In my lifetime there has never been ANYONE in higher public office as repugnant a liar as he is. Not a day goes by that he doesn’t lie about something . Today no exception. He tweeted that he would BE ALLOWING the release of all JFK classified files to be opened.
The JFK assasination files are legally required to be declassified on Oct 26. But of course Trump lies that he’s declassifying their release. They were already scheduled for release!
Each day the Slimeball remains in office the nation becomes more divided.
Bill Clinton was not a repugnant liar ?
Barack Obama ?
Please tell me a lie of consequence that Trump has told thus far ?
Has he lied under oath ? Has he lied to put an albatros arround our necks that has done nothing for us but drag down our economy and grow our debt ?
Has Trump lied about an act of terror commited against this country ?
Has Trump lied about the government deliberately selling guns to mexican drug dealers ?
Has Trump lied about using the IRS to target political opponents ?
Has Trump lied to protect the corruption of political cronies ?
With each day that passes more and more is revealed of the corruption and crime of the Obama administration.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the Uranium One deal was rotten to the core.
That it was the consequence of influence peddling and bribery.
During the election Clinton supporters repeatedly claimed Clinton was at arms lenght from the approval process and that 9 independent agencies approved it.
That begs the question why was a deal that the administration KNEW was corrupt, get approved ? Maybe Hillary was not influencing the decision – but clearly SOMEONE was.
Or is bribery and corruption OK with you ?
Jay I am sorry but the left has ZERO moral credibility to attack anyone else.
Trump might deserve criticism – but those of you on the left have through your own corruption and malfeasance, and your toleration of corruption and malfeasance surrendered any right to do so.
You have not only cried wolf – you are the wolf.
You rant about Trump and compare him to hitler while standing at the bar with double lightning bolts on your epaulettes.
Wow!
You are actually going to try to make an argument that Trump is lying based on the JFK/FBI files ?
There are myriads of files that are legally obligated to be released.
The entire Clinton email server fraud came to light because of Clinton’s refusal to comply with legally required document releases.
The FBI is actively resisting right now the release of documents that almost certainly help Trump, and yet, Trump can not get his own executive branch to release them.
It would be nice to see the JFK files released Oct 26. I would not bet on it. CIA is already making noise about blocking the release.
Regardless, your idea of a lie is Trump saying he has allowed those files to be released ?
Get a clue – do you think they would get released on the 26th if Trump did not permit it ?
His statement is not a lie.
Regardless, are you prepared to apply this same standard of what constitutes the truth or a lie – to those on the left ?
I would be happy to do so. Then nothing any politician on the left ever said would be true.
Regardless, you are a self evident hypocrite.
It is becoming increasingly evident that Trump did nothing wrong during the election,
that Russias piddling efforts did not alter the outcome, and were self evidently more in favor of Clinton than Trump.
Your entire antiTrump meme is collapsing at your feet,
And it is you playing Goering at Nuremberg defending a fail ideology.
Here you are Jay. The actual story of Uranium One.
It is more convoluted and damning than a Tom Clancy novel.
And interestingly enough key players in the Uranium One deal are Richard Mueller and Rod Rosenstein – and eventually James Comey
So we now have investigating Trump the very people who let both Clinton, the Russians, and the Obama administration off the hook for a horrible mess that dates from the begining of the Obama administration and runs through to the election.
What seems clear is that we have the criminals doing the investigation.
It is unlikely that Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey single handedly compromised a large criminal investigation. It is undeniable that they were involved, and that the mess intersects, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation all over the place.
It should also be self evident that:
Uranium one is a far bigger mess than any pretense of Trump Russia Collusion.
That in addition to the massive government corruption, it is also an effort to alter the outcome of elections, by depriving the public knowledge of a massive mess ensnaring much of the Obama Administration.
It should be further self evident that:
Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller can not investigate anything involving Trump and Russia.
Whether you can continue the investigation or not, none of these men can be involved, they should all be permanently barred from government service at the least, and possibly joining myriads of others behind bars.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452972/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering
Jay, since I’m reasonably certain that you read nothing that does not fit in with your pre-conceived notion that Obama and Hillary are angels on earth, I’ll excerpt this key quote from the very fact-based NR column by McCarthy”
” It would have made for an epic Obama administration scandal, and a body blow to Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes, if in the midst of Russia’s 2014 aggression, public attention had been drawn to the failure, four years earlier, to prosecute a national-security case in order to protect Russia’s takeover of U.S. nuclear assets.”
And there you have it. There has been collusion between Russia and an American presidential candidate ~ that candidate was Hillary Clinton, and she is possibly the greediest and most corrupt candidate in American history ~ willing to sell out the national security interests of the US for cold cash.
And Obama, who apparently believed that appeasement of America’s most dangerous enemies would lead to a glorious legacy for his administration, has played right along. He needs to protect Hillary in order to protect himself.
Now, now, Jay, calm yourself….as President, Trump has the power to block the release of all or part of the files, so he has indicated that he will allow the release of at least some of them.
The White House issued the following statement:
“The president believes that these documents should be made available in the interests of full transparency unless agencies provide a compelling and clear national security or law enforcement justification otherwise”
I think it’s a good thing that he has announced his intention, despite some intelligence agencies requesting that the files remain classified. After all, conspiracy theories about the CIA having some role in JFK’s assassination persist to this day ~ don’t you think it’s about time to put them to rest?
Or does it just bother you that Trump has the power to make the decision?
Where is out spending Problem ?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425340
Dave, “Where is out spending Problem ?”
If you are in agreement with this article and are going to tell me that Social Security is a welfare program, you as full of crap as the liberal asses that don’t have a clue. Social security would have enough money for years to come had the program been managed in the manner that a private investment company is required in the fiduciary responsibility. Taking money for years and investing in low yield crappy government bonds and borrowing from the fund and paying minimal interest in return created the problem.
Now instead of a trust fund its a damn welfare program???
BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But at least the millennials have someone to blame and not the government. Its to Old People that are living off their backs and they don’t have to place blame where it really belongs.
SS more properly is a ponzi scheme. It always has been
SS is failing because all Ponzi schemes eventually fail.
Yes it has been mismanaged, but it is not possible to properly manage a ponzi scheme.
Something will eventually bite it in the ass.
When first implimented FDR promissed it would never cost more than 2% of income – it currently runs about 15%.
When you say it would work if it had been managed better – that would have required raising its cost even further.
I do not have the perfect answer to the problem of SS. But pretending that managing it better would have fixed it is nonsense. Soon enough it is going to run about 28% short.
Better management would have delayed that – at the expense of reducing past standard of living.
SS is not a private investment. Nothing government ever does is like a private investment. If you want a private investment – then you let people invest privately.
You do not get to argue that if SS was a giraffe it would not be a hippopotamus.
I do not care what you call SS. It is a disasterous mistake.
Yes, to an extent “people” do get the blame – our parents, ourselves, and eventually our children. For buying a promise that was an obvious lie.
The “answer” is that we must kill the beast. But we have to find the way to do so that causes the least harm.
Because we lied to ourselves about it, we can not morally avoid the consequences.
At the same time SS was a binding promise – just not one that can be kept or ever should have been made.
Regardless, there is plenty of blame to go arround.
You want to discuss solving the problem – I am all ears.
But you could not have fixed it by better choices in the past
because changing past choices changes the future, and because it never was sustainable
and finally because the past is past.
What do you want to do now ?
Dave, ponzi scheme or not IT IS NOT WELFARE as stated by the author. Now, had SS taxes been indexed for inflation over the years, the money paid in would be much greater. Then if the money was managed using investment guidelines that are used by ” good” investment managers, the amount would be much larger again. Finally, if retirement age was adjusted based on life expectancy then to now, then the payouts would begin later in life reducing outflows.
It is NOT WELFARE, it is a ponzi scheme because the dimwits that work for government or are elected are completely incompetent and should not have responsibility for cleaning crappers, let alone peoples money.
Not interested in a debate over semantics.
It was a very bad idea.
It is a Ponzi scheme because any form of investment that pays returns using funds from new investors is a ponzi scheme by definition.
Ponzi Schemes are theoretically sustainable – but only if all relevant conditions are perfectly stable – forever. That kind of stability does not exist.
Can I ask you to think a bit more about “indexing taxes for inflation” ?
1). Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena.
Inflation is controlled by governments. it is a consequence of disparity between the change in money supply and economic growth.
If Inflation is the cause of any failure – then government is the cause of that failure.
2). Any fixed tax rate is by definition automatically indexed for inflation.
As wages increase, the taxes increase.
3). If you index SS taxes for inflation that means they slowly grow to consume an ever greater portion of your income.
All the above problems and many more are the common problems with WELFARE programs. Their growth is difficult to impossible to control.
With respect to management by “good money managers”.
Again you have a similar problem.
There are many reasons that SS was invested in government, and not invested privately.
Among those SS was created shortly after the depression. There was incredibly low confidence in “money managers”, and a great deal of faith (misplaced) in government.
Even today, government and far to many people have misplaced trust in government over “money managers”.
Further following right behind SS in its scale of failure are public pension funds – Just about every state has a Public Pension fund and most of them have money invested much as you would prefer. Most of those are in worse shape than SS.
There is absolutely no reason to beleive that Government is capable of sustained long term skilled fiscal investment.
Chile actually implimented a private investment form of SS and it worked phenominally well. But I beleive that more recently the chilean government has shifted more socialist and taken it over.
John B. Taylor who is being considered for the Federal Reserve, and I think would be an absolutely fantastic choice, wrote a book “first principles” several years back that mapped out a plan for restoring the economy post 2008 that included making SS and Medicare solvent again. That is an incredibly difficult task and gets worse the longer we wait.
NONE of the solutions – including increasing the age of eligability are even close to sufficient to correct the problem. But a combination of several averts disaster.
One of those is restoring economic growth.
At the 1.2% rate we have averaged for the past decade, SS is toast.
We will face a 28% shortfall soon, with nothing to do about it.
But the first most important thing we must do is restore economic growth.
Even 3% is not truly good enough. But it is attainable without major policy changes.
Mostly by purging the crap from our system.
Growth is also critical because we have far more problems than just SS.
And Growth makes all of them easier to deal with.
Those low yeild crappy bonds fund the government.
BTW all they are is a promise to confiscate wealth from citizens in the future – which BTW is what all govenrment money is – the promise of government to use force to take wealth from its citizens to redeem the money.
Money is another whole huge topic with potentially massive changes coming that could have huge disruptive effects.
IMF has recently noted that the rise of cryptocurrencies is now inevitable, the only question is how significant they become. At the least they eventually replace credit cards, but even at only that scale they likely slowly destroy central banks and fractional reserve banking. Because crypto currencies solve millenia old banking problems of clearance that required credit – and much of the banking system – including central banks live off that problem.
Aside from Crypto currencies Russia, China, in particular but many other nations including the EU would like to see the dollar displaced as the global reserve currency.
There are many possible solutions to that problem – including cyrpto currencies, and returning to trade in multiple currencies, which we can no do far better than the past.
But China has just reintroduced a gold backed yuan, and China and Russia have been hoarding gold for some time.
Both are lobbying Saudi Arabia to accept something besides dollars for oil.
That is unlikely to happen soon – because the Saudi’s are far too dependent on the US for things like arms and defense that no other nation can provide. But that is changing too.
And all that ignores shadow money – securities. Most transactions in the US today are not performed using government money. Amazon just bought whole foods – they paid in stock.
Non-government money now dwarfs government money. But non-government money is not used by ordinary people. It is used by business and the wealthy.
“Taking money for years and investing in low yield crappy government bonds and borrowing from the fund and paying minimal interest in return created the problem.”
Ron, I find this very interesting, because it’s a simple explanation for what the Congress did to the SS fund.
I will readily admit that my understanding of the federal budget is weak (that would probably make me a good member of Congress!). So, I always feel at a loss when discussing potential reforms of the SS system, because everyone’s arguments, on both sides, sound valid. Yet, I know that the system is crashing and that our children are paying for something that they are unlikely to get, while our generation essentially lives on their money.
What do you think might have happened if Bush 43’s SS reforms had passed? Are you in favor of privatizing the fund, even in part?
I am curious to know the specifics of SS reform that you and/or Dave would support. Dave, you can’t say get rid of SS entirely, because that would never get passed. But how much privatization would be optimal…or possible? And is there anything else that would help the system to be sustainable?
I do beleive we could completely get rid of SS and that could pass.
And ultimately will as we come closer to failure.
At the same time there is alot of reform I would support.
I will not support increasing SS taxes. That is just plain stupid.
I will support walking the retirement age forward.
We are going to end up reducing benefits. Soon enough the Trustees will do that on their own – they have the power to do so.
There are myriads of other things, some along the same lines, some more radical.
To the small extent I disagree with Ron, it is that there is no easy fixes, and that will get worse as we move forward. Utlimately we are going to adopt something more radical, because we will have no choice.
I really hate the word “privatization”. It implies we are delivering a public good privately.
Dealing with your own retirement is called wisdom, not privatization.
I would also note that SS like numerous other government problems have not exploded as fast as predicted – because despite the best efforts of the FED inflation is way down. MOSTLY that is a very good thing. That means that monetary policy is near the point of being ineffective.
Priscilla, there are a number of changes that could occur with SS that would improve the program, but they will never happen because any hiccup during the first 4-8 years of a new system will cost those voting for those changes their careers. Senators and Representatives would be out of work. So it will not happen until crisis management requires it to happen, either through regulatory means or by legislation.
Now what would I do. These are just ideas that could be picked apart and bright minds would have to determine how they could work, but everything has to start with an idea.
One, look at everything that SS funds and if it is not going to retirement, then move it off the SS platform and make it an entitlement like it is.
Two, for those over a specific age, leave it like it is as they have few years left to retirement and any changes would be minimal to the program. That age would be determined by independent actuaries, not government stooges that think they know, but don’t have a clue. All funding for any excess costs would come out of the general fund as it is today for that group of individuals
Three, begin raising the minimum retirement age for both Medicare and Social Security. Remember, life expectancy in 1935 was around 61 years old,( 59 for men, 63 for women). Today it is 79.3 estimated for 2017. So even though people in 1935 could expect to live another estimated 13 years if they reached 65, the numbers actually making it to that age were much lower than today. I would not believe you could make the age today 4 years higher than the life expectancy like in 1935, but some greater age would be needed, maybe 70 to 72. Again, the actuaries would recommend that age.
Four. design a new plan where the younger individuals current funding would offer individuals choices as to what they want their funds to be invested in, just like any 401/403 plans that are offered by employers. There could be some requirements placed on the funding that are age specific, but any requirements should be minimal. If an individual is risk tolerant, they could be more aggressive with the funds. If not, then they would be less aggressive. The taxes paid by the employee would be funds owned by the individual and at their death, they would pass to the estate, not the state. And the monthly payout would be based on an actuarial table calculated in the beginning years fund balance.
And finally, five, the employer taxes paid into the funds would be included in #4, but any amounts that were paid in for deceased individuals would become part of a fund that would help fund any payouts for people living into their 90’s that did not have funds available to provide for income exceeding the years in the individuals fund. (Much like that what is happening today). This would be the most difficult part to insure people did not outlive their income for no fault of their own. Some of this would have to be funded by general funds.
Ron;
Some interesting ideas.
Anything that does not create new wealth or reduce spending just moves things around.
Unless you eliminate the programs in #1 you might “save” SS, but you do not alter the debt and deficit problem.
3 has already been implimented. We can quibble about the details of implimentation.
While generally actuaries are better than regulators and legislators, if they knew what they were doing SS would not be in trouble.
There is a great deal of difference between predicting for a lifetime – and predicting forever.
Further actuaries are used to statistically betting against death – not for it.
Actuaries have a great track record because increases in life expectancy have favored them. With SS increases in life expectance are part of what is bankrupting it.
anything like 4 depends on the public as a whole being tolerant of the fact that some people will fail. If you can accept that, then you might as well go all the way and just say No SS for you. No taxes due, handle your own retirement your own way. 80% of us will do better – mostly much better. Further the money will be invested and standard of living will rise faster. But 20% will do worse – some much worse.
5 you are making the common mistake of presuming that there is a real trust fund.
There isn’t. All monies collected have been spent. Social Security has a collection of IOU’s but that money is not invested somewhere. When SS collects on the IOU’s the money must come from taxes or debt.
First, number 5. I am speaking of future tax withholding’s. I am well aware the trust fund has been spent years ago.
Number 4. When our pension plan was changed from a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan, there were certain restrictions placed on the plan until the individual turned 65. So when I made this comment, i was looking at some form of a plan that is funded by both the employee and employer, it goes into an account owned by the employee, but has restrictions on it until the age 65 that helps insure people don’t piss it away on drugs and booze.
As I said, these were just ideas in response to Pricilla. We both know nothing will happen until sometime between 2030 and 2040 when the crisis actually hits and the outflow crates such an enormous deficit that the elected officials will have to get off their dead asses and actually do something.
And yes, I expect the fix to be worse than the impact of the deficit.
Qw do not know anything about Trump’s call to La David Johnson’s family except what people say.
But we do have a recording made by the family of another Call from Trump to a gold star family.
It is highly likely that all of Trumps calls to casualities are like this.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/452975/trumps-call-soldiers-widow?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=59eb84cd04d3017a24e780f9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
I can not seem to link directly to the video which is unfortunately long.
But very good.
Anne Sorock is a market researcher who has moved into the realm of politics,
while her political background is on the right, she has built a reputation for getting better deeper analysis of what is going on inside political movements such as TP, OWS, BLM and Trump.
She is presenting a picture of what is going on that is quite different than others.
She does not see the nation as as divided as others. Essentially she is reading the Pew data differently – she is noting the deep political divisions from the Pew Poll and also noting that outside of politics we are more united than ever.
She is focused on the GOP side of 2018 and thinks it is going to be a wake up call to republican leadership, she is expecting a repeat of 2010 with Party Republicans as the targets and outsiders as the beneficiaries.
On the left she is noting the racism narative is failing and that the democratic party is being pulled to the left and becoming smaller and more radical.
I was fascinated by her findings regarding BLM – that it divides fairly cleanly into 3 groups. A leadership that is transplanted from OWS that is radical and marxist, and is empowered by the BLM as it allows them to see themselves as moral crusaders.
An activist group which sees itself as the continuation of the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s
and a mostly white allies group that is comfortable with working behind the scenes and is motivated by fear of being outgrouped.
Her analysis of Trump supporters was quite fascinating too. She ties them back to the Tea Party, and notes that they are NOT about policies. That MAGA is what motivates them, not immigration or tax reform or ObamaCare. That washington – including republicans is their enemy, that they see the country as one party rule, and they are taking over the GOP to change that.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/21/are-us-voters-in-for-a-rude-awakening-in-2018-elections-video/
This WaPo article is not getting as deep into things but is noting that Both parties are in deep trouble at the moment.
That democrats are being driven ever farther left, and that the GOP grassroots has declared war on republican party leadership.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/both-political-parties-may-be-doomed/2017/10/20/4c6cf8b2-b5ca-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.788002ae5b8c
I do not know what it takes to get through to many of you.
Government help does not help. It quite often makes things worse.
We have provided African with $1T in foreign aide over the past 40 years.
The problems in Africa are unchanged. The standard of living is unchanged.
At the same time with no help from anyone China has gone form Worse poverty than Africa to the bottom of the first world. China is now providing africa aide.
There is hardly any area of government intervention for “the most vulnerable among us” that has improved anything. In many instances it has made things worse.
The article below notes that not only is government aide to africa destructive – even charity often does not work out well.
Top down planning does not work. Some organization successfully gets an african village to change to a crop better suited and more productive, and the harvest is abundant.
But there is no local market for the crop, and transportation costs to a remote market exceed the value of the crop.
The most fundimental issue to progress is knowledge.
A significant portion of that knowledge is local, not general.
Regulators, elites, the educated, do not and can not know how to solve the problems of local people. There are not one size fits all answers. In many instances the “help” from the top is more of a hinderance.
If you actually care about those in the world who are not doing so well – you would look to what works to make their lives better.
We have only one answer that has ever consistently worked – individual liberty.
It allows people to help themselves, and that is the only gain that is sustainable.
https://capx.co/cut-foreign-aid-to-help-the-worlds-poor/
Apparently the cost for FDA approval is not $3B.
Is it not obvious to everyone that is like a minimum wage for drugs.
No drug will be explored, or even considered that does not have a market that can produce $3B in profits.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/19/abolish-fda-patients-harm-good/
I would likely be even harsher than this –
even if you have succeeded in all the ways described, you STILL do not have the knowledge and skills to make “public policy”.
Jay, Roby;
Please provide me a rational explanation for this ?
What is most disturbing is that you do not realize that MOST regulation is this bad.
DeBlasio is acting based on a safety claim that has no evidence except his guts to back it up.
But that is exactly the same as very popular progressive regulation such as Gun Control.
https://slate.com/business/2017/10/bill-de-blasios-crackdown-on-e-bikes-is-a-truly-bad-idea.html
Does Preventative medicine have any consequence for healthcare outcomes ?
The answer from a rigorous study in Japan, using a health problem that can be detected before it becomes chronic and has lifetime negative effects if it does.
NO!
Just to be clear, this particular study also makes it clear that atleast in some instances preventative medicine COULD be cost effective.
The reason it is not, is that only a small portion of those who find out they are at risk, take the necessary steps on their own to reduce their risks.
Unless you are going to go from manditory screening to manditory treatment, you accomplish nothing.
https://www.cato.org/publications/research-briefs-economic-policy/preventive-care-worth-cost-evidence-mandatory-checkups?utm_content=buffer03e6f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Jay & Roby;
You have lost Jimmy Carter on Trump.
Are you going to insult him in the same way you insult me ?
Is Carter some Trumpanzee ? Some right wing shill ?
http://www.dailywire.com/news/22585/jimmy-carter-unleashed-russians-didnt-alter-joseph-curl
So Taxes in the UK make things much worse for the poor.
“I’d like to build a wall around Donald Trump and make Bernie Sanders pay for it,” Austin Petersen Republican candidate for Senate in Misourri
Another moron running for the senate in Missouri. (ie Todd Aiken) “Show me” a moron and it seems like those from Missouri will show you a morn running as a Republican senate candidate.
There are lots of Moron’s in politics.
Peterson is not one of them.
He is an actual libertarian running as a republican.
He is not as stupid as Akin’s.
He has a great deal of past political experience.
I hope that he manages to defeat Hawley who appears to be an empty hat and take out McCaskill.
Whether he does or not, you can expect to see more of him in the future.
If you really want to know Austin here is a long Dave Rubin interview which should cover everything for you. IF you are not willing to find out what he beleives you should not be calling him a moron.
I think you will find Austin closer to you than me.
I radically disagree with Austin on the Non Argression Principle – I think he is attacking a straw man. At the same time he ends up in the same places as I do mostly.
I disagree with him on Abortion. But I disagree with most everyone – except Walter Block and Lawrence Tribe on that issue. Regardless, his pro-life position is pragmatic, not religious.
Every once in a While even Progressives “get it”
Freedom is not always pretty. But less freedom is deadly.
https://thinkprogress.org/craigslist-erotic-services-platform-3eab46092717/
I personally do not care what Bill Clinton was paid to speak.
Nor do I think any private person should have to get the approval of the state department to give a speach – even to a foreign nation with hostile interests.
But I do think that if the government is reviewing and approving private speaches – it should not do so in a blatantly corrupt fashion.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/state-department-approved-215-bill-clinton-speeches-controversial-consulting-deal-worth-48m-hillary-clintons-cos-copied-decisions/?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=corruption%20chronicles
I do not think this means much
But then I think the entire Mueller investigation is a farce.
Regardless, If Manefort is engaged in misconduct, than obviously so is Podesta.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/mueller-now-investigating-democratic-lobbyist-tony-podesta-n812776
On the other hand This is more of a problem – Mueller himself has financial entanglements with Russia and there is atleast the appearance that as FBI director, financial inquiries into Russian firms he was invested in were not pursued.
The standard for conflicts of interest is APPEARANCE – it is not nececary to prove that Mueller did something wrong, only that his other entanglements raise a question regarding impartiallity.
http://offendedamerica.com/robert-mueller-invested-hedge-funds-linked-russia-george-soros/
Oh, and I would note that this entangles Adam Schiff also
offended America… now there’s an objective reliable source for tRUMP related info.
Is the information false ?
Even Infowars and CNN get it right once in a while ?
An absolutely fantastic and short editorial by Jonah Goldberg.
Though Goldberg never uses the word libertarian, that is the core of the editorial.
We respect the right of others to be wrong, because the alternative is endless war or totalitarian states.
This concept arose first in the west. it arose from the reformation. It arose because ultimately constant wars over religious minorities drove governments to exhaustion and the survival of the state required tolerance of minority religions and their practice.
his applies to everything. It is a reminder that ultimately all law is enforced by the sword (or gun). That all law comes at a cost – just as there is no such thing as free healthcare, there is no such thing as free legislation of regulation.
https://www.aei.org/publication/does-america-still-believe-in-the-right-to-be-wrong/?utm_content=buffer3b41a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Too bad you only cherry pick Jonah, who finds your defenses of tRUMP feeble and morally indefensible. He’s writing about people like you (and Pricilla) who defend the Liar In Chief’s obtuse immoral behaviors (groping, lying, distorting, etc) for rationalizing it as ‘moral rot’…
“Horrible damage is being done, because the rationalizations and tribalism are being institutionalized. This is sickening madness. If this is true, then the logical inference is that the GOP as a party believes that there was nothing wrong with the president’s conduct, even though he was a Democrat at the time. Or, perhaps, that there is nothing so wrong with what he said — and what he claimed he did — that it can justify breaking faith in the Leader.
That is moral rot on an institutional scale and the people aiding and abetting it should be ashamed of themselves. The party needs to support the president, to be sure. But it must support other things — decency, principles, truth — even more. When it ceases to do that, it ceases to be the Grand Old Party and becomes a Venal New Party.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/449747/donald-trumps-defenders-rationalizing-failure
If I like one article by Goldberg am I obligated to buy everything he says ?
Goldberg is a never Trumper.
I respect him.
George Will is also.
I respect him too.
That does not require me to agree with absolutely everything he says.
It is interesting that you can so easily turn everything arround – talk about rationalization and cherry picking.
There is alot of Trump’s conduct I have had problems with.
Just as there is of Hillary.
I did not vote for either of them.
Regardless, one was going to end up president.
I am happy that the lessor evil was elected.
I wish neither of them was.
Jonah likes this and retweeted it.. do you?
I watched the video.
It showed that Ben Carson is not particularly skilled at deftly handling a critical cross examiner in a charged political setting.
Green scored political points at Caron’s expense.
But there was nothing of substance to this exchange.
Ultimately the president will present a budget to congress.
Given past history – congress will ignore it and construct its own.
Green made numerous logical errors in his attack – most of which I think he made knowingly.
Equating spending with outcome – they have very little to do with each other, particularly when government is involved.
Ignoring the fact that spending is controlled by congress not the executive.
Green can say whatever he pleases about Carson’s proposed budget, HUD’s actual spending is determined by Congress – particularly the house – not HUD.
If Green had an interest in anything but scoring political points, instead of fixating on Dollars he should have been asking why HUD thought it could do more with less, or thought it did not need to do so much. Because ultimately Al Green and his crony’s get to decide HUD’s spending not Ben Carson.
Further, you can disagree with Ben Carson on issues if you choose. You can disagree with him on values, but pretending he is a dolt is quite stupid.
Carson is literally “a brain surgeon” – and in fact a highly successful one.
In addition he has been on the boards of numerous companies such as Kellog’s and Costco for decades.
With respect to HUD – that is just another government agency that we have no need for.
I thought I had posted an article on the absolutely horrible record that public housing has had across the world. Regardless, public housing is a punishment for poor people.
Section 8 has become the vehicle for destroying middle class minorities by exporting inner city gang members into working class minoritiy communities.
Conversely Rep Green is a lawyer and politician. He is clearly at home cross examining people, and used that effectively to embarass Carson.
But it does not alter the fact that Carson is someone who has accomplished a great deal.
and Green is someone who is trying to attribute to Carson what will ultimately be the responsibility of congress – and he knows it.
This is a very interesting article, Dave. The other articles on the site are interesting as well. I have not heard of Offended America ~ is it a libertarian site?
I have no idea what the roots of offended america are.
I found the page through an aggregator and have never been their before.
I would verify their claims before using them too agressively.
Though I would note that many many sites like this are showing up.
ProPublica, Circa,
The number of quality information sites is increasing significantly.
This is also part of why I think we are approaching the end of traditional media.
NYT and WaPo will survive, as well as networks, but more and more our news is going to come from alternate sources.
We are actually moving closer to the “free press” model of our founders – where there was no big press, but myriads of print shops producing pamphlets and fly bills
This would correspond to the plethora of web sites offering divergent views and emerging information on nearly anything.
I keep trying to make clear here – that while I am critical of many things – including media bias. I do NOT support government doing anything about it.
I think Trump is just blowing wind when he threatens FCC licenses etc.
Ajit Pai the current head makes pretty clear that he is not treating Trump tweets as directions, and that regardless, his FCC is getting OUT of the censorship business, not further in it. Pai actually asked to be sued on some censorship issues – he said he had to follow the law, but the law was wrong, and he expected a challenge would result in the court overturning it.
Anyway, I do not care that the media is biased. I do care whether they are overt of covert about that.
I do not care that Trump and the media are in a war.
I do not care at all about this nonsense that the media can essentially gossip about Trump and that he should sit still and act “presidential”.
I do not care that he is often wrong – so is the media.
Except where we are actually making public policy – I do not care.
I care alot that there are myriads of information websites that allow us to get knowledge and information beyond what our politicians say or our MSM media says, or what talking heads say.
I care alot that I can find and read papers on economics, climate – whatever, if I want.
I care alot that I can find blogs like EconomicsOne or CaseyMulligan, or GregMankew, or …. where I can get the analysis of some of the top economists in the world.
It appears that John B Taylor is one of the top 2 candidates for Chairman of the Federal reserve. There might not be anyone on the planet I think would be a better choice.
Though I would have prefered him on Trump Council of Economic advisors.
Here is a series of pretty good videos from Russ Roberts & John B Taylor done in 2012 on the “Great Recession”
Mostly this is focussed on debunking the claim that “this time was different. Rather than looking at the causes
More credence, RonP and Priscilla:
“Cheaper Health Plans Promoted by Trump Have a History of Fraud”
“Fraudulent association health plans have left hundreds of thousands of people with unpaid claims,” he said. “They operate in a regulatory never-never land between the Department of Labor and state insurance regulators.”
dduck, “More credence, RonP and Priscilla:”
Guess you missed these:
“Association health plans, properly operated, can provide a legitimate option to small employers seeking affordable coverage”……..So it appears there are ones properly operated.
“Large group plans and self-insured plans are subject to fewer federal and state requirements than individual or small group insurance” ……..So it appears there are plans already being operated for the big rich companies, but the little operators are subject to government control.
So the issue is “properly operated”. One could take the side of Dave and say “buyer beware. Its your responsibility to insure that funds you pay in are maintained properly.” While in a perfect world everyone would have the expertise to do that, in our world that does not exist. And in the government legislation world, they will write another bad bill that will only lead to more bad insurance like Obamacare. In the balanced world, the legislation would be written in such a way that these plans would have oversight by someone. I would prefer the state where the home office of the insurer is located and then possibly include the definition of minimal oversight requirements in the legislation. That would allow for the association plan to be located in any state, but insure they did not pick states where no oversight took place. But “smart” people, not some government doofus would need to write the requirements. Maybe ex insurance people working as consultants that know the tricks fraudulent companies use to screw people and then they could at least plug those holes before they occurred.
If the national auto mechanics association wants to combine 500 small auto repair shops and get one national insurance company to cover them as an employer based benefit administrator across state lines, then there are ways to insure the insurance company is operating legally and not fraudulently.
I find it amazing that for someone who believes tighter gun laws can be written to take guns out of the hands of people wanting to do bad does not believe laws can be written to reduce or almost eliminate fraud in some health plans. This is the problem that exist in America today. “My way is the right way and your way is the wrong way. And don’t give me an alternative way, because I will not consider it!”
Ron
If you actually want health insurance to be cheaper and better you do not want anyone besides consumers deciding what “properly operated” or any other attribute of these plans or their business is.
A “properly opperated” insurance plan is one that a willing buyer and willing sellor agree on, and that the buyer and sellor both live up to the terms of that agreement.
That is ALL.
If the plan does nto live up to its contract – there is an army of class action lawyers who will be sure to punish it.
I do not want ANYBODY regulating them – besides the marketplace – and the courts addressing actual fraud.
The less free they are the less value we will get.
Fraud is where the buyer does not receive from the sellor the services they were promised.
It is NOT – the company made alot of money.
It is NOT – the group is made of people from disparate fields,
It is NOT – the plan has high administrative costs.
It is NOT – the plan does not provide some government regulator’s idea of an essential service.
Dave I am fully aware that you believe everyone is good and will do no harm to another person. That is a fine and honorable position to take.
I on the other hand believe there are people whose sole goal in life is to make as much money as possible and could screw their own mother out of inheritance if they could. That is not a honorable position to take, but is one in my reality. And in this reality, I do not accept the fact that you do not need some form of government oversight to protect those that do not have the expertise to protect themselves.
Ron.
I do not beleive everyone is good. I am well aware that some people will do bad things.
I am also aware that regulation has little impact on whether people do bad things, and if people actually behaved badly on the scale the left beleives, government would be impossible.
Making as much money as possible and screwing their mother out of their inheritance is quite different.
Regulation has not altered the rate of misconduct.
Humans do not need oversight. They need consequences.
It is quite different.
While failing to protect those who can not look out for themselves, you are also screwing those who can.
There is no a priori way to reduce fraud.
There is no rule or regulation that you can impose that will not cost more than the fraud you hope to eliminate.
What you can do, the only meaningful thing you can do, is penalize fraud when it occurs.
Ronp: Cherry picking season is over, the thrust of the article is that some people screwed. My point is Trump will not regulate the plans, he just throws s— against the wall and walks away.
If you don’t want admit that, that is OK it is the prerogative of all commenters here.
So long as we have contract law and a torts system we do not need regulation.
And actual fraud is a crime.
Making something illegal 27 different ways does not improve anything.
Do you beleive things just because they are printed in the NYT ?
Why are you this guilible ?
How long do you think it would take class action lawyers to eviscerate those who engaged in fraud against hundreds of thousands of people ?
One guy selling lose cigarettes dies in NYC and it makes the national news for more than a year – and you think there is some kind of secret fraud involving hundreds of thousands of people that is going on ?
This is like the 10’s of thousands will die if PPACA is repealed.
That could only be true if PPACA “saved” 10’s of thousands.
I know some on the left claim that.
But there is ZERO statistical evidence of any change in healthcare outcomes as a consequence of PPACA.
Read your own article
You can not have hundreds of thousands being defrauded by plans that run out of money AND millions in excess fees being charged.
Regardless, lets say these AHP’s are:
Providing insurance at rates that people are chosing to pay.
Spending millions on administrative of other fees that regulators say they should not.
SO WHAT ?
They ONLY test in a free market is did a willing buyer and a willing sellor engage in exchange and did each party live up to the agreement they made.
Most of what is in your article avoids addressing that.
I have seen allegations like this with regard to cyber charters – my kids were cyber chartered. The Charter we started with was subsequently accused of “fraud”.
My wife was very disturbed about some of the allegations.
I asked her:
Did the school deliver the better education to our kids we were promised ?
Did it get paid the amount it had agreed to (75% of the cost of brick and mortar public schools).
The answer to both of those was less.
To me all that meant was the powers that be were unhappy about its success, and trying to recast it as failure.
These plans that are being permitted – so long as no one is obligated to buy them, and so long as they provide the service they promised – I want them to prove unbeleivably profitable. Because if they are they will have competition, and the price will go down and the quality go up.
Put differently much of your article is really saying – They work so well people make money and we do not like that.
Why is what a plan covers the business of anyone but the buyer and sellor ?
If I want a cheaper plan with no mental health coverage – why can’t I buy that ?
If I want a cheaper plan with no prescription drug coverage – why can’t I buy that ?
IF you want the cost of health insurance to go down and the value to go up – the ONLY way to acheive that is in a free market. And that requires government to let go of setting prices and services.
Why do you care if an association group is a “bona fide group” whatever nonsense that means ?
How does it alter anything meaningful if it were made of people selected at random ?
Why does it matter if a group shares a common economic interest ?
In fact if you know a damn thing about business and divesification you want groups of exactly the opposite construction.
If you have a group of all carpenters and some particularly health problem arrises that shows up disparitly in carpenters – and actuaries were unable to anticipate that, that is how you get large group failures.
Where if you have a group made of lawyers and carpenters, and farmers, and factory workers, an unforseen problem in one segment does not take out the whole group.
All your article proves is how stupid the regulators at the department of labor are.
Or more likely how smart they are – because there purpose with rules like these is NOT to protect health, but to prevent AHP’s from competing with other health insurance.
Dave ““I’d like to build a wall around Donald Trump and make Bernie Sanders pay for it,”
So was this Austin Peterson comment a joke? Or was this in response to a real question?
By the way, I just researched his positions and they are close to mine. But wait until he gets to DC to see what he really does.
Given that Petersen would be part of the Freedom Caucus if he managed to get to washington, and they have a reputation for sticking to their principles and not compromising. I do not think Petersen would change much.
Regardless, watch the video – it is long, but I think you will like it.
Whether he shares your positions or not he shares your pragmatism.
He was pretty sharp. One of the remarks he made was that running as a libertarian is no different whether you are running for president, or dog catcher. You get treated like a cook, and you have little chance of winning. But atleast runnign for high office you might get some attention.
Yes, the quote was a joke.
Austin has a sense of humor.
He does not like campaigning, but he is slowly getting better at it.
I would like to see him win in 2018. But I doubt it.
But he is not going away.
Taking A Bone-spur On Military Service
John McCain:
“One aspect of the [Vietnam] conflict, by the way, that I will never ever countenance is that we drafted the lowest income level of America, and the highest income level found a doctor that would say that they had a bone spur,” McCain said. “That is wrong. That is wrong. If we are going to ask every American to serve, every American should serve.”
McCain, a Vietnam veteran who was captured by North Vietnam, was referencing an ailment cited in Trump’s draft deferments.
Jay,”McCain, a Vietnam veteran who was captured by North Vietnam, was referencing an ailment cited in Trump’s draft deferments.”
And he could have been referencing thousands of other “young men of elite parents”. Not too many men in the upper income families, college graduates or others with ties to the “important” people in America at that time were sent to Viet Nam. The greatest majority was poor white HS graduates and blacks who fought in VN.
One might think that they did not want those with ties to important people in that country to see all the stupidity brought down on American youth by warmonger Johnson.
But that wars division on the country was healed long ago. Lets not use that again to further divide an already very divided country.
If you’re suggesting McCain WASNT snidely referring to tRUMP, you need a caffeine hit to wake up the brain cells.
And if you’re suggesting referencing tRUMPanzee‘s draft dodging is anywhere as divisive as Donnieboy’s divisiveness daily, you need a time out at the nearest pub. Take it, first shot of whiskey is on me!
Nope I know exactly who he was referencing. But lets just say since I had to spend time in the military(not Nam) because I was not one of the privileged white guys, I take every opportunity to reference the unfair treatment those without connections got in the 60’s and 70’s. I could care less if it Trump, Clinton, Bush 43 (flying around a few weekends in Texas) or any other ass sucker that used connections to stay out of the service.
And I have said many times here and other places that Trump is divisive. find me one place where I have taken up for him where the information has not been something made up by those who want him removed. And find me one place where I said I voted for him to start with.
The only good that is coming out of DC today with Trumps election is the parties are so divided internally that they will not be able to pass anything. And I think when they can’t pass something, the country is better off. Had that been the case when Obama was elected, we would not have Obamacare!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course McCain was refering to Trump.
And McCain has the credibility to do so on this issue.
Do you ?
McCain has some legitimate reasons to be angry and obnoxious regarding Trump
That does not mean the rest of us do.
You definitely have the congenital credentials to be obnoxious, Dave.
“You definitely have the congenital credentials to be obnoxious, Dave.”
Does this mean something ?
Congential is something you are born with. I was born with a congenital shunt in my lungs.
This eventually became life threatening and required removing 1/3 of my right lung.
That was almost 40 years ago. I am fine.
Credentials are something you acquire through effort and by demonstrating skill.
I do get obnoxious when confronting stupidity. Is there are problem with that ?
I really thought that Trump’s nasty comments about McCain ended his campaign before it started. But they did not.
I increasingly do not like John McCain as a politician.
But he is a real war hero – as was Charlie Rangle and Ace Cuningham.
The draft expired just before I would have had to register.
On the one hand I would have gone to annapolis – except my eyesight was not good enough. On the other I thought about going to canada or becoming a medic if I was drafted.
My father joined the army to avoid being Drafted for Korea.
He was told by the recruiter that if he joined he would not go to Korea.
And he spent much of the war in Louisiana.
He was on a transport to Busan when the cease fire was signed.
Dan Quayle joined the Guard to avoid Vietnam.
GWB probably did the same.
Bill Clinton dodged the Draft.
There are questions about Obama’s draft registration.
Trump is not distinguishable from most of our modern presidents in this regard.
Pretty sure Hillary avoided the Draft too.
They weren’t drafting women.
You suggesting she avoided being a man?
I am not “suggesting” anything – you really have to let go of these pretend mind reading crap.
I SAID “Pretty sure Hillary avoided the Draft too.”
Are you saying she did get drafted ?
I know they were not drafting women – but Clinton did support the ERA, and Carter sought to expand the Draft to women, and if Clinton felt strongly enough – she could have volunteered.
I think Trump has mishandled this particular event. I think he continues to. I think that is a mistake. While Trump is on the same side as his constituency on the NFL issue, Gold Start families are one that Trump keeps getting on the wrong side of his on constituents.
He is managing at the moment because:
Everyone expects Johnson’s wife to be angry and distraught.
Most of us see Rep. Wilson as using her, and as a publicity hound.
It appears that Trump was following the advice of Kelley, McMasters and others in the military.
There is an actual recording of a different Trump call, and though still a bit clumsy,
and certainly not of the Bill Clinton “I feel you pain” level, it was sincere enough to pass.
The left attacking Kelley is idiocy – just yesterday you were hailing him as the only preserving the nation. If you credit Kelley with protecting us from Trump then you have to accept what he says when he says Trump did nothing wrong.
Forecasting A Populist Fascist President
“It Can’t Happen Here is a semi-satirical 1935 political novel by American author Sinclair Lewis,[1] and a 1936 play adapted from the novel by Lewis and John C. Moffitt. Published during the rise of fascism in Europe, the novel describes the rise of Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip, a politician who defeats Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and is elected President of the United States, after fomenting fear and promising drastic economic and social reforms while promoting a return to patriotism and “traditional” values. After his election, Windrip takes complete control of the government and imposes a plutocratic/totalitarian rule with the help of a ruthless paramilitary force, in the manner of Adolf Hitler and the SS. The novel’s plot centers on journalist Doremus Jessup’s opposition to the new regime and his subsequent struggle against it as part of a liberal rebellion. Reviewers at the time, and literary critics ever since, have emphasized the connection with Louisiana politician Huey Long,[2] who was preparing to run for president in the 1936 election when he was assassinated in 1935 just prior to the novel’s publication.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here#Plot_summary
The novel has received renewed interest and sales since ShitHead’s election
Jay “Windrip takes complete control of the government and imposes a plutocratic/totalitarian rule with the help of a ruthless paramilitary force, in the manner of Adolf Hitler and the SS.”
Tell me how much support is Trump getting from a “ruthless, paramilitary force”. Damn, he can’t get congress to pass tax reform and every damn Republican has said they are for that in every election I can remember since the early 70’s.
You may want to read the constitution and especially article 2 , sections 2 and 3 and article 1, sections 7 and 8. Its clear he can not do what is said about Hitler and his take over.
You left out ALL the other examples of tRump actions stated in the summary.
You can not distinguish between words and deeds.
There are very few Trump actions since taking office that increase the power of government or in any other way meet the criteria for fascism.
You seem to beleive the definition of fascism is “offends me”
Calling someone a fascist, does nto make them one.
Obama was not a fascist – he was not particularly nationalist, but in every other way he is closer to a fascist than Trump.
For the left words have no meaning.
You can hurl insults – it is not important that they are accurate.
So long as they feel right.
Of course it can happen here.
The left is doing an absolutely incredible job of trying to recreate 1984 – nearly perfectly.
Trump leaves alot to be desired, bu he resembles Andrew Jackson more than Adolf Hitler.
Do you actually know what Fascism is ?
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe
Trump is a populist. He is is somewhat nationalist – but not in the fascist sense.
He is not much of an authoritarian.
You seem to define authoritarian as someone who seeks to do something different from what you want.
Confronting opposition is not suppressing it.
Regardless, except that he is doing so a bit more crudely he is not doing anything the left has not been doing for ages.
How exactly is disempowering government the same as “authoritarian”, and dictatorial power, or seeking control of industry and commerce ?
Based on the definition – Obama is more of a fascist than Trump.
Dave – stop annoying Jonah!
Are you capable of making an argument ?
I doubt Jonah and I would have any problem getting along.
He is relatively libertarain, a Dog person,
We just disagree a bit on Trump.
Though not nearly so much as with you.
Jonah is also capable of making an intelligent, logical well reasoned argument.
Thus far I have no evidence you can.
Several years ago I had a pleasant email exchange with Jonah.
Jay, I couldnt get past the first paragraph.
Has Trump:
rapidly outlaws dissent
incarcerates political enemies in concentration camps
eliminate the influence of the United States Congress
curtails women’s and minority rights
eliminates individual states by subdividing the country into administrative sectors.
Those accused of crimes against the government appear before kangaroo courts presided over by “military judges”
Sorry this is fiction.
Right, it’s dystopian fiction. Like the dystopian fantasy, 1984. A warning – valuable not as much as to the specific outcomes prognosticated, but to the dangers of having cultish tRUMP-like personalities in control.
tRUMP is ostensibly a narcissistic oafish Big Brother with orange hair and the judgemental discrimination of the Naked Emperor.
Jay. this i the problem I see in America today and I believe Trump is just beginning to understand. Trump is not in control. Congress is in control. And they are not giving him anything. The only thing he can do is take current legislation and “interpret” the meaning and issue EO’S. And then the courts have final say, not Trump
Given that Trump does not fit it very well that makes it a poor analogy.
Ostensibly suggests that one is NOT what one outwardly appears to be.
I do not think that is the word you intended.
I think Trump is a narcissist that is pretty common in politicians.
And he does have orange hair
Jay does nto live in the real world, and does nto realize this nonsense just makes him look bad and alienates people.
the freedom caucus is in the house. I thought he was running for the senate.
The senate has no caucus. Just 52 individuals doing their own thing.
If I said he was joining the freedom caucus – I erred.
The point was there are people washington has not changed – Much.
I do not expect him to win regardless.
But maybe in a few years.
By Col. Robert Killebrew, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Best Defense guest columnist
A thousand years ago when I was about to begin my military career, a wise old retired Marine colonel, a veteran of the carnage at Tarawa, gave me some advice. Paraphrased here, he said:
So you want to be a career soldier? Good for you. But remember that the longer you stay in uniform, the less you will really understand about the country you protect. Democracy is the antithesis of the military life; it’s chaotic, dishonest, disorganized, and at the same time glorious, exhilarating and free — which you are not.
After a while, if you stay in, you’ll be tempted to say, “Look, you civilians, we’ve got a better way. We’re better organized. We’re patriotic, and we know what it is to sacrifice. Be like us.” And you’ll be dead wrong, son. If you’re a career soldier, you may defend democracy, but you won’t understand it or be part of it. What’s more, you’ll always be a stranger to your own society. That’s the sacrifice you’ll be making.
I’ve been thinking a lot about that old colonel in the aftermath of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly’s remarkable press conference the other day over the president’s call to the widow of an Army soldier killed in Niger. There’s been a lot of commentary about the general’s attitude toward civilians who hadn’t sacrificed — who weren’t of the “one percent” who had — and it seems to me that most of it misses the point. Masha Gessen’s New Yorker article, “John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup,” comes close, given President Donald Trump’s tendency to hire retired generals who complement his own authoritarian leanings. Certainly we need to be alert for the next three years — having at Trump’s elbow a retired general who disdains civilians should raise some concerns.
But the larger point that strikes me, as a retired infantryman, is the self-pity in the general’s tone. Look at us; we’ve made sacrifices that you don’t appreciate. The only good American is one in uniform, or, ultimately, the ones under tombstones in Arlington. Sadly, this kind of sad, pitying flag-waving impresses too many of my fellow citizens the same way that the insubordinate Douglas MacArthur did in the 1950s — and MacArthur is said to be a favorite of Trump’s.
Let’s be frank. There’s nothing “glorious” or “sacrificial” about choosing to be a soldier. We give up personal freedom for the privilege of serving our country, and we enter a closed-off profession that is enormously satisfying, but can also be physically, emotionally, and intellectually demanding. We accept the risk that some of us get killed or wounded. In return, the country gives us decent pay, an early retirement — some bodies get pretty broken up in twenty or thirty years — and health care. It’s not a bad deal.
But the other sacrifice — the one the colonel talked about — is that few of us quite fit into the “dishonest, disorganized and glorious” mess is American democracy. That makes us good bureaucrats and maybe good chiefs of staff, but not someone who has a gut-level understanding of democracy — the role of a free press, for example, or the give and take of backroom dealing. We chose the life we lived. Being part of the “one percent” doesn’t make us any more entitled than any other citizen. And while we’re happy that the public respects military service, too much respect makes us a little uneasy, for the reasons the old colonel said. We are privileged to serve, not the other way around.
Kelly is understandably upset that Trump — acting on the general’s advice — publicly fumbled a call to a young widow. Part of the general’s problem is that he serves a president without empathy for anyone but himself. Another is that the same president has now politicized Kelly’s private grief.
But that odd press conference has exposed Kelly’s emotional, personal disdain for the citizens he served in uniform and still serves in a sensitive political post. His remarks lead me to wonder if he really understands that soldiers are the servants of democracies, not some special race apart. A MacArthur or a George Patton, disdainful or ignorant of democracy but close to the president is dangerous to the Republic and is unbecoming his distinguished service in a profession that doesn’t need anyone’s pity.
Bob Killebrew was an Army infantry and special forces officer for 30 years. He is a member of the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment.
Think my last comment got stuck in a fatberger. Thanks Jay, the Colonel is wise.
So from the left we have concurrently:
The Generals – including Kelley – will keep Trump in line.
Kelley is an evil racist.
Regardless, I get very tired of all this speculation by left wing nuts about what everyone in Trump’s cabinet thinks about Trump. For the most part you have proven wrong.
BTW how is a private call a public fumble ?
Also we have a recording of another Call Trump made – and while he could have done better it was not awful.
My guess is that Kelley advised Trump not to make these calls – because it is extremely difficult to do them well. Obama ducked alot of them too.
And then when Trump got beat up by the press for not making the calls, he was pushed into doing something that is incredibly hard and well outside of Trumps skillset.
And Trump did a less than stellar job and Kelley ended up having to step up because this was Kelley’s mistake.
But the above is speculation.
Wilson however is an empty barrel.
More Examples Of DufusDonald Pushing His Fat Butt Where It Shouldn’t Go
https://apnews.com/f65178a0fe914b8fa152ab10be8d4c22
So Obama’s comments on Bergdahl, his bringing him to the white house, his calling him a hero – those are OK ?
Or Obama exhonerating Hillary when the investigation was barely started – that is OK ?
I would strongly suggest reading “The road to serfdom”
Too many of you do not get it.
Trump is the REACTION to the prior failure of the left.
However bad you think he is, he is the least bad you are going to get if we keep going in the same direction.
Regardless, look around the world – we do not have a Trump problem.
The brits voted to exit the EU. France seriously considered LePenne and still elected an outsider. Real authoritarians are gaining throughout europe.
Roy Moore won the GOP primary and is likely to win the AL Senate.
Even the Bernie Bros as stupid as they are is still a reaction to the failure of the status quo.
There is only one thing that will calm the waters – increased standard of living.
The left has proven time and again throughout the world unable to do that.
IF Trump fails, we are going to elect someone even more radical.
It does not matter whether that is a Sanders or a Moore or Arpiao
That cycle typically ends in violence and collapse
Sanders can not deliver, nor can any actual authoritarian.
Former NPR head writes about leaving the Blue Bubble.
http://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/
A very good piece in NRO about why the NeverTrump stuff among republicans really does not matter.
Elsewhere there was a peice noting that while democrats as a whole are shifting hard left, the DNC and the power in the democratic party is NOT.
That after a year of internecine warfare the Clinton people STILL control the DNC.
The problems in the Democratic party are far worse than those of the republicans.
One way or the other democrats are at severe risk of alienating a substantial part of the coalition they need to win.
Trump’s election proves the opposite for Republicans.
That despite often fiery differences, that Republicans are overall united enough to win.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453024/never-trump-critics-gop-agree-core-issues?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=59ef01c504d301720e9db11c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
This is where government healthcare MUST eventually go.
Without market forces to increase value and lower costs, the only choice is to ration services.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/nhs-provokes-fury-indefinite-surgery-ban-smokers-obese/
The Liar Keeps Cheapening The Office
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump-blatantly-lies-in-new-tweets-against-corker-1080209475895
In May 2016 – not all that long ago Corker was on Trump’s VP short list and met with Trump. At one time the relationship was cordial.
With respect to the upcoming Senate election, Trump and Corker also met.
Debating what was discussed is a “he said, he said” nonsense. Claiming that one or the others assertions are correct is a pretense to omniscience.
It is also evidence of how meaningless left wing nut critique of Trump has become.
Who cares whether Trump begged Corker to Run or Corker begged Trump for an endorsement.
Thus far on most of these private meetings where what Trump said has been contested – such as the Comey meetings – Trumps version has ultimately been accepted.
Both Trump and Comey as an example have confirmed – Comey under oath that Comey told Trump three times he was not a target, and that Trump asked Comey to report that publicly.
With respect to Corker, there is absolutely now doubt he would have faced a very tough election. He was almost certain to be primaried, and he is not very popular in Tennessee.
I don’t think endorsements matter nearly so much as politicians believe.
Trump certainly managed to get elected with very few.
Regardless, the Trump Corker spat is just more evidence that Trump punches back twice as hard. If you do not want him to attack you – don’t spray ad hominem at him.
There could hardly be a Senator more at odds with Trump than Rand Paul.
Yet, they have a good relationship.
They talk atleast once a weak.
Neither asks favors of the other.
And to this point Paul seems to be the republican with the greatest influence on Trump.
The EO regarding AHP’s and health insurance purchases accross state lines was Paul’s doing.
So absolutely the only things accomplished regarding the GOP’s promise to repeal PPACA have been accomplished by Trump alone, or Trump and Paul.
Regardless, Paul never engages in the personal invective against Trump. Though he is nearly constantly at odds on policy.
Essentially what you have is evidence that Trump rarely if ever starts these personal conflicts. But he will “punch back twice as hard”.
Trump is particularly hard on “morning joe” as early in Trump’s campaign they were working together. Scarborro switched to being personally critical and Trump is responding to that betrayal.
Regardless, Scarborro like most of those ranting about Trump have personal axes to grind.
You can feel it is inappropriate and undignified for the president to stoop to countering ad hominem. I might agree.
But it is who he is, We knew it when we elected him, and there is nothing in the constitution about responding to ad hominem with respect to the presidents duties.
I would also note that Trump’s spats with many republicans are not hurting him.
He was elected to drain the swamp. It is trivial for him to paint these guys as part of the swamp.
There are several stories running right now about The center for the american way and other democratic research groups taking “safari’s” through trump country to try to understand Trump voters. I would suggest reading them. No so much from those groups analysis – which seems to demonstrate they are still clueless as to why they lost the election, but to get the interveiws and feedback they gathered.
The most consistent picture of voters in swing states that went for Trump is that they see the policies of the left as a failure. Even those on the left in those states seem to want the federal govenrment to leave them alone.
The other takeaway is that we are divided – Trump did not divide us, he just cast a light on that divide.
We are divided because of the political overreach of the left.
We are divided because the left maligns everyone who does nto agree with them on everything.
We are divided because democrats have moved far further to the left than the country as a whole.
Most of this occured before Trump during Obama’s tenure.
So the president who was a divider rather than a uniter is Obama.
Dave, “We are divided because of the political overreach of the left.
We are divided because the left maligns everyone who does nto agree with them on everything.
We are divided because democrats have moved far further to the left than the country as a whole.”
You forgot one.
“We are divided because the left has never forgotten the 2000 election”
This division in this country started the day that SCOTUS “settled” that election in favor of Bush and the Democrats were united in destroying his administration, so the GOP continued the payback during the Obama years. Today we have Trump (and Hillary) due to that fight.
According to the Pew data the partisan division in the country was relatively constant through 2008. And to the extent it was not – we were closer in 2004.
I have serious problems with the 2004 election.
The decision by SCOTUS was wrong – but so was that of the FL Supreme court and the local FL judge.
One FL judge does not get to hold the nation hostage until they get the decision they want.
The reason that 2000 never resonated as big a problem is because the media went back and recounted the votes themselves. No one was ever able to come up with a result that produced a Gore win. Aside from a few diehards that is why the conflict ended.
Regardless, getting a result relatively quickly was absolutely necescary – which is really why SCOTUS determined the election.
We saw much the same thing with Coleman Franken – which took 9 months to resolve, resulted in myriads of accusations of fraud from both sides and Franken’s narrow victory required counting “found” votes that resulted in totals exceeding the number of voters in atleast one precinct.
I was absolutely terrified during the recounts. The situation was only going to get worse with time – again why SCOTUS acted. With each day that passed people were coming up with new ways to get another outcome. The claims of Fraud and voter supression were multiplying.
If there was no decision soon enough – the election would get thrown to congress.
And that was not going to be a good thing either.
The 2000 HAVE law was a ludicrously stupid result.
What we needed was not a resolution to the “hanging chad” or butterfly ballot problem.
But a resolution to close counts inside the margin of error.
Because the real truth about 2000 FL is you can count that vote as many times as you want – so long as the outcome is inside the margin of error, it does not matter even if Bush won ever variation of recount.
The margin of error means that anything inside of it is indeterminate.
The same year GA had a close election.
GA law provides and automatic runnoff 6 weeks later.
That is the kind of change we need. We do not want recounts. We want any election that is inside the margin of error to have a runnoff.
Regardless, while I agree that 2000 was a mess. It is not a factor in our current divisions.
Oh, and 9/11 pretty much ended the 2000 election rumblings.
No one in their right mind thought Al Gore could have dealt with that.
Al Gore was an abysmal candidate – while Bush was not so hot, Gore was just thoroughly unimpressive.
Another election where we needed a do over with different candidates.
In our politics, many things are going on concurrently.
The democratic grass roots is moving left (that is the core of the party, not “all democrats”), while even after Clinton’s loss the same Clintonite Establishment democrats not merely remain in power but have almost staged a coup (again) denying the Sanders wing any political power.
Republicans have more factions but are mostly more united. The Grass Roots is very populaist at the moment – and Trump’s particularly shift pulled in blue collar democrats.
Since the election republicans have SORT OF united – but in a difficult dance.
Trump is completely outside the GOP establishment and leadership.
The establishment republicans are viewed by the Grassroots as no better than democrats.
Trump, the grass roots and the establishment republicans have been in a bizarre dance with each other. The establishment is unwilling to embrace Trump, but dependent on him for the few republican successes.
The establishment Republicans – that would right now be the McCain, Flake, McConnell, Corker, Graham, Possibly Ryan, wing of the party – the ones most of you here think are the “adults”, have a very tenuous grip on power, and are viewed by the Grassroots as the problem. They are as much part of the swamp and Schumer and democrats.
This GOP war has been going on since atleast 2010.
Grassroots voters elected Scott Brown – which should have stopped PPACA, when that failed they gave Republicans control of the house – which should have resulted in the very least the defunding of PPACA, when that did not occur they gave rpublicans control of the Senate, and finally they elected Trump.
And still these voters have not gotten what they wanted.
I would also note that PPACA is just a symbol of what they want.
What they are after is less F’d up government. Less government interferance in their lives.
Voters are not formally libertarian. Voters like “free” but most know free is not free.
Regardless, I have been making this argument that you can not increase government power over the objections of a strong minority of voters.
We have had that since 2008.
That is a really important principle that I can not seem to get through.
While there is a philosophical basis, the driving forces are practical.
I think I linked elsewhere to an article on the rise of religious tolerance – starting in Germany. Religious tolerance arrose – because religious majorities in numerous german districts persecuted their minorities and as a consequence ended up at war with their neighbors. Finally German govenrments had to accept that they had to tolerate the rights of religious minorities or have never ending war.
Religious toleration did not arrise from philosophy, but from practicality.
You can no impose your will be force on a sufficiently large minority that is adamantly opposed.
I keep repeating that government is force.
We can pretend that democratic majoritarian govenrment is all rainbow clouds and unicorns, but when the majority acts against the strong wishes of a large enough minority there will be hell to pay – possibly even violence and war.
That is what has been happening the past 8 years.
Further, you have concurrently a different but similar pragmatic problem.
The above analysis is for a single issue.
But I have also made an argument with similar results when many issues are involved.
If you pass 10 laws – each of which had 90% support – but each of which has 10% non-overlapping vigorous opposition. You have a govenrment that is now opposed by the majority of people.
The only reason the democratic socialist governments of the EU work at all is because those nations are incredibly monolithic – the people are from the same tribe, and the same religion and have identical values.
And even with that democratic socialism underperforms limited govenrment – but it is not so bad as what has happened elsewhere with socialism.
Regardless The european socialist countries are slowly tearing themselves apart.
Big government requires either very tight monocultures or massive amounts of force to survive. It does not matter whether that govenrment is left or right.
When govenrment is too large and too intrusive, the result is a growing angry populace.
And a very high risk of a takeover by authoritarians (right or left). Who promise that given enough personal power they can fix everything.
These authoritarian governments will fail also – but we will go through hell in the meantime.
At this period in time the forces that have been driving ever bigger and more intrusive govenrment are primarily on the left. That means the blowback will be on the right.
Ultimately we are at a point where there are only two long term possibilities.
A serious shrinking of government, or a forced transition to authoritarianism.
A common literary theme is “man bears the seeds of his own destruction”.
While that works with political ideologies too.
All forms of statism – whether left or right, will increasingly fail as they grow, and increasingly alienate ever more of the people.
It is also not an accident that the sides are polarizing – that the opposition to the left is growing and that the left is moving ever further left and that everyone is becoming ever more angry.
The 2000 election was just an event.
The 2008 election resulted in laws and regulations and policies that build an ever growing body of angry voters.
The left as an example does not recall that FDR almost certainly would have lost the 1940 election but for the war in Europe. The popularity of the New Deal was relatively short lived, 1938 and 1939 experienced a severe economic downturn in the midst of the depression. Growing government ALWAYS means growing popular anger.
Senator Corker is not an innocent party in this fight. Corker worked closely with Obama to make sure that the Iran deal did not have to be ratified by the Senate, because Obama knew it would never come close. He used Corker, who was willing to go along with an unconstitutional agreement to allow a dangerous enemy to advance its nuclear weapons program, simply because Corker was naive enough, vain enough, stupid enough~ or all of the above~ to think that, by doing this, he could get Obama to reveal the details of the treaty. Which, of course, did not happen, and Corker ended up looking like a fool.
Corker was going to be primaried, and, when Trump did not immediately agree to endorse his reelection bid, he announced that he wouldn’t run (translation: he didn’t think he could win) and immediately began to attack Trump’s agenda.
Joe Scarborough, really?! The guy who, with his not so secret girlfriend/co-host had Trump on his show almost daily during the Republican primaries, hosted Trump in a townhall, while the rest of the GOP candidates held a debate, and tried to get into a Trump inaugural party uninvited? We supposed to believe that his antipathy to Trump is not a personal grudge, because Trump didn’t fall for his sucking up? Come on.
MORE PATHETIC ASSKISSING OF THE ASS-inine NINCOMPOOP.
Jay
No, Priscilla is just being honest.
Corker has gotten himself into a pissing contest with Trump.
I do not think that Corker is some evil person. But he is a US senator, and he purportedly has a clue about politics, and he was once close enough to Trump to be a VP contender.
He is not some innocent in this.
Further the actual facts are sufficiently complicated that claiming Trump is lying – is itself clearly lying. Trump may be telling half or 3/4 truths. But he is not lying.
But that is a common theme to all this “Trump is a liar” nonsense.
You do not hold any prior president to the same standard of precision in speach.
You do nto seem to understand that the rest of us know that the left, and the press, and you take everything that Trump says and before the words are out of his mouth, you are looking for ways to demonstrate they are egregious lies. And you will grasp at any straw to do so.
The credibility of the left and the media is like that of the little boy who cried wolf.
IF Trump actually said something unbeleivably egregious. most of the country is so innured of your rants – we would not notice.
Not only has the Russia thing fallen apart but Mueller and his investigators are themselves now sufficiently tied to Russian political corruption and past malfeasance, that Mueller is practically going to have to provide a wiretap of Trump personally conspiring with Putin to make this fly.
I mean come on. Russia has been deliberately and successfully trying to Compromise Clinton and the state department since atleast 2010, and Mueller and the FBI has been not only watching but even covering it up.
I keep telling you that the longer this goes on the worse it gets for democrats.
My, my, my. By your standards, Jay, that is a well-reasoned and civil response.
I see you, Priscilla, with the same profound disapproval I see onlookers at a car crash caused by a drunk driver who excuse him with rationalizations the mayhem he caused is the fault of the other drivers, who should have known better than be driving on the same road as him. tRUMP isn’t at fault the victims of his perfidy are at fault for being on the same continent.
tRUMP is the WORST thing that’s happened to America in all our lifetimes. More deleterious to our culture than drugs, alcoholism, gangsterism.
I am sorry for the generation of America’s who follow us to have them see our history, our accomplishments, our place in the world diminished by this travesty of a president.
So when you see a car crash – you know that it was caused by a drunk driver ?
And you know that the onlookers new that the driver was drunk.
More hubris from the left.
Get a clue Jay. You are not omniscient.
As to the rest – you are going to spray is with “Argh, Trump Tweeted!!!” posts all the time.
Trump is doing a really good job of tweaking loons.
That is not presidential. But sorry – even I get secret pleasure from it.
The very fact that you go ballistic everytime there is some Trump tweeted something stupid nonsense going arround, warms my heart.
So keep it up.
Snore…
“Snore…”
Non-sequitur
Also not an argument
Are you capable of getting past “anyone who does not share my desire to stage a coup is evil” ?
While I do not share every single one of your idiotic “Argh, Trump!!!” hyperventaliations,
I do not have any problems agreeing that Trump is not what I want as president.
Neither was Bush or Obama.
I have criticised both of them – even here.
I do not recall ever suggesting either were “unqualified”, “mentally incompetent”, or should be impeached.
A few did seek to impeach Bush – those would have been the same people going after Trump. And a few did seek to impeach Obama.
In both instances the numbers were few.
The reasons for disliking Trump are different from those for disliking Obama are different from those for disliking Bush.
But in the end they are still just emotional distaste or style.
With respect to actual “high crimes and misdemeanors” – there is much more of that with respect to Obama than Trump.
Obama acted outside the law and constitution – sometimes to do things that I support – but still lawlessly.
Trump has acted inside the law and constitution to undo the unlawful acts of Obama – sometimes undoing lawless acts that in some form I support.
As pompous and arrogant as Trump may be – his actions – particularly those that upset the left the most – have been restorations of the rule of law.
Essantially Trump talks like an authoritarian, but his ACTIONS are anti-authoritarian.
“I am sorry for the generation of America’s who follow us to have them see our history, our accomplishments, our place in the world diminished by this travesty of a president.”
That is an incredibly hypocritical statement from someone on the left.
The left argues not merely that this nation was born in sin but that sin permates us to this day. It argues that the evil of our forefathers is so great we should not dare celebrate their accomplishements, and the we too even today are stained by their sins and dare not speak their good deeds.
It is the left that has created the current division by defaming half the country as too stupid to vote, and either hateful, hating haters, or dolts decieved by nearly invisible russian propoganda.
It is the left that argues that voters must be protected from the expression of others – lest perceived distorted advertisements by corporation, or the rich or russians or …. will drive them to vote badly, while at the sametime claiming the innerancy of the pravdaeque MainStream Media – as well as their – and only their first amendment protections.
The left supported 8 years of Obama appologizing for America’s existance.
The left has practically identified anyone who thinks there is such a thing as american exceptionalism a nazi or a racist.
The left is so ashamed of this country it wishes to convert it to a european social democracy as quickly as possible.
Sorry, any argument from the left that this nation is being diminished by others is blatant hypocracy. The left is embarrased by this nation.
Trump’s major campaign theme has been Make America Great again. He is the biggest cheerleader for american exceptionalism there has been in a long time.
He and his supporters – and many such as myself who did not support him are intensely proud of this country. We recognize the sins of our past, but are not interested in fixing all the evils of history back to cain and able. We grasp that the impact of what happened 200, or even 50 years ago, is very small on the present, and that the mistakes of our grandfathers do not weigh that heavily on the world today. That whatever their sins – they are not our sins. We further understand that though far from perfect america is te least racist country in the world. That it is still the land of oportunity, not the land of the handout.
Even Trump’s xenophobia – which I fault, is still small compared to that of the rest of the world. Immigrants have no path to citizenship at all in much of the world. Further ONLY the US has birth right citizenship. In Europe adults whose parents were born there and have never lived anywhere else in their lives as not citizens.
Trump has abandoned the impotent and toxic multilateralism of Obama and returned to American Unilateralism. America acts at home and abroad in its OWN best interests,
other nations are free to work with us or not as they choose. Slowly this appears to be improving the world. We have acted more forcefully towards China than in decades, AND we are working with and cooperating with China more than in decades. The same is true throughout the world.
Finally – the left measures America by what it thinks outsiders think of us – more of this left mind reading nonsense – only squared.
The rest of us measure america by what WE think of it.
We are not looking to adopt the failures of other countries.
We are looking to make America the example of how to do things right.
We this nation as the land of oportunity.
We strive to make this nation the land of Freedom, not of Free things.
Profound disapproval, huh? I’m crushed.
I moderated that. Originally I said ‘sickenly disgusted’… which in retrospect I should have left in place.
Absolutely if you can exponentially increase your hyperbole you are certain to persuade everyone.
Take your arguments – or anyone else’s remove all the adjectives and superlatives and see if what is left has any consequence.
If it does not – then the adjectives do not create import.
“He maliciously stepped forward”
has no actual content beyond
“He stepped forward”
DEBASING AMERICA: SHOULD BE ‘ALREADY DEBASED’
It is pretty much a given that if you insult Trump he is going to insult you back twice as hard.
“I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” – Carter said he thinks members of the news media “feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”
Jay;
Are you planning to keep this “Trump tweeted something horrible” or someone said or tweeted something horrible about trump up forever ?
In what way does it change anything ?
If I have not decided that Trump is a “malignant narcissist” already – then why is Joe Scarborro or Bob Corker saying so going to change my mind ?
AGAIN, I am interested in actions not words.
Thus far I would give Trump a C+ as president.
That is a full grade above the last two.
Its not good, but I will take whatever improvements I can get.
Dave are you going to keep posting your long winded simple minded rationalizations forever?
Are you going to continue to post your ad hominem forever ?
Are you going to continue to post your “someone does not like trump” forever ?
Are you going to continue to post your “Trump said something I do not like” forever ?
You post what you want. I will post what I want.
It is called freedom.
And I am surely in favor of your freedom to continue to be a long winded bore. See, we agree on something!
To the extent (very little, IMHO) that young folks “watching” what’s going on and unglue from their cell phones (electronic pacifiers), I agree with the Corker comment, above.
Trump is the slimiest, stupidest person I have ever heard of since Nero.
But I don’t get Corker and Flake walking away from the fight. If it were me, I would run and blast Trump and dam the outcome.
I agree, they should go down fighting against the crude clown.
But easier said than done.
Raising campaign money would be problematic, with Bannon and DickHead Donald raising hell about it.
But it would be interesting to see if they’d get support or not from Republicans.
Maybe one or the other will run against tRUMP IN 2020.
Money, money. Where will it come from, and why don’t they pony up some now if they will be opposing Trump in 2020? Corker and Flake need to get their campaigns going ASAP and get to be known as anti-Trumps.
Trump started his reelection campaign on Nov. 9th.
dduck…Coker and Flake. Sounds like a great moderate right Libertarian ticket for 2020. Ill donate!!!
Both Flake and Corker appear to be relatively good candidates as far as libertarians are concerned – meaning most of congress is worse.
Regardless, they do not have the political support they need in their own states right now.
No amount of money is going to change the outcome of 2020.
If the economy remains strong, and Trump does not unilaterally start an unnescscary war,
or have a stroke, he is going to be the republican candidate and he is going to win by a landslide.
Those are the primary factors diving 2020.
An interesting thread about Flake. Read the comments. Addresses the issues of staying to fight, etc…
https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/922957072907546624
I recall reading something about a particular hollywood director, whose movies had one common theme, The protagonist endured all kinds of adversity and near the end has some opportunity to step up and speak and spoke wonderful impassioned words that made everything clear and resolved everything and brought truth and justice to the world.
In reality that happens only in the movies.
Few impassioned speeches are turning points.
Real world issues are resolved by facts and actions, not words.
Look here. You argue passionately – if not logically or persuasively,
I argue with facts, logic reason.
Nothing is changed.
I do not post here with some pretense that the next post will be so eloquent as to change the minds of everyone here – or anyone.
Do you ?
This is also the problem with all your “Trump, Argh!!!” nonsense.
Trump’s words however uncouth are highly unlikely to be his downfall.
He will be measured by his actions and by the impact of his presidency.
So far for the overwhelming majority of us that has been mildly good.
Corker and Flake’s problems are not Trump.
Bannon’s and Trump’s opposition does no more harm to them – than it did to Roy Moore.
There is a certain amount of money necescary to mount a political campaign – a floor so to speak that any successful candidate must reach.
But above that level, funding is far less significant that we particularly the left pretend.
Trump won despite spending half what Clinton did.
In the recent series of special elections, Democrats have spent a fortune – typically 4 times what the winning republican spent.
Neither Corker nor Flake would have any difficulty raising money for a successful campaign.
Their problem is that voters both right and left are very anti-establishment right now, and Flake and Corker are the establishment in states with strong anti-establishment sentiments.
The Trump Corker Flake conflicts are tangential to their problems.
I don’t know that much about Jeff Flake, but Bob Corker is largely responsible for making sure that the Iran sanctions were permanently lifted. Without his strong support of Obama’s deal to lift the sanctions and allow Iran to move forward with its nuclear plans, and his repudiation of the separation of powers framework in the Constitution, the most Obama could have done was to have temporarily suspended the sanctions. The billions of dollars that we paid Iran, which have largely gone to purchase uranium and armaments from Russia would not have been able to have been ~ legally~ paid.
Corker was not the only one, not by a long shot. But he was the leader of the plan to intentionally circumvent the ratification requirement of the Constitution. Not any sort of Libertarian to my way of thinking ~ unless Libertarian has come to mean anti-Trump.
Corker and Flake are walking away, because they are going to lose if they do not.
Despite Trump’s hubris, I do not think his endorsement means much – his election proves the low value of political endorsements.
Both Corker and Flake are bowing out because they would have been primaried and they would have either lost or been left too weak to win the general.
Both Corker and Flake are viewed – as part of the establishment, and we are in a very strong anti-establishment swing – on both the right and left.
Both should leave quietly – not because of Trump but because they are sullying their own reputations. They are asking to be remembered for their fights with Trump, not their actual tenure as senators.
Trump continues to triumph in circumstances that are supposed to be unwinnable.
I think the jury is out on his intelligence.
I would like to beleive I am many times more intleigent than Trump, but I could not accomplish what he has.
Flake and Corker have been speaking their minds for sometime.
Resulting in a childish spitball contest with Trump.
Trump has already taken all the damage he is likely to for his childish twitter conduct.
You can not easily hurt him further.
BTW in damaging himself – he has very successfully damaged many of his enemies even more.
If Corker and Flake want to ruin their reputations even further – that is their business.
They will not be the first retiring senators to make fools of themselves and sully otherwise respectable carreers in their lame duck period.
Regardless, they do not have the silver bullet or kyrptonite that will take out Trump.
You are engaged in wishful thinking.
You have been doing that for nearly a year.
I am sure you will wake up tomorow hoping this is the day that some revelation finally puts the nail in Trump’s coffin.
And maybe it will be. But if recent history is any guide, When Trump sneezes, the Obama administration catches a cold.
Every single day that goes by with the Trump Collusion nonsense getting weaker and weaker the public is less interested and beleives less.
This is a losing game. There is a fully year to 2018. A strong economy coupled with 2 years of democrats screeching hysterically but not being able to answer “wheres the beef”. Could be very devastating.
When you strike the king, you must kill the king.
Emerson.
In other news, the NYT is shocked, shocked that Hillary and her people lied to them:
“Two New York Times reporters are calling out people tied to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee for denying the Clinton campaign and DNC’s role in the making of the so-called “Trump dossier,” following a report Tuesday that found they funded the research for the dossier.”
https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/922979429093175296
The most credible story is that the Steele Dossier was commissioned by a billionaire than supported Jeb Bush.
But I have never heard actual confirmation of that or even a rumor of which wealhty Bush supporter.
Regardless, there is now actual evidence that the DNC and the Clinton campaign paid 5.6M dollars to fund it.
I am not sure that evidence is “certain” – I beleive it is from a law firm that worked for FusionGPS that was essentially between a rock and a hardplace because they have an obligation to FusionGPS, but the information has been subpeoned, and a lawyer can not participate in the criminal acts of their clients. If that is correct – then the DNC clinton connection and the 5.6M are pretty solid.
We are further still trying to confirm whether the FBI continued to fund it,
Unlike you and the rest of the left – I am willing to note that this is the current state of less than certain evidence.
The left has been pretending that Rumours made up by Louis Mensch are gospell Truth.
Seems more of the collusion claim is going down the toilet.
So we have Clinton paying Fusion GPS to get dirt on Trump from the Russian security services.
And we have Trump Jr. saying no to fake dirt on Hillary from a Russian affiliated with Fusion GPS.
Please explain to me how you plan on hanging Trump without Taking Clinton down at the same time ?
No it is worse. Clinton SOLICITED fake dirt on Trump from the Russians.
Trump Jr turned down fake dirt when Russians solicited him.
There is a big difference between Trump Jr. took a meeting and Hillary Clinton wrote a check.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.17b9669b2591
And finally god forbid that the remark that Clinton paid to have hookers pee on Obama’s bed and blame it on Trump proves not to be sarcasm.
Regardless,
“You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
Attny Welch – McCarthy hearings.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, invoking the 1950s demagoguery of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, said Wednesday “you can’t continue to just remain silent” about President Donald Trump’s politics and behavior.
“There is a tipping point. … I hope we’re reaching that tipping point,” Flake told NBC’s “Today.”
The Arizona senator made the rounds of morning television news shows to talk about his decision not to run for re-election in 2018 and his impassioned speech on the Senate floor Tuesday, in which he said he could no longer be “complicit” with the Republican president.
“We are excusing undignified and outrageous and reckless speech and behavior as ‘telling it like it is.’…. That’s not right,” Flake said…”
The same exact quote came to my mind – except that it is the left that is engaged in the foundationless witchhunt.
Right down to being whigged out over russians hiding behind everything.
Jay, ““There is a tipping point. … I hope we’re reaching that tipping point,” Flake told NBC’s “Today.””
The tipping point is not being driven by Trump. The tipping point is being driven by the rush to the extremes in both parties. Trump is not driving the tipping point, Trump is the result of reaching it before the primaries for 2016.
But now we have Moore running in Alabama in a very tight race. That in a state that is true red and could easily go blue if the election were today. Then we have Kelli Ward, another dipstick, leading the GOP nomination race in Arizona. She was well ahead of Flake in the polls and is one reason he announced what he did. One poll showed her almost 20 points up on Flake. So this is another red state that can go blue. And who know what ignoramus they will put up in Tennessee to take Corkers place.
And looking at the democrats that will win in those states does not offer much hope for the future as it will further drive this country left, providing more for the rich and the poor and screwing the middle class more than they have already been screwed.
And please don’t give me any BS as to how the democrats protect the middle class at the expense of the rich. Who benefits the most from state tax deductions on federal taxes and who is fighting that in tax reform?
Get rid of the cancer (tRUMP) And we’ll focus on the jock rash (everything else in comparison) after.
Again having trouble with WordPress. Sign in a chore, now getting disconnected every three or four comments.
Jay, I know you have a dislike for Trump where you cant understand any reasonable person voting for him. But try to open your thinking and look at this list of possible Democrats as presidential candidates.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/305614-ten-potential-democratic-candidates-for-2020
Other than Tim Kaine, is there anyone that you really believe woulcd be an attractive alternative to Trump to working class Americans?
I really hope that there is something to the possible run by Kasich and he knocks off Trump. If he doesnt, I’ll be voting for the Libertarian or some other third party candidate.
But if the dems keep offering far left northern liberals and the GOP offers Trump again, this country is heading for massive disruptions.
“Get rid of the cancer (tRUMP) And we’ll focus on the jock rash (everything else in comparison) after.”
How would you have responded to
Get rid of the cancer (Obama) And we’ll focus on the jock rash (everything else in comparison) after
I have no problems with democrats obstructing Trump lawfully.
I have no problems with republicans obstructing Obama lawfully.
It might be nice to hear the same from you – as we got 8 years worth of crap from the left about republicans doing exactly what democrats are trying to do now.
But there is a difference between “get rid of” and oppose.
And it is not accidental that you are using “get rid of”
You can “get rid of” Trump by impeachment – if you can manage, ok, but remember what happened with the filibuster. Democrats could have blocked nearly all of Trump’s cabinet and Gorsuch as a supreme court justice – had they not gone nuclear when they were in power.
what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Too soon to tell who will be viable and who won’t.
3 years before the Republican primaries who would have seriously considered the Dufus would run let alone succeed.
He ran as a reform party candidate in 2000. On November 12, 2012. Trump filed an application to patent (or trademark) “Make America Great Again”. All the media, pollsters and anyone associated with presidential races missed that move. That was when he began his campaign.
They also missed the fact that Obama was pissing off so many people across the country with his divisive politics, pitting middle class whites against poor blacks. He was pissing off people when he sided with the hair trigger reactions of black and their illegal activities to police enforcement of the laws. You most likely will not accept this, but Obama was president of Black America. White working middle class America knew it and for 8 years that dislike for his politics created a dislike for all politicians. That created the door for Trump to walk through and Trump capitalized on the division the liberal president created. The MSM was so enthralled with Obama they could not see past his divisions and could not see what was happening in politics on the other side of moderate America. Why else would traditional working middle class democrats turn their backs on an establishment democrat that was well known for years and was the wife of a popular former president? White America overlooked his crass language and actions because he had an agenda that they were starving for. Would they vote for him again knowing how he acts and given the same circumstances and candidates now? I suspect many would still vote for him or might stay home. But would that be enough to allow Clinton to be president? That’s a far stretch to say that would happen.
And given the top 10 possible candidate for 2020 the democrats have, its a stretch to say they could defeat Trump as only one could even come close to relating to middle class white America. But run a moderate democrat, and I suspect a 10-1 or better betting line that that individual would win.
Yes, taking a knee in polarization. Maybe White Middle Class America is doing the same by voting for Trump. Trump did not create the division in the country, Obama did. Trump is the result of that division.
“They also missed the fact that Obama was pissing off so many people across the country with his divisive politics, pitting middle class whites against poor blacks. He was pissing off people when he sided with the hair trigger reactions of black and their illegal activities to police enforcement of the laws. You most likely will not accept this, but Obama was president of Black America. White working middle class America knew it and for 8 years that dislike for his politics created a dislike for all politicians. That created the door for Trump to walk through and Trump capitalized on the division the liberal president created. ”
I agree 100% with those views. They were my own when Obama was President. I was a LOUD critic of the Obama years for his bias in favor of blacks racist utterances. And I voiced those sentiments from FloridaTrayvon onward to Ferguson Mike. I was equally loud in complaint of Obama’s foreign policy – the Iran deal was a joke (Numerous times here I’ve said Iran already possesses nuclear weapons).
And that ‘door’ was open for ALL the Republican primary candidates to walk through; and most of them did just that- name any who ignored criticizing Obama, and by default Clinton, for those stances. So it wasn’t those specific issues alone that drove middle class whites away from the other Republicans to ‘outsider’ jerkoff Donald. And though tRUMP got positive ticks of approval for his outsider status, outsiders Carson and Carly Fiorina barely registered with primary voters.
“Would they vote for him again knowing how he acts and given the same circumstances and candidates now? I suspect many would still vote for him or might stay home. But would that be enough to allow Clinton to be president? That’s a far stretch to say that would happen.”
What makes you think Clinton will run again?
When all was said and done in the primary contest and the Narcissistic Nincompoop won the nomination, his ‘positive’ ratings with Republicans only hovered around 50%. And current polling shows about the same amount of confidence in his leadership among Republicans now, but a severe drop among Independents, who have soured on him since he was elected : he got close to 50% of the Independent election vote, but now only 24% think the country is going in the right direction with him in charge.
If the FatHeadedFuck is nominated to run again, Martial Law will follow.
Jay, “What makes you think Clinton will run again?”
I was not thinking she would run again. I was trying to say if that same election where held today, what would happen.
I am with you 99% when it comes to Trump. The 1% is due to my refusal to vote for a liberal democrat.
Oddly, I disagree with you.
Obama mishandled a number of divisive racial issues – but not so badly as to fragment the country.
Contra the left, whites are NOT more racist than before Obama. They are LESS.
The divide is because the left and minorities have moved.
Blacks in particular are angry because they thought a black president would magically cure all their problems – and it did not.
To the small extent that Obama actually addressed the issues that really would improve conditions for minorities, he made poor, weak, ineffective choices.
There was an oportunity for real immigration reform – Obama blew it
There was an opportunity for real drug reform – Obama blew it.
There was an opportunity for real criminal justice reform – Obama blew it.
There was an oportunity for real policing reform – Obama blew it.
All of these are highly unlikely under Trump
Regardless, Obama’s benefit to the minority community was:
The mere fact of standing in the oval, looking presidential and not getting caught with his pants arround his ankles.
I recall an episode of Blackish where Dre and family are crossing their fingers that Obama will get through the last 6 months without turning into another Bill Cosby or other major black leader that proved to be a janus.
Obama proved the nation could elect a minority president.
I think he was a failure as a president – but not because he was black, but because he was a progressive.
Beyond that what he did for minorities was mostly tokenism and transient.
He did nothing about real reform.
One of the problems is that real reform requires being able to say – we do not have a black policing problem. We have a policing problem.
Our police should not be shooting people – white or black – absent a real credible threat.
If you want to sell police reform, you have to make whites care.
It is not racist to not care much about something you do not think is effecting you.
I do not think that Obama pissed off whites with divisive racial politics.
The left lost whites, because they failed economically.
The primary racist facets were part of political campaigns – not governance.
While Obama did a bunch of token things for minorities. Mostly it is not has minority related actions as president that pissed people off.
It is the failed economy and the identity politics of the campaigns.
I would also note that most of the movement was on the LEFT not the right.
Obama disappointed the left – and made them more radical.
Further according to the Pew data we are dividing more strongly on POLITICAL, not minority issues.
The left has won the culture war – though they have overreached and that is causing small blow back.
All but the most extreme christian conservatives do not give a damn about Gay marraige.
Though some of them care about being forced into giving homosexuality their impramatur.
The left’s victory in the cultur wars is driving the right towards libertarianism – Do whatever you want – but do not involve me.
Trump’s victory is to a smaller extent doing the same with the left – which is starting to adopt federalism, states rights and local governance.
The principle that decisions – including political decisions should be made as close as possible to their application is inherently libertarian – except that libertarians would nearly always take that all the way down to individuals.
Further the political divide in the country is increasingly geographical.
The great sorting is nearly complete.
Those on the left live in great concentrations in a small fraction of the country – almost exclusively in big cities and near the coast.
Becoming ever more comfortable with implimenting government closer to the governed is a promising solution to most of our division.
The left actively celebrates multiculturalism.
This is merely the recognition that we are all different, that are differences are inherent, and good for us.
Division on issues is only seriously problematic when there are moral facets.
In my lifetime we remain as violently divided as ever over abortion.
But we have found the way to agree to disagree on gay marraige.
Even Trans issues do not become heated, until children are involved.
We are more deeply divided over who must pay for someone else’s free choices.
Regardless, the divisions in america are our strength.
Free markets work by allowing people to go their own way and see what succeeds and what fails, ultimately providing each of us our own distinct wants and needs as best as possible.
Free society works the same. We do not run into conflict when we disagree.
Our divisions cause conflict when they are introduced into government.
Even outside of the economic sphere in a free society different values and cultures compete in many ways and that competition enriches us.
What some on the left occasionally call “cultural appropriation” is merely the values and ideas of one culture influencing another.
That is something to be encouranged, not prohibited.
In 2013 – Hillary was already the anointed Democratic candidate.
There were no serious challenges. To the extent that Sanders even gave her a scare that was only because the building evidence of corruption made the only alternative in the race more viable. Still he was and is not a serious candidate.
I have watched one of the Cruz/Sanders debates. Cruz is pulling his punches and trying really had (and badly) to make himself more personable. He is not using the best arguments against Sanders – because they are hot buttons for some, and still he is wiping up. In a real election those strong arguments that the candidate can not make will be leveled by PAC’s. Sanders can not survive a real election.
Absent complete disaster Trump will be the Republican nominee in 2020.
I can not think of any time in US history where a party has run someone other than the president – when that president chose to run.
You want Trump out of 2020, he must either have a stroke, or decide not to run.
The democratic side is not only wide open but has no real visible viable candidate.
But as you noted, no one would have predicted Trump in 2013.
Moore as back to +6 RCP avg. The latest single pool has him +11.
I would be happy to see him lose, but that is not going to happen
Northam is at +2.8 RCP avg and the latest single poll has Gillespie at +2
Ward is not my cup of Tea, but on policy she is pretty much an exact match for Trump, and not really that different from Flake except being somewhat more Strident.
Flake is a mormon. That makes him pretty conservative, but more soft spoken.
His scores conservative/progressive and among the more conservative in the senate.
Hatch appears to be preparing to retire too.
I beleive Blackburn is the lead candidate to replace Corker and has a strong resemblance to Ward.
Neither are the wing nut that Moore is.
Given the current ideological lean of the various states, Republicans should have 60 Senators give or take. The reason they do not is the “great sorting” that flipped the south red is not quite complete, and democrats are over represented in purple states.
Demogogery is a pre-requiste for public office.
The McCarthy hearings were a witch hunt looking for russian influence.
Today’s modern decency free maccarthyites would be the democrats.
Interesting .. Have any Republican legislators or Governors spoken out against Moore for these views? Libertarians? The Slime In Oval Office? The tRUMP groupies here?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/kfile-roy-moore-homosexuality-illegal/index.html
Trump endorsed Strange, not Moore in the Primary.
I have criticised Moore long before you did. He is the nut you think Trump is.
Moore is an actual authoritarian.
In fact he is pretty much identical to progressives – except for his policy positions.
For Moore and the left the constitution means whatever he wants it to mean, and he can impose his will by force without regard for the rights of others or the law.
The only difference between Moore and a progressive is the color of the shaft he is going to ram up your ass.
You constantly offer this stupid tripe that everyone else is obligated to condemn the people or things you think are bad.
Where were you when Obama was acting lawlessly ?
One of the reasons I really like Glenn Greenwald is even though I frequently disagree with his positions, be is consistent. If he attacked Bush for something, he attacked Obama when he did the same thing.
One of the reasons I do not respect you and most of the rest of the left, is you are not principled and consistent.
If you had real principles – we could debate them,
Your side of every debate is ad hominem because you have no principles.
Your views rest on emotion, and your arguments on insult.
What the hell is going on around here?. We can actually have a sane discussion without
the TNM Mucinex man clogging the blog.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKVS9ZOQ20U
And your response is to spew ad hominem ?
You think a muscinex clip is a “ane discussion” ?
Wow, 12-hour relief would be wonderful: https://www.ispot.tv/ad/A_0U/mucinex-sinus-max-airplane
Interesting article by Charles Krauthammer. Jay, there is a movement to stop Trump. Anyone wonder what would happen if Trump does this to the democrat that replaces him in 2020?
http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2017/10/and-you-wonder-why-things-are-upside.html
“OFA is dedicated to organizing communities for “progressive” change. Its issues are gun control, socialist healthcare, abortion, sexual equality, climate change, and of course, immigration reform. “
??? Explain the problem with Americans organizing to do that???
Why is it a problem for Obama to be involved?
Jay, I dont see where I said it was a problem. I said it was a movement to stop Trumps agenda. I also ask what you think would happen if Trump does this in 2021 to stop a Democrats agenda. I say the liberals and MSM would have a $&#@ hemorrhage if he did that and would try every legal trick to stop him.
” I say the liberals and MSM would have a $&#@ hemorrhage if he did that and would try every legal trick to stop him.”
Of course they would!
The thing is that progressive politicians can almost never be honest about their agenda, because the majority in America is still center right. On certain issues, most particularly things like gay marriage, there is a strong libertarian streak, even among many conservatives.
Obama was elected in 2008 on a platform of “hope and change,” which was about as vague a platform as one could imagine. In 2012, he campaigned on “Al Qaeda is on the run and Bin Laden is dead,” while otherwise making the campaign about social issues like “the War on Women” (remember Sandra Fluke and Mitt Romney’s “misogyny”?)…..
Trump campaigned on very specific policy positions ~ the Wall, renegotiation of NAFTA, tax cuts, repeal and replace, support for 2nd Amendment, etc. ~ while Hillary campaigned on being the anti-Trump and the 3rd term of Obama.
I have no problem with Obama campaigning for Democrats on progressive issues, but I see no real groundswell of support for those issues. If anything, it was opposition to progressive issues that led to Trump’s nomination and victory. That, and the fact that Hillary was a horrible candidate and presented no positive reasons to vote for her.
But the real purpose of OFA is this: “OFA is behind the strategic and tactical implementation of the resistance to the Trump Administration that we are seeing across America, and politically active courts are providing the leverage for this revolution.”
Resistance to the duly elected president and judicial activism. Not issues. Much of Trump’s support is from people who don’t like him, but agree with his agenda. Much of Obama’s support is from people who hero-worship him, and don’t care about or don’t like his agenda.
That’s why he’s been largely unsuccessful at transferring his popularity to other Democrats.
(By the way, how about that Russian collusion story, Jay?)
Our traditions are slowly breaking down.
Much of your spittle at Trump is because he is breaching traditions of Presidential conduct.
It is also Traditional that ex-presidents stay out of public politics. Obama appears prepared to deeply breach that tradition.
I have no more or less problem with that than Trump’s provocative tweets.
I would caution Obama against it as it will significantly alter his historical perception.
But if he is OK with his permanent identity being more partisan political and presidential, that is up to him.
As to what OFA is advocating for. most of those issues are individual choices not societal ones.
Why is a women from to have an abortion, but not have a gun ?
The once and Future Liberal. A book, author, Mark Lilla.
My father called me to tell me that he is sending me this book and that it reminds him of everything I have been telling him for several decades about liberals and politics. Well, much as I may be off of politics adn successfully blocking it out for almost a month now, I do enjoy hearing about someone who is making a good living by sounding like me! The following is a review of the book on Amazon that I thought everyone here with a sense of humor would get a chuckle out of. From what I have read of the book ( I don’t have it yet) a lot of it sounds like Ron’s description of the Dem party and liberals and What Went Wrong.
“Say I’m a white guy living in the heartland making 30k a year in a dying industry, living paycheck to paycheck, worried about healthcare costs, unable to retire, and generations of my family have lived in America and fought in world wars. I have an IQ of 85. I turn on NPR every morning (assume I would), and I hear about transgender issues daily, as if that’s the most important thing I can possibly spend my time thinking about. Next I hear that I’m ‘privileged’. Then I hear that my deep concern should be about the fair treatment of Muslim immigrants. I’ll certainly make sure that’s the first thing I think about in the morning when I’m eating my crepes with cream and blueberries.
I have long been a liberal myself and left of center on nearly everything. And I raise my middle finger high in solidarity with that hypothetical man. I sure hope he doesn’t get immersed in white identity politics in response to his utter humiliation. He’s the last kind for which it is acceptable to make fun of his religion, his intellect, and the way he talks.
This book nails the problem and cure, and to my surprise it looks like the left is actually listening.”
I dunno about that last line, but I can dream, the wretched age of trump can’t stop that.
I doubt NPR has much of a demographic with people making 30K.
Further you miss that:
Come election time democrats keep calling him a “hateful haring hater”.
Far to many of those 30K white guys aspire to better.
And a few of them manage. They want to rehab homes for a living, or start their own landscape service or install dog fences, or whatever they can cull a bit together to start their own small business.
But their are myriads of rules – most of which they do nto know and probably can not find out, creating huge uncertainty, and if they manage to take their future in their own hands – they have to keep all the records a government requires of a business, which is pretty steep for a guy with an IQ of 85.
Meanwhile they watch the democrats propose more and more free things – all for somebody else.
Free things is not what they really want, but it is easier to demand your own “fair” share than to ask that freebies be taken from somebody else.
The welfare state is a cancer that eats at our will to succeed.
WE all know have horrible chemotherapy is, so we choose to duck it and let the cancer grow slowly, and hope for a magical easy cure in the future.
Good comment, Roby. Unfortunately, I think that “white identity politics” is a natural outgrowth of the political culture of identity group politics of our time, and likely to get worse before it gets better (hopefully, it will get better)
I live in an incredibly diverse environment ~ and it is diverse in every way : race, religion, political ideology, wealth, education….you name it. The student demographics of the local HS break down 25%white, 25%black, 25% Hispanic, 25% Asian/Indian /Middle Eastern. Within 5-10 miles of my house, there are multiple Catholic and Christian churches, Jewish temples, HIndu temples (one, the largest in NJ), two huge mosques, two Unitarian societies, a Quaker meeting house, and a bunch of small evangelical church groups that rent space from other churches or community centers. Right next to my town is New Brunswick, home to Rutgers University, as well as the worldwide HQ of Johnson & Johnson, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the country’s largest public health charity. And, of course, we’re on 35 miles from NYC.
You get the idea.
I think that the vast majority of people here personally reject identity politics, even while often supporting politicians who espouse it. Part of that is because most people recognize that there has been a need in this country to address things like racism, corruption and bias in the criminal justice system, inequality of opportunity, etc….and partly because, as we always point out here, people today tend to be more partisan and to believe in the righteousness of their own side, regardless of issue. Kind of like being a Mets fan or a Yankees fan ~ you’re either one or the other…and very, very few Mets or Yankees fans ever root for the other team, even in the playoffs and despite the fact that it is the “home team” (They sometimes pretend to, though).
My point? Politics creates these divisions, and it always has been divisive. Sport does it too, but in a more playful and less serious way. When we accept what politicians say about “the other team,” and accept identity politics as it is shoveled at us by self-serving politicos (whether they are in the government or the media) we lose our ability to accept democratic politics. It’s the ” _____ is not MY president!” attitude that we have seen over the last 15 years or so. Poisonous.
So anyway, I don’t know if the left or the right is listening. What I do know is that, as long as the hysteria over Trump ~ pro or con~ continues, politics wins.
Excellent post.
I would add – not only are we divided in myriads of ways but that is a GOOD thing.
How much fun would sports be if everyone rooted for exactly the same time.
We enjoy our rivalries and differences much of the time.
I do not have alot of problems with a jew or muslim or hindu or catholic or …
thinking that their religion is superior – some inerrant Truth.
I have a problem with that view is imposed by force.
Politics is more than a friendly rivalry.
Ultimately real force is the end result.
If you consider yourself middle class, which is modeled by different sites as 35,000 to about 100,000, dont buy the GOP BS that their tax reform is a tax cut. Take the time to model your 2016 return using expert projections as to how the reform will look. That is:
401k exempt earnings change to a max of 2400. Any amount you invested over 2400, add that to taxable income. Use your deduction if more than 24,000. If deductions are less than 24,000, calculate the difference and deduct from taxable income. Add the amount you claimed for exemptions to taxable income. Exemptions are removed from anticipated plans which become part of the standard deduction. Now apply 25% to the new taxable income and compare to what your 2016 return shows. It may show a decrease or an increase based on your 401k amount. I calculate one friends increased tax bill at 2,000 .
Tax plans never pass as proposed.
The tax effects with respect to taxation of retirement plants is ambiguous.
Investing money pre-tax saves money now, but costs money later.
Whether the net is positive of negative depends on things that are unknowable.
Personally I want ZERO deductions,
Zero business taxes,
But all transfers and benefits from businesses to individuals taxed as income.
Then as few brackets as possible,
A relatively high standard deduction – which is essentially a tax bracket
And then set the tax rates as low as possible.
What will happen god alone knows.
It will probably be far worse than what we should do and overall better than what we have.
I am not interested in arguments about who the specific winners and losers are – mostly those are pointless – we will change our behavior as a response to tax changes.
If snipe investment is currently deductible, but not in the future, but unicorn investment remains deductible – I will move to investing in unicorns
What we want is to the greatest extent possible to have people making decisions about their money without any regard for taxes.
Dave two points.
1. I question how tax benefits in 25 years on retirement income will be better than paying taxes now on income and having future income non-taxable (if that can even happen) like Roth investments. When the federal debt comes due, someone has to pay it.
2. I posted this to make sure that we knew we can not believe the BS the GOP is saying about the proposed tax reform legislation being a tax cut for the middle class. Most of the 401 money in this country today is from the middle class and if they cap the 401 deduction, then it is a tax increase for many, People just need to model out what the proposals look like using their own data to see what impact it will have on them.
Whether it is better to invest pretax or post tax is a math problem with several of the coefficients unknown.
It is not possible to answer until after the fact.
I make pretax investments in a 401K and post tax investments in Life Insurance.
There is no way of knowing which choices is right.
The most fundimental aspect of the GOP tax cuts is the so called evil tax cuts for the rich.
You can read Christine Romer’s (and many others) work on the economic impact of taxes,
the bottom line is that every dollar of taxes on corporations, and upper marginal income has a net negative economic impact of $2.
That means that every dollar of tax cuts in the same catagories results in $2 of economic benefits.
Anyone who actually thoroughly analyzed the Bush tax cuts – found that the “tax cut for the rich” paid for itself quite rapidly. While the tax cut for the middle class never did.
I personally wish the data was different.
I personally want the biggest tax cut possible.
But I want a robust economy and the raises and increased standard of living that come with that more.
As to the specifics of the GOP plan:
First what is proposed will not be what is passed – so why bother examining it in detail.
Next, almost no one doing the analysis is even trying to model the effect using the information like Romers that we knew.
GAO and CBO and all the rest of the private analysis is WRONG.
Even the people doing their modelling “right” – meaning attempting to include the actual knowledge we have, rather than shallowly ignoring anything but the immediate first level impacts, is still wrong.
Go back and read Bastiat
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
It is impossible to do it right.
But we are not even trying.
Three years and many tears.
Lotta Blanks, a new novel by Hedda Lettuce:
Like
There is no one in my family who doesn’t want one of these for Christmas. Bet Jay and dduck would too!
https://pro.teechip.com/truha1609?retailProductSlug=B80A767E16E0A6-9FE068CC0989-GS0-TC12-WHT
I’ll try again: https://www.facebook.com/The.44th.POTUS/photos/p.1798877437106144/1798877437106144/?type=3&theater
More evidence that left wingnuts live in their own bubble.
Trump is not homophobic.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-2016s-most-lgbt-friendly-republican
Roby: Might wear the shirt, but Obama scared me and still does.
P.S. why do I have to wait for Xmas, I’m an atheist, we are a growing group and need our own holiday.
Sorry dduck, but a holiday for atheist won’t happen. All holidays are designed for a group of people with a common belief system. Christmas for Christians, Veterans Day for vets, Labor day for working people, 4th of July for all Americans who believe in democracy, etc etc.
Since the only unifying thread for atheist is a common disbelief in a god or gods, one can support the belief that a holiday for disbelieving something is not warranted.
And besides, other than Easter and Christmas, there are 363 other days in the year when nothing religious is celebrated as an official holiday. You might claim one of those.
December 23rd: Festivus: https://www.wikihow.com/Celebrate-Festivus
“Since the only unifying thread for atheist is a common disbelief in a god or gods, one can support the belief that a holiday for disbelieving something is not warranted.”
The only unifying thread for Christians is the ‘belief’ in a particular Invisible Entity.
Therefore Atheists can celebrate ‘believing’ there are no Invisible Entities.
And Labor Day isn’t celebrated because people ‘believe’ in labor; “It honors the American labor movement and the contributions that workers have made to the strength, prosperity, laws and well-being of the country.” Atheists can therefore celebrate rational critical and scientific thinking that has adnance technology and medicine and the well-being of generations.
Some Friday the 13th would be a suitable Atheism Day, as a jab at unwarranted superstition.
Actually there are different kinds of atheists: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487
I would say the Aug 6, 1945, would be a day when belief in a god would seem inappropriate, it would be a sad day, sorta like Good Friday is a sad day for Christians and the saddest Jewish Holiday – Tisha B’Av.
I hear you dduck. The way that life on earth goes does not speak of a kindly god who planned all this.
I’m agnostic. I have a feeling that there is something going on behind the scenery, but it isn’t a big greek man lying on the clouds with cherubs and angels who has a plan for everyone and knows everything about everything and sends sinners to hell if they don’t spend their time worshipping him. Its more likely to me that, if there is such a thing as a soul, then they all belong to a hidden dimension with its own laws of metaphysics and are part of another metaphysical plane. Not that I am certain. But sometimes that dimension winks at me.
What do you get when you cross an agnostic with a KKK adherent? Someone who burns question marks on your front lawn.
What do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovah’s witness? Someone who knocks on your door on Saturday for no apparent reason (perhaps to promote Festiva?).
The teaching Of Christ are wonderful, noble, rules for a better morality, especially considering the age he lived in. The teachings About Christ on the other hand, not to offend anyone, are myths from an age before science had figured out that we are not the center of the universe and the earth is not flat with sea dragons etc.
Bloody wars have been fought over the proper day to celebrate Easter, not to mention Queen Mary burning Protestants alive, the spanish inquisition etc. All part of Gods plan?
Since there are believers here I won’t go full out with my most colorful opinions about those legends and myths. If they help people to face life and death, then by all means they are welcome to it as long as they don’t shove it down my throat or claim that our democracy is formally Christian and write that into law in various ways. We are legally secular.
Amen, as we Agnostics say… 😇
At the time of Christ we knew the earth was a sphere and approximately its size.
In 250BC Eratosthenes calculated the size of the earth accurate to 230miles.
That is within 1% of correct.
Myth’s are incredibly valuable. They are important because they communicate truths – usually moral ones. Not because they are litteral truth.
I do not know whether there was a good samaritan. But I know that the story communicates an important broadly shared value – a moral principle or truth.
Morality is only loosely bound to science.
Science can not inform us about right or wrong.
Science does not tell us that murder is wrong.
It merely tells us that a given dose of some poison will kill.
Right and wrong are not the domain of science.
And visa versa.
This is also important – and relates directly to govenrment.
Government is about morality. It is specifically about negative morality.
Thou Shalt Not.
Positive morality – feed the hungry, cloth the naked, visit the prisoner, are the domain of individuals.
Laws are or should be limited solely to negative morality.
Government is NOT about science.
Government is about whether actions are right or wrong.
Science can not answer that.
Even some of the strangest and most superstitious beleifs have been found to have a rational basis.
The semetic dietary laws – jewish and muslim rest strongly in what is essentially health regulation of two milienia ago. They often misunderstand cause and effect, but they are not so often wrong about what will succeed in reducing food born illness.
There is alot of analysis of much of this by anthropologists, as well as sociologists.
Johnathan Haidt notes that our moral foundation of disgust at many things is strongly rooted in the fact that those things that disgust us today are the remnants of broader generalizations of the past that while often wrong still reduced our risks significantly.
Jordan Peterson has done alot on myths strange beleifs and their rational basis.
Even where some beleifs had absolutely no connection to anything real,
they still frequently left us with sufficient sense of control to protect our sanity.
Today we have a far better understanding of how the world works.
70,000 years ago maybe we saw some patterns but we did not have much understanding.
Modern atheism inarguably depends on modern science. Otherwise the world is too terrifying to remain sane. Sacrificing virgins for a good harvest might not have effected the harvest, but it left a sense that in some way the universe was under control and that we could appeal to those controlling it for a better outcome. That hope might be false but it still was a firewall against insanity.
Without science and without religion the world is terrifying.
“At the time of Christ we knew the earth was a sphere and approximately its size.”
Yes, I know the history of science and math fairly well. Someone knew that, a few enlightened brilliant someones, knew a bit about astronomy (and a bit about other sciences, among all the much larger number of things that they had radically and often fatally wrong). “We,” by which you most likely meant the general public at that time, did not know that the earth is a sphere and basically believed in witchcraft and other dangerous nonsense. Most of so called science outside math and engineering were rubbish until practically modern times. In fact modern science practically defines define modern times.
Dave, if I write a post that simply says
“I like Chocolate Ice Cream”
you will inevitably respond with 1 post that says that while you yourself never eat chocolate ice cream (or drink, or cuss, or make whoopee) you as a libertarian support my Right to eat chocolate ice cream. Followed by 6 more posts saying essentially that the spittle flinging loony left is trying to immorally regulate my unfettered right to eat chocolate ice cream and the rights of others to eat vanilla ice cream and trump is putting them in their place.
I would suggest a better look at history – both on this blog and of the world.
With respect to the blog – there are issues I have agreed with you on.
Sometimes I leave them alone.
Sometimes I respond “I like chocolate Ice Cream too”
But as you raised the issue:
I do like chocolate ice cream,
but I like fruit and chocolate bits ice creams more like Cherries Garcia, or raspberry chocolate chip.
I would hope that I would no have to say you are free to like and consume whatever ice cream you want or not.
But given that lefites such as yourself have actually tried to dictate the size of the soda’s we can consume, whether we can buy or sell lose cigarates, and whether and what kind of health insurance we must have – it unfortunately does not go without saying that we are all free to make our won choices regarding ice cream.
You can rant at me for making obvious statements regarding our free choices.
But you are your cronies have made it crystal clear – there is nothing that you are unwilling to interfere in. That despite your protestations to the contrary, that you beleive you can and ultimately may interfere in any free choice we make.
That there is no free choice that is obvious to you.
If you do not want constant observations that we are free to make this or that choice over things where that should be obvious, that is trivially accomplished – quit interfering with our obvious free choices.
You can start by repealing ObamaCare. Until you do I have no reason to beleive that you know or respect even obvious free choices.
“But given that lefites such as yourself have actually tried to dictate the size of the soda’s we can consume, ”
“But you are your cronies have made it crystal clear – there is nothing that you are unwilling to interfere in. ”
Logical fallacies.
Some nutty lefties somewhere trying to regulate the size of soda’s is no kind of evidence that I am with them. I am not. Fallacy first class,
Some lefty nuts in the Vermont legislature tried to pass a law years back that said that when its raining you have to turn your windshields wipers on. They got caught in the act and laughed out of politics even in lefty vermont. I was one who laughed hardest at them. I’ll bet one of them even remembers me and still has a sore butt.
Hanging every absurdity of any lefty, anywhere, on me personally is as valid as me accusing you of being just like the far righties in their pickup trucks who invaded some black child’s birthday party waving their shotguns and screaming racial insults and threats in Georgia. By your method, one only has to find the worst example and then say that all lefties, righties, libertarians etc. are just the same. That was you, Dave, dancing in your thong at the Libertarian convention. Anyhow, playing by your logic I get to do that.
In fact, that is a fallacy I avoid and use qualifiers extensively rather than blaming every bad action on the entire right, or libertarians, or whoever, as the case may be.
Again, a normal person here would merely say, Oooops, I fell from grace for a second there, I was wrong.
Were you wrong, Dave, to lump me in with all the truly loony lefties in the way that you did? If you admit guilt and error I will print it out and frame it.
I have bet myself a slice of apple pie with chocolate ice cream on my prediction of your answer to that question.
Roby;
I agree you probably do not support every single stupid thing the left has ever done.
My state has a law requiring windsheild wipers in the rain.
Vermont also tried to impose a Single payer Healthcare system.
Too bad that was not my point. My examples were not efforts to prove that everyone on the left supports ever stupid intrusive thing the left has ever done.
Regardless there is such a long list, you and I both know that I will not have any problem find some intrusive infringement on freedom that you support.
PPACA jumps right out. Are you disclaiming that you feel free to deprive others of the choice to get or not get health insurance ? To choose the the health insurance they want ?
At the core of this is that you do not believe in rights or individual liberty.
Even your counter argument: which is essentially I do not support imposing manditory soda size limits on people, first I do not really beleive you, but more important, the only reason you do not is because you believe that particular law is stupid, your argument is atbest – I do not support laws against 32oz soda’s – but maybe 64 or certainly 128,
no matter what there is some point at which you are prepared to say – that is too far,
people can not do that – for their own good.
The fact that you disagree with many of the stupid efforts of the left to infringe on the rights of others is not the point. The point is that you accept that you can infringe – when you do not think it is stupid to you.
A right is the right to do something stupid, even harmful to yourself.
You are not responsible for ever stupid law anyone on the left has tried to or worse succeeded in passing.
But I think you do owe an explanation of what principle you rely on to determine which infringements on the liberty of others you support and which you think are stupid.
I have poked and prodded and you have never provided that. It always rests on feelings.
No one in the entire state of New York – as well as many other states is permitted to sell loose cigarettes.
How many righties are doing donuts in pickups with shotguns at the birthparties of black kids ?
Further I know this is lost on you, but I am not on the right. I am not conservative.
I will defend conservatives (not conservatism) when they are right.
I will defend the left when it is right – I am a card carrying member of the ACLU – much of the time they are right.
In the past in particular, but even sometimes in the present – the right is a serious threat to individual liberty. When they are I stand in opposition.
I would hope by now everyone here knows much of the long list of right infringements on liberty I oppose.
I beleive at the moment the left is a greater threat to individual liberty than the right.
Both directly – in that the left does not see any right that it is not prepared to infringe on,
and indirectly – the failure of the left has a high probability of resulting in an authoritarian leader. (could be left or right)
Trump is just about the most benign authoritarian response you could get to left failure.
I do not want to see what happens if you fail again.
BTW do you have a cite for your pickup truck shotguns, Confederate flags, black child in Georgia rant ? Or is it hypothetical ?
The failures I have cited of the left are both very real, very common, and the consequence of the abuse of the force of government.
As bad as your counter might be if real, it is rare, and lawless.
My point is that you are gaming the law for your ends.
The counter would be showing the right getting requiring pickups to do donuts at the birthdays of black kids.
Roby;
I am not mostly at odds with you over who you blame for what.
To the extent I might disagree with you those differnces are fundimentally different.
I may argue them, but my big problem is not with who you blame for what.
it is what you wish to do to the rest of us by force.
You are continuing to sell this nonsense that I am obligated to tolerate your willingness to impose your views on others by force, because I accuse you of hypocracy on tolerance.
Tolerance STILL is not my principle – it is yours.
If you tell me that you have renounced the use of force through govenrment on others to impliment any of your ideas, without an open principled justification of that use of force,
then I will apologize.
Examples of others doing similiar stupid things to you – are just that, examples of the stupidity of the use of force to impose your views on others. They are not fallacy.
“The fact that you disagree with many of the stupid efforts of the left to infringe on the rights of others is not the point. The point is that you accept that you can infringe – when you do not think it is stupid to you.”
Dave you are at war with me (for 10 years now!) because I simply accept the very principle of laws, legislation, regulation. government. That is what makes me “the left” in your eyes. Almost everyone who is not an extreme libertarian “accepts that they can infringe.” Infringing to you means regulating, legislating, governing. I have no idea how you discern the left as being only 25% if the qualification is any sort of belief in regulation and the ability of government to do anything to improve the state of society. Its damned near everyone who accepts those things in some form. You were hard wired from birth not to accept any restrictions on your actions other than murder or theft. I accept that. I am glad that that is not a universal human character, because we would live in chaos if it were.
There is no one philosophical principle that explains or justifies government. You are looking for that one principle, I am not. Somehow you cannot fathom that I am not interested in the question that you are. I’ll rest on common sense and common decency and some respect for differences. You will find that mushy. But to you everyone other than your own fellow extreme libertarians is mushy so I have no idea why you have chosen to obsessively sink your teeth into my ass for ten years as if one day I am suddenly going to become an extreme libertarian or provide some principle or argument that changes your ideological polarity.
You will be forever poking me looking for me to come up with that principle, its a question that to me is extremely naive.
“Dave you are at war with me (for 10 years now!) because I simply accept the very principle of laws, legislation, regulation. government.”
Bzzt wrong.
You can not even state the principles of law, legislation, and govenrment.
Your argument is “it exists” therefore it is justified.
“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”
That is the foundational principle of government.
It is not one that you accept.
Government is not merely subordinate to but tasked SOLELY with securing our rights.
Our legislation may not grant power that government does not have, our law may not assume power that government does not have, our regulation may not assume power that government does not have.
The fact that our government has slowly grown out of its legitimate role does not change the principles that underpin the excercise of govenrment power.
I would love to engage you in an actual argument about the principle of
government law, legislation and regulation.
But you do not even know those of the left, that are easily falsified
much less able to make a real argument.
I have begged you for a decade for “principles”
Now you are talking about principles.
I have NEVER heard you offer a principle.
You do not know what a principle is.
There is no “infringing means to me”
A right is, or it is not. No means no! It does not mean No but really yes,
If something can be “infringed” on short of a compelling moral justification that force is necescary, that the infringement will be as small as possible and as neutral as possible,
Then it is not a right.
The question of improving society is a quesiton of principle, fact, and philosophy.
Anything beyond securing our natural rights fails ALL of these.
You can not say we agree that government can improve society – therefore it can do anything – if it says it is improving society. It must apriori PROVE that it can do so – and such proof is both logically impossible and historically impossible.
You say people accept those in some form.
No actually they do not – not that it is relevant. Most people do not think about those issues. And as Mill noted those representative government was born of the infringement on our rights of monarchs, no form of government is more destructive of rights than democracy. Kings need to take care about infringing on the rights of citizens lest they revolt – it is easy to identify the source of tyrany in a monarchy. In a democracy it is trivial to find a majority willing to busybody in the affairs of their neighbors, it is an attribute of human nature. those of us who can not manage our own affairs are certain we can manage those of everyone else.
Regardless, BY DEFINITION a right is something that you have securely even if the majority prefers otherwise.
You are just spraying majoritarian nonsense.
We learned that democracy is despotic 2 millenia ago.
I noted in a recent post that the birth of the western principle of religious toleration were in Germany in I beleive the 1500’s.
But the issue is far broader than religion. It applies to all rights.
The respect for the right to religious freedom of others came about because the efforts of religious majorities to impose their will on minorities resulted in nearly a century of continuous war. Eventually as a result of exhaustion – not acceptance people came to accept that tolerating the religious rights of others was better than eternal warfare.
This concept is not limited to religion. It is also why the US 2nd amendment is so important. As Mao said all power flows from the power of a gun.
There are only very narrow circumstances under which we can infringe on individual rights without making “society” worse rather than better. We have spent about 7 millenia learning those. This stuff is not secret.
The fact that we have to keep relearning history over and over does not make its truths any less.
We already live in chaos. That is the fact of human life. It is scary, the future is only marginally inside our control. In fact that chaos you fear is where our better future is created. Again historically control planning of all forms fails – much of the time it litterally fails – as we are seeing in venezeula and Cuba and the DPRK, others is just substantially underperforms more limited government, greater “chaos” and greater individual liberty.
Further central planning begets ever more central planning. Power demands more power.
It is easy to promise great things if given power – politicians have been doing it for all human history. They have also universally failed.
But then each generation brings a new crop of guible. You have not made any argument that has not been disproven – logically, philosophically, morally, and historically again and again. But you persist.
There is no one principle that justifies govenrment ?
You have not offered any ?
Give me 10 principles – but actual principles, not values.
BTW I can do it is ONE. No man may use force to make another serve him.
You can get the entire social contract, all justifiable law from that ONE principle.
It is quite simple and we all understand it.
You claim that most people support government as we have it now – as a question of popularity that is probably true.
But if you ask people “may force be used to make others do X” you will find that support tanks – even for things that were popular.
An incredible amount depends on how you ask the question.
Just as with PPACA – I beleive 80% of people support insurance covering pre-existing conditions. But ask if they will pay – even a little to provide pre-existing coverage to others and barely 20% still support it.
We can not easily determine peoples values by what they say.
We find them only when we see their choices in an environment where they can choose freely.
No one has ever said you must be interested in the same questions I am.
That does not alter the fact that you can not initiate force against others without justification.
Not being interested in that quesiton does not circumvent the moral hurdle.
Southern slave owners were not interested in questions about the rights of negros.
Their lack of interest did not make slavery moral.
You can persue whatever you want – when you are not using or advocating for the initiation of force against others. The scope of your freedom to beleive and act as you wish is enormous.
“Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.”
“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”
J.S. Mill
The first law was “hurt no man” and the second was “then do as you please”.
“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.”
A principle has to atleast be nearly universally understandable, if not agreed upon.
Liberty is pretty clear. Whatever grey areas it has are incredibly narrow. We can argue about those and still have an 99.9999% concensus.
I’ll rest on common sense
Do you know what common sense is ?
I can not define it unambiguously – you and I are unlikely to agree.
So you want to found society and government on something you think is a principle that you would be lucky to get two out of a hundred to agree on.
common decency
Same argument as common sense.
respect for differences.
Same argument as common sense.
I almost certainly agree with you that common sense, common decency and respect for differences are shared values.
But they are not principles, and despite the word common – their meaning is not common.
As usual – mush.
So you want to justify the use of force against others on this ?
Can you understand why I can not take you seriously ?
Why I can not treat your views with any respect ?
Why I find them immoral ?
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
When you discuss government, we are talking about the use of force.
If you duck that, you are immoral.
I think it is universally agreed that we can not intitiate force against others without justification.
If you discuss government while eliding the fact that you are discussing the use of force you are immoral. That should not be so hard to understand or agree to.
Whether you want to discuss that question – it is still there.
When you avoid it – you rapidly join slave owners and the genocidal.
You can not elide questions about the use of force against the life or liberty of others, because they do not interest you.
I sink my teeth into your ass as you say – because you make it easy.
You are so devoid of principles and so self-contradictory in your values, that I can take nearly anything you say and trivially shift it to whatever I want to argue.
This is a natural consequence of the fact that your views are illogical.
I have given you one simple principle from which you can derive the entire social contract than the justification and limits for government.
It is a principle that I think atleast 90% of us would agree on.
Even if we ignore it in practice.
It is one I think you agree with.
I do not care whether you have one principle or 10.
I do not care if you start with one that you do not presume is complete – so long as it is actually a principle.
BTW the principle I have offered – whether framed as the libertarian non-agression principle, or the principle of equal freedom or of doing no harm, absolutely pervades nearly all western philosophy from Hamurabi through to Kant.
We can debate the differences between permutations.
or whether there are exceptions, but almost no serious thinker outside the post modernists that are the intellectual foundation of the left, do not accept some form of it.
“WASHINGTON — The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded by a major Republican donor, first hired the research firm that months later produced for Democrats the salacious dossier describing ties between Donald J. Trump and the Russian government, the website said on Friday.
The Free Beacon, funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, hired the firm, Fusion GPS, in 2015 to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.”
Great, you appear to have confirmed something that has been strongly rumoured for a while.
Democrats and Hillary still have an insermountable problem.
About the time the Free Beacon dropped the Dossier,
there is increasingly strong evidence that the DNC and Clinton campaign picked it up.
And no matter what someone picked it up – otherwise we never would have heard of it.
I do not personally have a problem with the Free Beacon paying Fusion GPS to uses russian agents do candidate research.
I do not have a problem with the DNC or the Clinton campaign doing so – though I beleive that is actually illegal.
Regardless, you can not get Trump for “collusion” with Russians, when Clinton’s involvement with the russians was prior, proactive and larger.
Frankly, you can not get Trump for it at all. Because even if Trump had hired Russian agents to do OPO research on Clinton – and Clinton had somehow been pure as snow.
This is at most an issue for voters.
The anti-Trump argument is not really about Russian collusion.
It is a claim that voters are stupid, and were deceived into electing Trump.
I absolutely think that anyone who voted for Sanders as an example is stupid and deceived. Socialism is so thoroughly refuted in theory and in practice.
But that stupidity and deception does not alter the fact that Sanders voters voted for Sanders.
If you wish to claim that Voters must be protected from decption – who gets to decide what constitutes deception. You and I certain do not agree.
“About the time the Free Beacon dropped the Dossier,
there is increasingly strong evidence that the DNC and Clinton campaign picked it up.”
Let me help you – you have a propensity for bolloxing up facts and time lines and sources.
There was no Dossier until AFTER the Republicans who initiated the investigation to find negative info about tRUMP and other Republicans running for president dropped it when DouchieDonald looked like he was going to win the nomination.
Then the Dems stepped in. AFTER that, Steele was hired- after the Democratic National Committee had been hacked and its emails began to be published online by Wikileaks!
Fusion GPS retained Steele, not the Dems. He is BRITISH, Not Russian. The Dems didn’t hire Russians to get negative info on tRUMP. They hired an American firm, Fusion GPS which was founded by former investigative reporters and journalists from the Wall Street Journal. There is NO EVIDENCE they were paid by or paid money to Russia to manufacture false info about tRUMP. And in fact the Dossier paints Clinton in uncomplimentary terms.
Let me help you – the purported time frame the DNC stepped in was May,
It is probably that the DNC was hacked as early as June 2015 or possibly even before.
But there was very little activity until June 2016.
That still leaves several issues regarding the DNC.
The probability the Wikileaks files came from the Hack – rather than the leaks is very low.
The probability the DNC hack originated in Russia is now very low.
Wikileaks PUBLISHED the DNC emails in late July 2016.
The DNC and Clinton campaign hired and paid FusionGPS.
Steele is a foriegn national. There is no special campaign law exclusion for Brits.
Nor can you circumvent the pretty much never enforced law that you are relying on to get Trump by going through intermediaries. Presumably you have heard of “conspiracy”,
that tends to be what it is called when you hire someone else to do the dirty work.
You are still responsible.
Steele STILL sourced the document from Russian intelligence agents.
Bottom line you STILL have Clinton colluding with foreign powers to get Dirt on Trump.
There is little evidence regarding what Fusion did because they are stonewalling congressional subpeona’s.
Regardless, money is only evidence. It is one form of proof of the Crime.
Trump did not pay Natalia, Natalia did not Pay Trump.
Natialia did not provide information that Trump used.
Clinton and the DNC did pay FusionGPS – once they did so, they own the the actions.
Or are you saying that Clinton thought she got fake Dirt on Trumps dealings in Russian from google searches by former WSJ reporters ?
I can not beleive even you are this obtuse.
I really do not care that Clinton was involved in the Steele Dossier.
I do not care if Clinton asked Putin personally to dig up dirt on Trump.
I think the law making that a crime is likely unconstitutional – which is why it has never been enforced.
But I do find it ludictous that you are desparate to impeach Trump for something that did not violate the law, when Clinton quite clearly did violate the same law.
It is called hypocrisy on a grand scale.
It means you have no integrity and no ability to think outside your own ideological bubble.
If you want to fry Trump for this – fine – change the constitution pass a law with teeth.
But quit wailing and spewing spittle until you do.
And expect me to oppose your law and constitutional amendment – because they are STUPID. It does not matter whether we are talking Clinton or Trump or Obama or ….
It is ludicrously stupid to make it illegal to get OPO research from foreigners.
Where do you expect to get OPO research about the foreign activities of US citizens ?
If is was public knowledge you would not need to do OPO research.
If either Clinton or Trump had really done something nefarious in Russia – do you want discovering that to be completely off limits – because their oponents can not hire foreign nationals to do OPO research ?
Or is your idea, that it is legal if you conspire with former journalists to do research with foreign agents, but not if you do it with a foriegn lawyer on an OBAMA issued US visa in New York accompanied by an american with no money exchanged and no useful dirt exchanged.
BTW by the actual timeline, it is pretty much impossible for Trump to have had anything to do with the DNC hack. Atleast not related to the meeting with Natalia.
Though the wikileaks data had not been released yet, it had already been gathered prior to the meeting.
I will mention that anyone trying to negotiate this site in the era of 1000 fatburgers might like my trick: I use the Find function in Chrome (click on the three vertical dots at the upper right corner, its on of the choices there) and search for the day’s date. One then can scroll through the posts of the day and not all 1000 fatburgers. You have to already be Inside the present topic to do that.
This is only a slight tangent; Here is a message that all of us here can probably represent:
https://wetheclassic.com/old-fart-action-figure?s=hanes-5250&c=Black&p=FRONT
Most every email program has some means to create rules that drive actions.
ShouId I ever decide I have no interest in your posts, a simple email rule to delete all inbound email from TNM that had “roby” as the first word in the body of the message would accomplish that.
The left is jumping up and down spewing spittle over some tiny bit of political advocacy by russia on social media. Most of which was in support of left causes.
Prior to this Facebook, Youtube, Twitter had already engaged badly in private censorship.
Our legislators – particularly democrats have threatened Social Media with regulation if the do not “clean up their act”.
The left had gone equally appoplectic over Trump’s empty threat’s to pull FCC licenses of critical media.
It is wrong for government to censor. It is wrong whether it is censor the truth or lies.
It is wrong whether that censorship is of political speach or any other form of speach.
It is wrong for government to threaten censorship. It is wrong whether it is threatening to censor the truth or lies. It is wrong for anyone within government to make such threats.
But it is MORE wrong dependent on ones ability to carry those threats out.
The left sees the presidents threats as more serious. This is an artifact of the fact that they see the presidency as omnipotent. When President Obama could not get congress to pass the legislation he wanted, he used “the pen and the phone” and did as he pleased.
That is unconstitutional, that is lawless, and that is wrong. The president is responsible to faithfully execute the constitution and the law. Not to write it.
Trump should not be threatening pulling FCC licenses. But ultimately that threat is either to enforce actual laws that congress has written and is therefore responsible for, or the threat is impotent.
The threat of congress to censor social media is chilling and unconstitutional prior restraint. It is not merely wrong it attacks very near the core of or system of values.
Free speech – particularly political speech is the foundation of western liberalism.
Even the 2nd amendment argument for firearms is ultimately an argument that the threat of force by the people is necessary to protect the right of free speach from a totalitarian government.
While govenrment may not censor, private censorship is a right.
It is also a responsibility.
Further government can not use force against private actors to compel or coerce them to do what it can not do itself.
With respect to the actual censorship by social media – there has been rumbling for quite some time that Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, often silently censor with evident ideological bias. Congress is now demanding that they do more.
Further the errors that occur as a consequence of their censorship are pervasive.
Efforts to censor so called “fake news” are supresing stories of violence in myanmar.
The negative and often ridiculous consequences of these attempts by social media to censor make crystal clear – that public or private efforts to “regulate” are doomed to failure and idiotic unforeseen consequences.
Trying to curate Nazi’s for facebook results in culling a significant portion of the protests against nazi’s and fascism.
Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube are far too big to censor using human discernment – even if we could agree on what should and should not be censored, we could not implimnet it.
Automated systems are not even close to capable of the required understanding and judgement. Human resources are insufficient – and even humans either through bias or incompetence make such large numbers of errors as to make the entire system impractical.
While I am making an argument about censorship – this applies to all forms of regulation.
But there is a fundimental differnce between government regulation and market self regulation. When the market attempts to self regulate something that is inherently unregulatable – such as speach, the failures become self evident, and the market responds. That response may be quick or it may take time, but market inefficiencies are eventually self purged.
Bad government regulation is almost never adjusted or purged.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/10/27/facebook-censored-cross-your-countrys-government-and-they-might-censor-you-too-james-bovard-column/795271001/
This is an excellent analysis of the Virginia Governors race and the problems for Democrats as a whole.
Gillespie is the moderate republican that most everyone here claims to want.
Northam is the moderate democrat that most everyone here claims to want.
Yet, both candidates in this election are being wedged – both by their opponents and by their own party towards “the extremes”.
Further that shift is more harmful to democrats than republicans.
Gillespie can make inroads using several of Trumps populist agenda items,
because you do not need to want to build a will and deport everyone to grasp we have an immigration problem, and that democrats have no intention of doing anything – not even something moderate about it.
Put slightly differently the democratic “base” – that is not the majority of democrats, but it is those who can typically de energized into voting, are way to the left of the democratic party, and they are intolerant of moderates and willing to see republicans win rather than put a moderate democrat into power.
While moderate republicans have sufficient ideological latitude to appeal the the republican base.
This is also a reflection of the failed binary nature of identity politics.
It is nearly impossible to refute the claim that racism exists in the US.
Racism is not binary. All of us are to some extent racist.
But we are some more and some less, and ultimately very few of us are steeped heavily in racism. Even Richard Spensor and his cohorts are deeply wrong, but they are not all that far from where the typical southern democrats was a generation ago.
Only the most extreme fringe of the most extreme fringe is actually talking about returning to the law and policies of the 60’s much less the 20’s.
The proponents of identity politics do not get this.
You can shout hateful hating haters all you want. But there are not that many richard spensors, and nearly all of us grasp he is pretty inconsequential.
He is far more likely to be a victim of violence than a perpatrator of it.
So if Richard Spensor is not the threat so large it consumes all the air in left politics, then who it ? Ordinary people look arround and far too easily conclude – “they mean me”.
Calling ordinary people racists is not the way to win elections – even if all of us are a tiny bit racist.
This is exactly the same issue as that of immigration.
I am possibly the strongest advocare of open borders here.
But even I am not so stupid as to beleive there should be no laws at all.
Or no enforcement of they laws that exist.
We must decide as a country – through our federal government where we are regarding immigration. We do not have to “build a wall”. We can support the principle that we must have enforced rules without agreeing with the most xenophobic.
The democratic party has made itself not the party that is immigrant friendly. But the party that favors lawlessness on immigration.
Gillespie does not have to agree with Trump to use a huge Trump issue as a wedge against even moderate democrats, because democrats have made themselves the party of lawlessness on this issue. And almost no one wants that. h
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/27/virginia-governors-race-exposed-big-immigration-problem-democrats/
Al the recent hoopla about Clinton emails-Uranium Deal-Dossier Sponsorship from Trump/Fox News sources (old regurgitated news) was to deflect from Mueller’s investigation into tRUMP and his underlings and family – the fruits of that investigation now ripening with charges filed and arrest(s) scheduled for Monday.
So now the focus is to further disparage Mueller to justify Trump firing him. That is certain to happen if one of those charged is tRUMPs son in law; though more likely it will be Manafort for money laundering.
And if Republicans in Congress align with tTRUMP’s removal of Mueller (I’m betting that will happen) it will be the end of government by law we have cherished as sacrosanct.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/924093844446220290
Are you sane ?
You are arguing that facts hitherto unknown miraculously emerged at precisely this moment to poison the well for Mueller ?
If there is some vast conspiracy at work, why didn’t all this get revealed earlier ?
Do you think that either Trump, Trump supporters or really any of us wanted to go through the hell that the media and the left has driven us through – if that would have been prevented by revealing what has come out recently ?
Do you even think Mueller could have been appointed, had we known the role, Mueller played in the Clinton investigation ?
Do you think Rosenstein would have been able to name a special prosecutor had his role been known ?
Do you think there would have been sufficient political support for an investigation had All of Hillaries dirty dealings been known.
The facts are exactly the opposite of your argument.
I am highly dubious of Claims about the Mueller investigation.
These have proved to mostly be wrong.
Maybe your current gossip will be one of the few that is not.
Regardless, unless Mueller is indicting half the DNC, and Fusion GPS, he had better have Putin and Trump on tape plotting together, because otherwise he is going to fizzle and come accross as inept.
We shall see what happens Monday.
But I would conside the possiblity that the gossip is more an effort to salvage the investigation.
It is increasingly evident that there is nothing to investigate, and that those doing the investigation have far too much appearance of impropriety to be investigating.
“Are you sane?”
My, was that an ad hominem attack on Jay? I believe it was!
Insanity! Shades of the Stalinists! Next you will suggest that he should be in an asylum (a nice libertarian one)! Differing opinions get labelled insane in your tolerant world! Or, belief in anthropogenic climate change in your own words is “proof of mental retardation,” whereas merely factually noting that trump and some in the GOP seem to want to fire Mueller is grounds for questioning Jay’s sanity.
We spittley lefties, insane, mentally retarded. Welcome to Dave’s world, where ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies (other than when Dave uses them, which he never does, as seen by the fact that he will tell you earnestly that he doesn’t.)
You are not actually the most tolerant person of other opinions or points of view Dave. Or the most logical and fallacy free.
Now, a normal person here would say, “ooops, I had a little lapse. er, sorry about that.”
Roby,
It was a very honest question. Jay’s argument requires beleiving:
That some cabal on the right refused to reveal damaging facts about Mueller, Rosenstein and Clinton for months, and are revealing them now in order to justify firing Mueller when had they used them earlier they could have entirely avoided Mueller’s appointment.
Or that the stories about the Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein FBI investigation of Russian efforts to compromise americans – including Clinton, are all made up.
And that is despite the fact that many elements of that story can be corroborated by facts.
Do you think that either of those beleifs are those of a sane person ?
Maybe posing the question after the argument as above will make it more clear ?
Roby
“Insanity! Shades of the Stalinists! Next you will suggest that he should be in an asylum (a nice libertarian one)! Differing opinions get labelled insane in your tolerant world! Or, belief in anthropogenic climate change in your own words is “proof of mental retardation,” whereas merely factually noting that trump and some in the GOP seem to want to fire Mueller is grounds for questioning Jay’s sanity.”
We have been over all this ground before.
Calling something an opinion – does not make it equal to all other opinions.
It does not make it a “sane” opinion. It does not make disagreement a mere “difference of opinion”.
How many times are you going to retread this argument ?
If I say “We should eat babies” and you say “We should each vegetables” – that is a difference of opinion. Are both opinions of equal merit ?
Even in a tolerant world some opinions are not sane.
Next,
Your back to pretending to be able to read minds.
Given you can not understand my words, that is a remarkable feat.
I have said nothing of asylums. That is an enormous topic and to my knowledge we have never discussed it at all. But somehow you know what I think.
“Or, belief in anthropogenic climate change in your own words is “proof of mental retardation,””
Take note of YOUR word – belief. Science is not about belief. In science you can prove things or you can not. What requires belief is religion.
There is no evidence regarding CAGW that comes close to the scientific standard for proof.
Climate change is something entirely different and has been ongoing for all of the earth’s approx 4B years of existence. The deliberate obfuscation of the subject of the debate using euphemisms demonstrates we are discussing religion.
I do not care whether you “beleive” in CAGW. Belief in CAGW might be irrational, but it is not a demonstration of mental defect.
The pretense that it is science is. Science – beleif, entirely different things.
I know some smart people with some very odd beliefs.
But wrapping in the mantle of science something that is not proven and is merely a matter of belief is self evident proof off a deep misunderstanding of science.
Given this belief is shared by alot of scientists and academics – yes that seriously calls into question their mental accuity.
Saying some in the GOP want to fire Mueller is stating a tautology.
Positing a conspiracy that requires the conspirators to act severely contrary to their own interests is not.
I have no disagreement that this information will provoke more discussion of firing Mueller.
Mueller resigning or being fired is the most rational response to these revaliations.
I do not think – for political rather than ethical reasons this will occur.
But “belief” this information will energize those who want to fire Mueller, and Rosenstein is accurate.
But Jay went way beyond that and positied a conspiracy.
This information did not finally get wrestled into public now after months of prying according to Jay. It came to the fore now as part of a planned conspiracy to discredit Mueller.
Do you beleive that some on the right had this information for months and put the president and the nation through hell, in order to spring it on Mueller at time that is inarguably worse than using it earler to prevent the entire investigation in the first place ?
If you do, then I question your sanity too.
There are alot of people out to get Mueller.
The fact that people are out to get you, does not make the evidence against you corrupt.
That is like saying that because the police seek to arrest criminals, that we must discount all evidence provided by police.
“We spittley lefties, insane, mentally retarded. Welcome to Dave’s world,”
I have never denied using adjectives.
As I asked you before – if you remove the superlatives – is there an argument remaining.
And there is. We have wasted the time of the nation for almost a year on a snipe hunt.
That is increasingly self evident.
As to “spittley lefties”
Are you on the left ? I think that is inarguable.
“spittley” is barely hyperbole, and in many instances it is not.
I have already addressed “insane” in another post.
All opinions are not equal and some can accurately be described as insane.
The ability to reason logically is a major component of IQ.
Those unable to do so – such as those who confuse belief with science, would be mentally deficient.
All insults are not ad hominem – it is not an insult to call and actual rabid dog, a rabid dog – that presuposes that is an evidence based conclusion.
You seem to think that any reasoned logical conclusion is ad hominem
BTW there is a fallacy in all of this – that is concluding there is a conspiracy absent any evidence.
“You are not actually the most tolerant person of other opinions or points of view Dave. ”
I have not claimed to be tolerant – that is your hypocracy not mine.
I am intolerant of poor reasoning.
I am intolerant of those who seek to impose their will on others by force.
My criticising your for not living up to your own values, does not mean I share those values.
Tolerance is a value, it is subordinate to myriads of other values.
I do not tolerate murder
I do not tolerate genocide.
I do not tolerate those who preach tolerance while spewing hate for those who disagree with them.
Tolerance is not a principle for me. You chose it as a principle for yourself and fail to live up to it.
“Now, a normal person here would say, “ooops, I had a little lapse. er, sorry about that.””
No lapse.
Have I tried to hide the fact that I beleive your values are morally repugnant, and inflict misery, pain and suffering on the very people you claim you seek to help ? That I think the evidence of that is so compelling that claims of good intentions are like drunks claiming they did not intend to run over that pedestrian ?
Let me shift this to the identity politics debate.
I am constantly beating on the left identifying half the country as “hateful hating haters”
And noting that when you do so – they hate you back.
If half the country really were “hateful hating haters” saying so would be a politically unwise choice. but it would be morally correct.
If you were specifically talking about say “Richard Spenser” or the actual KKK, few of us would get offended.
There is nothing wrong with noting that people who are actually hateful are hateful.
But when you make such a claim and are wrong it is your reputation and integrity that are in question.
I do nto think you intend to hold views that are in actuality morally repugnant and destructive.
I do think you are negligent in the same way that drunk drivers are.
You are doing something that feels good, but seeking to escape responsibility for the actual harm it causes others.
If I met you for breakfast and we started into this type of discussion, I would pull my punches. I am very easy going in person. I have very close friends that share your views.
I would also suggest to you this is extremely common. Those on the left can go anywhere and feel free to spray their nonsense, and not expect to be challenged. They demand not merely tolerance but silent acceptance from the rest of us.
Most everywhere you go, if you express your views – everyone else is expected to either agree or be silent. You do not even consider the self evident fact that most of the country does not share your views. Worse should you speak your mind – which those on the left typically do from some false sense of moral superiority, if anyone challenges you – THEY are intolerant – as well as evil.
The rest of the world is expected to accommodate you.
On the internet – that is not true.
In the voting booth – that is not true.
So to summarize. I am not tolerant of some things.
I do not pretend to be. There is no hypocrisy in my intolerance.
Those subject to it have earned it.
Dave,
Your words today:
“I do not care whether you “beleive” in CAGW. Belief in CAGW might be irrational, but it is not a demonstration of mental defect.”
Your words in a post last month:
“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.”
That is ad hominem. Just as asking Jay if he is sane is ad hominem. Its an attack on the person, not the issue. Period.
I use ad hominem in my posts, sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on my frustration level. I won’t pretend I don’t. Its not my best attribute, but…I’m human.
You on the other hand use ad hominem quite often and will not admit it but will be gleeful to ding others for using it.
That is hypocrisy.
It also brings up the issue that you just can’t “I was wrong” and move on.
I find your constant rude comments about the left, inclusive, it could be me, Mao, or my mother, there is for you just one left without any distinction between us, to be insulting. As was your scatelogical rant a bit back, which was also rude and in error by your own standards that you do not uphold, and not conducive to an adult level discussion of events.
You do anything but just admit to it and move on from there. Jay is not insane, I am not retarded, the left is not all hell bent on telling people how much soda they can drink.
Those are logical fallacies and you repeat them ad nauseum.
Flat Earth theory is for me today a litmus test of whether you are retarded or not. Regardless of how well educated you are.
Is that “ad hominem” ?
If not then neither is my remark.
Is it ad hominem to ask someone who believes that 9/11 was a jewish conspiracy if they are sane ?
Please look up ad hominem and fallacies in general.
Stating that belief in something not supported by evidence is stupid – is not fallacy or ad hominem.
All insults are not ad hominem, all ad hominem is not fallacy,
You do not typically make arguments, particularly when I call you out for ad hominem.
“You are stupid” absent much of anything else would be ad hominem.
Also I would note I ASKED Jay if he was sane.
Possibly hyperbole, not ad hominem.
You seem to think you have sunk your teeth into some hypocrisy, merely because I find JAYS argument particularly implausible, and my criticism includes hyperbole.
Lets try a different approach.
An argument of the form:
IF you beleive in something that is self evidently stupid
you are stupid.
Is definitely an insult.
It is not ad hominem,
and it is actually a valid argument. IF the something really is self evidently stupid.
With respect to your CAGW example
While I think my original statement is sufficiently clear,
there is a small amount of ambiguity.
If you beleive in CAGW you are a moron
could possibly be ad hominem.
Because the issue is BELIEF.
All beliefs are not equal and some actually are stupid and CAGW might reach that level.
If you offer CAGW as science you are a moron,
might be hyperbolic, it is not ad hominem, it is a deserved insult.
CAGW is not science. There is no experimental proof.
There is poor correlation that is about it.
Ad hominem is not argument.
It is free speach.
You use ad hominem alot.
I respond by discounting it as argument.
If it vents your frustrations – that is your business.
But it does not lead to conclusions about truth.
I do not use ad hominem much. Your purported examples are not.
But I do quite often lace my arguments with hyperbole and adjectives.
That is not an effective means of arguing, but it is effective at making me feel better.
Regardless as I have noted to you – strip out the adjectives – is there still an argument left ? If yes, it is just hyperbole, if no it is either nonsense or possibly ad hominem.
Equally important, I really do think that your world view is destructive and immoral, and you are at the very best niave in beleiving it. That working towards implimenting it is immoral, that at the very least your culpability is like that of the drunk that killed a pedestrian. They did not do so deliberately, but they still are culpable.
And yes, I do get angry about that. When you foist sugar coated arsenic on others by force, you are culpable. No amount of sugar will fix that. No amount of good you think you might do makes up for the harm that you do cause.
Roby
I would suggest reading George Orwells rules for writing.
That will likely give you some clue as to why you think my comments are rude.
I state things. I do not wrap them in mealy mouthed disclaimers.
There is no need to frame statements with mealy mouthed disclaimers like
I think, I beleive or water down what you say in other ways.
Facts are facts, opinions are opinions, when you say something that is not a fact it is self evidently an opinion.
Further, I confront you in much the way you confront the rest of the world.
You claim the moral high ground, and I take it from you – it is not yours.
I force you to defend it – which you can’t, or to know me off, which you cant;.
That is not rude that is argument, and your problem is in the weakness in your arguments.
The left is intellectually weak for many reasons.
Among them because you live in a bubble. You are not used to credible challenges to your views. Even conservatives are less cloistered than those on the left.
This is what happens when you all live together in cultures devoid of dissent.
All you hear is permutations of your own views. You lose the ability to think critically.
Further, even in areas where the left does not dominate – they still often dominate the converstation. Leftists are like christian evangelicals, they must push their POV where ever they are, even if they are in a minority. I went to school in a community I thought was nearly all mennonites. I did data analysis of a survey of the entire school in my junior year and discovered that evangelical christians, menonites etc. made up only about 10% of the class. That 35% of my class was catholic, that there were more lutherans than evangelicals. Why ? Because the evangelicals dominate the discussion and no one is willing to challenge them or own up to believing something different.
Progressives are exactly the same. Conservatives tend not to discuss political issues unless they are reasonably sure the overwhelming majority of people present agree.
Contra the left, business people – particularly small business people rarely ever talk politics – even in friendly groups. They can mutter a bit about taxes too high and too much regulation – but no matter what they beleive most will not talk much more.
Why ? Because a business person is dead if they alienate 2% of their customers – and these guys know it. Those on the left almost never have roles where expressing their POV puts them at risk. They work in academia, government or they are just somebodies employees. They do not have to do something where expressing their POV will hurt them.
The gist, most everyone but lefties is relatively quite about politics – except in venues where it is safe – like on the internet under a pseudonym.
The consequence is those on the left do not get their POV challenged.
Read John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” – that makes you weak. Even if by some freak you were right about something – you are clueless about arguing it.
This is also evident here. You do not know what you believe. There is no intellectual moral or philosophical foundation for your beliefs.
It is likely that I know and have read many times more about the intellectual, moral and philosophical underpinnings of modern leftism than you have.
Your ignorance of the underpinnings of your own views allows you to disclaim them when they are discredited. But your lack of knowledge of the foundations of progressivism or your view that you are different from those progressive banning sugary drinks does not really divorce you from them. The immorality of your views does not disipate because you are ignorant of it. the fact that those lefties you divorce yourself from are carrying the same philosophy underpinning your values to its logical conclusions does not really separate you from them. Most germans did not know that Hilter was exterminating millions of jews.
They were still either antisemites or unwilling to speak out. They were culpable, if not equally culpable, and the extermination of jews was the logical end to the beleifs they held – whether they thought that through or not.
If you and I somehow accidentally met at a Resturant in Albany without knowing each other. You would likely eventually start saying much of what you say here.
But I would not. I would be friendly, and amiable, and though I would argue with you – I would pull my punches and focus more on what we agreed on or moving you some tiny amount.
How do I know that ? because that is the reality of my life off the internet, at work, at churches, in all but a few “safe spaces”. I live in a conservative community. Yet even here the left dominates the discussion of politics.
No my actual use of ad hominem rare or otherwise. is not “hypocrisy”
all hat no cattle, does not mean everyone wearing a 10gal hat is a fraud.
Ad hominem + argument – is still argument
Ad hominem alone is not.
You do not make arguments.
You are all hat no cattle.
If the hat is ad homimen, I have a big ranch to go with the hat.
That is not hypocrisy.
Wow, the Trump shitting in your cathederal remark still has you going.
It is scatelogical. I do not know whether it is rude – nor do I care much.
But it is also true. The entire left is appoplectic and bonkers because Trump is shitting in your church. This is also true in the broader sense of why the outrage over Milo, or Anne or Ben speaking at colleges.
The heretics are defiling the church (is that less rude or scatelogical)
The important point – which you are so missing, meaning that you are so completely unaware of your self. is that you are engaged in a religious food fight with Trump and others. You are appoplectic because your religion is getting insulted.
It is no different from muslims whigging out over Charlie Hebdo cartons of Mohammed.
You do not even realize you have become a cult.
You do not even grasp this is not about me at all.
I am not what is rude. I am not what is upsetting you.
It is the insult Trump and others are making to your cult that is offending you.
“As was your scatelogical rant a bit back, which was also rude and in error by your own standards that you do not uphold, and not conducive to an adult level discussion of events.”
Back reading my mind badly again.
Would it help if instead of saying “ad hominem” I responded to non-arguments with
“where is the beaf” or “all hat no cattle”
I do not care if you passionately defend your position.
Nor have I ever said that liberatarians do not argue with passion and emotion.
I have already had this debate with Prof. Haidt years ago and he revised his assessment of libertarains as a result.
We are not absent empathy – I have very strong emotions, quite often those I am arguing with can only read the emotional component of what I say or write.
What distinguishes libertarians is not some lack of emotion or flat affect,
it is that we will not use force or make choices for other based on emotion.
The use of force, or the imposition of your will on another requires a rigoruous intellectual justification – a compelling argument with a strong moral foundation – and do not confuse morality with emotion.
facts, logic, reason can be accompanied by powerful emotion.
But those specific decisions must be made based solely on the facts logic and reason.
I do not care how much emotion you lace your arguments with.
But you do not make arguments.
Pointing out your logical fallacies is just saying.
Where is the beef.
It is not what you say that is the problem, it is what you do not say.
You seek to justify the use of force without facts, logic and reason.
You can add as many other toppings as you want to your sunday.
After the ice cream.
I did not say “Jay your insane”.
I said “are you sane ? Because you are making an argument that is not”
Do I sprinkle my arguments with hyperobole ? Often and gleefully.
But strip out the hyperbole and there is still a valid argument.
Do I had ad hominem to some of my arguments ?
I do not think you have come up with a valid example yet,
regardless, I likely have. It is still in addition to the argument.
As to “admissions” – what are we doing maoist self criticisms ?
My remarks speak for themselves. They are what they are.
How is admitting that I said what I said meaningful ?
I am not denying anything I have said.
Though it is quite common for you to read well past what I said into what you presume I think, or to just plain get the clear meaning of what I say wrong.
If you argue that CAGW is proven science – I seriously question your intelligence.
You can “beleive” whatever you want. Belifs are not science.
The left is inarguably hell bent on telling all of us how we must live.
Only some of you want to dictate our soda habits,
But PPACA passed with the support of most of you.
You are prepared to tell nuns they must pay for birth control or get out of charity.
You are prepared to tell everyone that they must buy health insurance and severely limit their choices of health insurance, and dictate what that health insurance must cover.
How is that fundimentally different from dictateing how much soda people can drink ?
I can not think of a disagreement that you and I have ever, that is not about you telling others how they must live their lives – for their own good.
“If you offer CAGW as science you are a moron,
might be hyperbolic, it is not ad hominem, it is a deserved insult.”
First, whatever happened to you statement of just an hour or so ago that: “I do not care whether you “beleive” in CAGW. Belief in CAGW might be irrational, but it is not a demonstration of mental defect.” ?
But more importantly, this is just the millionth case of Dave is never wrong. There is always a loophole for Dave. By your logic, every remark I have ever made about you and your thought process also falls under the same loophole, not ad hominem because it was deserved. You can’t have your cake and eat too. But, as sure as the sun rises in the east, you will claim that you can.
Many times you have made statements along the lines of “if I am in error, show me.” This is what happens when someone takes you up on that offer seriously, you try to lawyer your way out and find the Dave loophole that lets you be as insulting as you wish while claiming that people like Jay and myself are committing fallacies.
Its a fail Dave, in my eyes, just means that a debate with Dave is never going to be the real honest deal. And, in my opinion this kind of dishonest thought process is exactly how one gets to be, in your own words “An extreme Libertarian” or an extreme anything.
OK, I have made my point. You have not evaded your consequences. Go sit in the corner and write “Regulation is good” 1000 times on the head of a pin. It would have been easier just to say “Ooooops”, for once.
If I post again before Rick does may my guitar strings all rust and my violin bows all need to be rehaired at once.
I have made two CAREFUL statements.
They are DELIBERATELY similar, they are DELIBERATELY not identical.
The standard for mental capacity regarding BELIEFS is different from that of claims of SCIENCE.
A beleif is by definition something that is not proven – otherwise it would not be a belief.
If you beleive something that has not been proven that is arguably weak that is not nearly as bad as if you claim that it is settled science.
I am not sure why english is so difficult for you.
I am not “lawyering” my way through something.
You are struggling to find two statements that were DELIBERATELY different,
to be in conflict.
I made the 2nd statement while litterallly looking at the first and DELIBERATELY trying to distinguish between BELIEF and SCIENCE.
as a separate issue – if you desparately want to seek out and find tiny semantic differences between statements I have made – have at it. I am sure you will find plenty.
If you say the same thing ten times and do not use exactly the same words you almost certainly will find subtle semantic contradictions.
To a large extent I try to say the same thing in exactly the same way all the time to avoid that. But honestly it is quite boring for me and I am sure for you.
So on occasion I look for different words.
My challenge to you to find error – is to find error in SUBSTANCE.
I will be happy to admit that there MUST be semantic discrepancies between my statements. Discovering those requires minor changes to wording, It does not require rethinking my value system.
Finding an actual error of substance does. Find one and I promise you I will.
I am sure there are still a few errors of substance left in my principles and values.
Given that you are clueless as to what a principle is I am not expecting you to find one.
AGAIN
My problem with you and Jay and the left as a whole is not that you resort to insults.
IT is that you are nothing BUT insult.
All hat no cattle.
I should not take pleasure in insulting you – just as you and jay should not take pleasure in insulting anyone else.
I try to use insults far less than either of you. But I am getting worse.
Because I am bored by your insults and lack of argument.
That is a small character flaw. I have never claimed to be perfect.
What is your excuse ?
But most of my posts are arguments – with some hyperbole and an occasional bit of ad hominem for spice.
With respect to your posts – where is the beef ?
“With respect to your posts – where is the beef ?”
Yawn.
Here, have some beef, a logical argument: Look at the number of posts and words you spent just yesterday responding to me. And yet according to your (hyperbolic) story I said nothing at all. If you spend so much time, words and energy responding to nothing at all, that makes you pretty amazingly stupid and obsessive to the point of mental illness. And over the 10 years you have spent 1000 times that energy responding to me “nothing.” Perhaps you have some kind of mental health problem?
All I really said yesterday to get you going was that you had committed several logical fallacies that you constantly harangue others about.
My observations that you had made those fallacies were 100% accurate. You then spent all that time typing trying to pretend that you have the right to commit those fallacies.
Ha, if you want to spend so much of your time that way, be my guest, keeps you out of trouble I guess. But, you are still guilty of committing the fallacies of ad hominem attacks, baseless overgeneralizations, and you are a world class hypocrite to boot.
Now, how many posts, how many words of the same old nonsense will you spend today trying to make my observation go away?
No matter how many, it won’t work.
You seem to think that saying words is the same as making an argument.
Excluding yesterday I can not think of a post you have made that contained an argument.
There must have been one sometime, but they are scarce as hens teeth.
Your posts do not typically make arguments.
Yesterday – you actually made alot of arguments.
All about the semantics of my posts.
Those arguments were poor and demonstrated that you had absolutely entirely missed the point I was making.
That you can not distinguish between belief and science.
But you were desparate to prove that I had somehow contradicted myself.
In this instance I hadn’t.
I appears that catching me in some error is very important to you.
I do not pretend to never make errors.
I even thought about agreeing that you found something even though you had not,
because it would make you feel good, and might make me appear to be more reasonable and human.
But for the fact that the distinction between what we beleive and what we know or what is fact or science is important. I might well have.
I have made semantic errors all over the place here. Restating the same principle or argument in different words nearly always guarantees some small conflict between the two itterations.
Regardless, the exchange yesterday was argument.
Bad argument over semantics. But still argument.
But still no beef,
God forbid we should let facts get in the way of a good witchhunt.
The standard for people in positions such as Rosenstein and Mueller is “the appearance of impropriety”. It is not actual guilt or bias, but merely the appearance that their could be.
For all my disagrements with Sessions – he has integrity. He recused himself properly not because he could not be objective – everyone thinks they are objective.
Not because he had actual involvement in a criminal act.
Not because he had improper contact with Russians.
Not because of anything that is true.
He recused himself because his involvement would have the appearance of impropriety.
What we have regarding Rosenstein, and Mueller now, creates far more appearance of impropriety than anything regarding Sessions.
Both had their own prior involvement in investigation russian meddling in US politics and both arguably slow walked or obstructed that investigation – or stood by and watched as others did.
They and everyone else similarly situated, which appears to be a significant portion of Muellers team should do the honorable thing and resign.
I do not think Trump is going to fire Mueller.
Though I suspect he could now and get away with it.
But my Guess based on what Trump’s legal team is saying is that they are not trying to fight Mueller even where they have excellent grounds, they are trying to be open and move this forward as fast as possible. That likely means they do not think there is anything for Mueller to find. It also likely means they think Mueller knows that too.
I think it is more advantageous for Trump to let Mueller fizzle rather than provoke a firestorm.
But I am still trying to figure out why you think that any conspiracy would wait until near the last minute to derail the Mueller train. when they could have done so months ago far easier.
What we know now, we know because it has been very hard to uncover.
We know it now, – not because of some “vast right wing conspiracy”.
But because months of beating away with picks have finally busted it out.
Many many many people – left and right have been trying to find and make public information about all of this.
The process of extracting evidence has been painful.
Thus far it is near universally served Trump and damned democrats.
Maybe that will change. But I doubt it.
Procede at your own risk.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNMZvqQX0AAClUv.jpg:large
The SWAMP at work.
““In no event shall PREPA, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the FEMA Administrator, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their authorized representatives have the right to audit or review the cost and profit elements of the labor rates specified herein,” the contract reads.”
tRUMP: I don’t know nothing about it. Duh. Golf anyone?
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/montana-energy-company-under-fire-after-shocking-contract-for-restoring-power-to-puerto-rico-leaks/
A buyer and seller are free to agree to any nonviolent exchange they choose.
Let me paraphrase this contract.
“Whitefish energy agrees to restore power to Puerto Rico for $300M”
I quite deliberately write contracts exactly like that all the time.
“dhlii will deliver in 6 weeks a Linux driver for the PDQ touchscreen for $4000”
Is these some reason my clients should be able to review my hours, by billing rates, my profitability ?
In fact I write contracts like that specifically because I will not have to keep those kinds of records, and I will not have to cost associated with doing so.
Just last January I took a contract like the one above, and discovered I was suddenly too busy to complete it, so I subcontracted the work to someone else.
The government can have whatever terms it wants on contracts it enters.
If it did not like Whitefish’s terms – it could have demanded others – and whitefish could adjust its price, just as I do.
There is a bunch of other stuff in your link regarding how that contract came about.
That is an entirely different issue.
Under normal circumstances, public contracts are written by the government, and they are bid.
Emergencies sometimes alter that.
In the world of private business who you know does matter – alot, and there is nothing wrong with that and even if there were there is nothing you can do about it.
All this is just reasons to remove utilities from government.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/10/25/how-gop-budget-plan-will-wallop-retirees/
“Who will suffer if these cuts go through and are approved by the House of Representatives? People in nursing homes, the majority of whom are on Medicaid. The Medicare program will also be pared, which could lead to higher premiums for retirees and disabled.”
The article make the same fallacious assumptions about health care and health insurance that have been falsified here repeatedly.
Health insurance does not effect healthcare outcomes.
Specifically related to medicaid – the oregon experiments demonstrates that poor people with medicaid have no better healthcare outcomes that those without.
Govenrment spending less money on these may anger some people.
If might deprive them of a financial benefit that was never theirs to begin with,
but it will not harm their health.
Separately I am not a big proponent of nursing homes.
My mother and father-in law died at home of cancer.
My father wanted that but was forcibly removed to a nursing home over allegations that were subsequently proven false. He died of pneumonia – contracted at the nursing home less than a month after arriving. It cost far less to care for him at home and he was far happier.
Everyone is free to make their own choices as to how they live and day.
They are not free to demand the rest of us pay for their choices.
I do not care if the GOP plan removes funding from nursing homes.
Further that is unlikely to have any effect on the number of people in nursing homes.
To a very large extent nursing homes are an arrangement where they take everything you have and take care of you until you die – and often they try to rip off your relatives.
If medicare covers less – they get less. No one ends up on the streets.
Getting less money is an incentive to deliver better care more cost effectively.
Which I think you will find they are quite adept at if force.
Tricky Dick and Despicable Donald: both undermining investigations into their administration activities. Hopefully ShitHead Donny has the same fate as I’m Not A Crook Nixon
“Veteran journalist Carl Bernstein suggested on Friday that President Trump has been trying to sabotage Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russian election meddling.
“There are very serious allegations accepted by the intelligence leaders of the United States, including those under Donald Trump. The Russians interfered in our electoral process, and there is an investigation into whether Donald Trump and those around him had foreknowledge of those attempts, and what their relationships were with Russians, business relationships that might have made them vulnerable to Russian objectives,” Bernstein told CNN’s Don Lemon on “CNN Tonight.”
“That’s what Mueller is investigating. And he ought to be able to have the opportunity, without the president of the United States trying to sabotage his investigations, to follow through. If there is nothing there, Robert Mueller has every ability and he’s called on to deliver a report,” he continued.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/357624-bernstein-trump-trying-to-sabotage-mueller-investigation
I say Jay murdered Col Pickering in the dining room with the candlestick.
That is a “very serious allegation” – should Mueller investigate ?
The 4th amendment exists for a reason – there is very little or government is supposed to be able to do with no more than a serious allegation.
We do not live in the PRC or USSR where you can be denounced and sent to a gulag.
Unfortunately the 4th amendment like much of the constitution has been eviscerated in the past 50 years.
Read Radley Balko’s the rise of the warrior cop.
Before reading that I thought that police militarization and the destruction of 4th amendment rights was primarily driven by the right.
With a few notable exceptions – Sam Ervin of Watergate fame, the left was a gleefully dismantling the 4th amendment as the right. Sometimes more so.
Everyone wants to be for law and order, no one wants to be for criminal rights.
Nothing I have heard in this entire mess would have justified issuing a search warrant in say 1950 – much less empanneling 2 grand juries.
We will see if the CNN story claiming Mueller is filing charges has any merit on Monday.
Or is just more of this fake news nonsense.
This is how you come off
Add this to the list of reasons why the insinuations against Hillary Clinton for the Uranium deal with Russia is politically motivated bullshit.
Please Jay,
The meaningless of the weak point in this tweet have been so thoroughly debunked.
This is NOT merely a Clinton scandal. This involves significant parts of the administration, and concealing information from congress.
The Clintons did not orchestrate the deal – it was an Obama Administration deal associated with the “Russian Reset”.
The Clinton’s merely profited for using their influence.
They were not alone.
The fish rots from the head, and while there is alot of Clinton rot here – Clinton was not the head.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452972/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeerings
The article I linked to was by Andrew McCarthy.
He is a former high profile US Attorney,
McCarthy has had excellent sources of information in the past. His reporting is factural and acurate
He is closer to a never Trumper, but he is a strong beleiver in the rule of law.
He is in my view the rights equivalent of Glenn Greenwald – he has intergrity and his views do not change based on who is in power. He speaks truth to power whoever is in power.
Anyway his U1 story is detailed and damning.
Below is Johnathon Turley’s examination of the current indictment rumors.
Turley is a GWU Law professor, He is politically left. But he is a strong civil libertarian and a strong advocate for the rule of law.
He and Alan Derschowitz – both on the left have been leading most of the legal attacks on Mueller.
Many of the arguments I have made have come from one or the other of them.
Derschowitz has the higher public profile, but Turley is the constitutional scholar.
Again like Greenwald and McCarthy Turley is someone I trust because what he supports and argues does nto change based on who is in power.
This is from Fox, which means Jay will not read it,
Regardless, the point is that the CFIUS approval does not innoculate Clinton, is merely exposes the rest of the administration
“This wasn’t simply your typical Clinton back room deal. This was a deal that was reviewed by virtually every senior Obama administration official, many of whom were aware of the Clinton connection, the FBI bribery investigation, and Rosatom’s history.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-real-russian-collusion.html
Add this to the list of bullshit allegations about Clinton and the Russian Dossier
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/357602-ex-cia-russia-chief-unlike-trump-dossier-russia-wanted-to-give
Come on Jay this argument is so transparently stupid.
Steele received his information from Russian intelligence agents.
He did not go to Russia and interview clerks.
Maybe those agents were working against the expectations of Putin – you can beleive that if you want.
Natalia is at the least a Russian lawyer who has an inconsistent relationship with those in power in Russia, and she provided Trump Jr. something he thought was worthless.
At best this demonstrates that Trump has better judgement regarding what is crap than Clinton.
tRUMP is destroying American ideals.
IMPEACH the SOB
Which Ideals is Trump “destroying” and how is it that the president destroys american ideals ?
I know you lefties think like Nazi’s that the state is all, that the state comes first, that we all are here for the greater good of the state. But the american Ideal is precisely the opposite.
As Lincoln noted
“that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
The american Ideal is the liberty of the individual – Not the state.
Is Trump making us LESS Free ? Is he regulating us ever more ? Is he imposing laws that do not exist ? Is he governing using the phone and the pen ?
Trump is destroying the leftist Ideal – that is what he was elected to do. That is NOT the american ideal.
tRUMP is a CANCER on America.
Time to stop talking.
Time for ACTION
https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/923961981274591233
Is that the standard ?
As I recall immediately After Bill Clinton went on Television and announced that he had lied, the overwhelming majority of americans wanted him to resign or be impeached.
I think if Clinton had been elected it would not be too hard to get 48% of the people to support impeachment.
The standard for impeachment is in the constitution – “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
That has no solid legal meaning. But it is still a requirement that congress produce articles of impeachment, and that they identify and state their own reputation on the assertion that the alleged acts are high crimes and misdemeanors. And that having done so, the voters at the next election get to cast their judgement on that choice.
Obama’s job approval numbers were low during much of his presidency, Are we going to shift to a European parlimentary system where a brief period of “no confidence” results in a dramatic leadership change ?
You are still under the delusion that this country is a democracy.
Those Americans who believe in the rule of law should be telling their elected officials that any effort by tRUMP to fire Mueller and/or pardon indicted figures will commence impeachment proceedings.
Of course that will leave out #Trumpanzee apologists who will rationalize whatever the Despicable Dweeb does, as droves of Nixonites did after the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate
And I’m betting that includes Dave and Priscilla who will manufacture absurd justifications with the rest of the Trumpian crowd.
We now have a Jackass-o-Lantern President.
And it’s Holloween all year round
Those americans who ACTUALLY beleive in the rule of law have been demanding that he resign or be fired.
The situation is now worse than ever.
The 4th amendment requires a specific crime attributed to a specific person and sufficient evidence to meet “probable cause”
The special council law includes very nearly the same constraints.
Go investigate Russia is an unconstitutionally and lawless mandate.
There has always been a small conflict of interests because of Mueller’s known relationship to Comey.
We now find that Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein were all working together on the botched investigation of Russian efforts to compromise and blackmail americans starting in 2010.
We know that russian efforts were targeting Clinton and working through people leading up to Clinton.
We know that the investigation was slow walked and that prosecutions were delayed until after the election, and that only a fraction of those actually involved were prosecuted.
Mueller Comey and Rosenstein were leading this investigation – they either knew or should have known.
You can diddle arround with the details – that does nto matter, You can not obliterate the standard for recusal – which is the APPEARANCE of impropriety, by arguing about minor details.
If you want “the rule of law” Mueller and everyone on his staff associated with the earlier investigation resigns. Rosenstein recuses himself, and if there is sufficient to actual conduct an investigation, some unconnected with the prior russian mess is appointed, and give a SPECIFIC brief to investigate and required to come to the AG, or whoever in the DOJ is not conflicted out for specific written approval to expand the investigation.
That would be following the rule of law.
What is occurring is quite litterally lawlessness.
This is precisely the nonsense that went on in the USSR or China.
Where political enemies would concoct crimes and prosecute people from Top to bottom.
That is NOT the rule of law.
I do nto care alot about Trump, but you are being ludicrously stupid here.
What you do with regard to Trump will become the norm in the future.
Given what we now know about the Obama administration, it could not possibly have survived a zealous special council with a borac mandate. Is that what you want ?
The left has lead this crusade to tear down the checks and balances, the standards and procedures the traditions that impede our govenrment from eating itself. that require us to procede slowly and carefully with the understanding that when we step forward we likely can never go back.
The fillbuster was a strong moderating influence on the executive and government in general for a century. there was sabre rattling on both sides, But Democrats pulled the trigger – it is gone. We can expect even more extreme judges, and executive appointees.
We are in danger of losing the fillibuster for legislation.
Are you so fixated on your short term emotional gratification, that you could care less about what the long term consequences of your own actions are ?
You are quite clearly acting lawlessly. Whatever you do is going to become the norm.
If you want a broad scope investigation – congress must do it. Either push those in congress now to do the kind of nonsense you are seeking – they are the only government institution that can conduct the type of investigation you are looking for, or change congress in 2018.
This U1 Stuff becomes more troubling the more we learn.
Sen. Grassley is investigating this. Based on what we know now, Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and possibly Holder (and many more) are going to have to testify.
That alone is going to pose huge problems for Mueller and Rosenstein.
DOJ has released the gag order ont he confidential informant who is aparently eager to tell their story.
We now no that Clinton Foundation has been laundering its “bribes” through foreign subsidiaries to avoid US reporting requirements as well as compliance with the ethics agreement the Clinton’s signed with the Obama administration.
We are now hearing calls for an investigation of the entire department of Justice.
Trump needs to clean house.
When Infowars looks sane compared to the rest of the media – something is very wrong with the left.
Article on Fusion GPS
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/28/cnns-undisclosed-ties-to-fusion-gps/
“Since April of 2016, Obama For America (OFA) has paid over $972,000 to Perkins Coie, records filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show. The Washington Post reported last week that Perkins Coie, an international law firm, was directed by both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to retain Fusion GPS in April of 2016 to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump.”
“At the same time that Hillary’s campaign, Obama’s campaign organization, and the DNC were simultaneously paying Perkins Coie, the spouse of one of Fusion GPS’s key employees was working directly for Obama in the West Wing. Shailagh Murray, a former Washington Post reporter-turned-political operative, was serving as a top communications adviser to Obama while the Obama administration was reportedly using information from the dossier to justify secret surveillance of Trump campaign staff.”
Following reports of Perkins Coie’s role in funneling money to Fusion GPS, the Campaign Legal Center, a non-partisan campaign finance watchdog, filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that the secret funding schemes violated federal campaign disclosure laws.”
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/
The fish rots from the head down.
What is becoming increasingly evident is how far beyond Clinton the Clinton scandal’s go.
Jay is stomping up and down going CFIUS! CFIUS! – clearly clinton could not bribe or bully those 9 other independent agencies.
We are talking the Clinton’s so I think that is a ludicrously stupd statement.
But it does not matter, the CFIUS argument presumes ONLY Clinton was corrupt.
That Clinton was the SOLE US actor in this U1 deal.
What is becoming evident is that Clinton was just one of many involved who were getting paid off. This was not a Corrupt Clinton deal. It was a corrupt deal that the Clinton’s were apart of.
I keep repeating over and over that investigating Trump is destroying Obama, but the left is not listening.
Obama is not at the top of my list of presidents. But I did not think of him as particularly corrupt. Now it appears that the Obama administration makes Nixon look like a rank amateur.
We have DOJ, FBI hiding an investigation from congress – because they are finding bribes and payoffs associated with a deal that Congress must approve and Republicans are already uncomfortable with.
So to answer Jay – no I do not beleive DOJ, FBI, CFIUS, … were acting to protect Clinton, I think they were acting to protect Obama.
Purportedly we have an indictement and an arrest coming Monday.
I expect something, and I expect hohum.
Why ? Because the recent revelations are a huge problem for Mueller.
He can not even come close to passing the “appearance of impropriety” standard.
Sessions Recused himself for far less than the issues that Mueller and Rosenstein have now. While for the most part the issue is that they were too deeply involved in an investigation with enough questions that their involvement in investigating Trump are problematic. There is the 2ndary issue, that arguably Mueller and Rosenstein were engaged in obstruction. Based on what we know the case right now against Mueller for obstruction is many times stronger than anything that exists regarding Trump.
Mueller and Rosenstein have a big problem – because while it is hard to get a prosecutor or investigator for obstruction for slow walking their own case. The obstruction here is relative to congress that was looking into and had to approve the U1 deal.
Congress was not made aware of an FBI investigation that was absolutely germain to the work of the committee examining the U1 deal.
Grassley is now investigating, and Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein and likely Holder will be witnesses – as well as many of those in the Trump SC’s office.
I beleive Mueller’s purported Friday indictments, are rushed, and primarily to protect him.
Mueller and many others are about to be under severe presure to bow out.
Without something to show, that was going to be hard to resist.
With an indictment filed, efforts to remove Mueller appear to be efforts to obstruct.
That said if the indictments Friday are something minor like FARA indictments of Flynn and Manafort, Mueller will look desparate.
Some headway in peircing the progressive bubble at college.
Whether you are afraid of the right or the left, it is of fundamental importance for words to have clear meaning, and to understand that all ideas are NOT equal.
“The mystery might soon be solved because the FBI, after months of stonewalling, agreed last week to tell Congress how it used the dossier and detail its contacts with Steele.
If the bureau did use the dossier to seek FISA warrants to intercept communications involving the Trump campaign, it would mean the FBI used a dirty trick from the candidate of the party in power as an excuse to investigate the candidate from the opposition party.
Somewhere, Richard Nixon is wondering why he didn’t think of that.”
This is from a NY Post column, titled “Robert Mueller should resign.” The Wall Street Journal has also called for his resignation. Leon Panetta, an Obama SecDef and CoS, says that, if allegations are true that the Clinton campaign lied about its connections to Fusion GPS, there should be an investigation: “If you’re testifying and saying you have no knowledge and the attorney sitting next to you is one of those that knew what, what was involved here, I think it does raise an issue that the committee is going to have to look at and determine just exactly who knew what,” he {Panetta} added.
So, Jay, now Leon Panetta is a Trumpanzee too!
It’s comical to me, how badly you want Mueller to be fired in a Saturday Night Massacre style way. Not happening.
No Priscilla, it would be far far worse.
What you would have is Republican Neo-Cons, OFA, the DNC, the Clinton campaign, conspiring to use FusionGPS to get from russian spies, the evidence necescary to spy on the opposition political candidate.
It is extremely difficult to concoct a scenario that would be more constitutionally offensive, criminal and corrupt. This would make Watergate a child prank.
All the dots are not connected yet – but only a few remain. If the FBI used anything from the Steele Dossier to get a warrant this is very very very bad.
Jay keeps ranting about Russian collusion.
This is collusion – but WORSE.
This is both politicians AND the current administration using foreign spies to create the basis to spy on their american opponents.
And the only dot left is whether the FBI used the Dossier information to get a warrant.
The other unresolved issue – which is nearly as bad – is did the FBI pay Steele ?
There are allegations that it did. It has been admitted that the FBI contemplated paying Steele.
I am not sure that if you have Trump on the phone with Putin saying “hack the voting machines, Vlad” that would compare.
At the same time we have the fact the Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein slow walked and then tanked the investigation into U1 Russian collusion – to avoid its coming up during the election, and avoid the deal receiving congressional scrutiny – both are very serious.
The latter is criminal.
Again the more all of this goes on the more we learn about the WIDESPREAD corruption in Washington.
Elsewhere there is atleast one pundit asking to fire pretty much the entire DOJ and start over.
The “Deep State” meme is getting more and more significant.
Before Jay starts ranting, I want to note. I think we have a very very very serious problem in washington. It is NOT a partisan problem – mostly. It is about entrenched power – regardless of party. Mueller and Comey have been arround for a long time.
There are still stories about what Stand-up guys each are.
I do not think it is accurate to portray them as partisan.
At the same time, they are corrupt, and self serving.
It is also growing increasingly obvious that Trump is the president, but he is not the Cheif executive. The FBI has been stonewalling the release of all kinds of things that near certainly would help Trump.
Andrew McCarthy wrote a column trying to guess based on the FBI’s strong resistance to release certain information, at what must be in that information – presuming that the FBI was blocking the release because of Trump.
Why is it so hard to grasp that government functionaries are blocking things that Trump would want – because blocking protects them or their cronies.
That large parts of the executive are not that responsive to the president.
Mueller is in deep trouble – as is Rosenstein.
This should also shatter peoples illusions that DOJ works for Trump.
Rosenstein is the deputy AG, he was appointed by Obama, he was part of the U1 corruption investigation with Mueller, and he is the one who appointed Mueller and drafted this illegal and unconstitutional brief that Mueller is using.
The revelations regarding them – might be sufficient for a criminal prosecution.
They ARE undoubtedly sufficient that they should resign from ANY government position they hold or be fired.
Priscilla, “Leon Panetta, an Obama SecDef and CoS, says that, if allegations are true that the Clinton campaign lied about its connections to Fusion GPS, there should be an investigation:”
Since the Clinton oval office oral sex issue, there have been non-stop investigations of some politician by one party or the other. They start the investigation, there is no-stop news about the investigations and then all of a sudden there is no more news.
What good is an investigation if no politician or justice department is willing to move forward with any criminal complaints? Its all smoke and mirrors by former, current and future politicians, including the one in the White House that promised to drain the swamp. Had you or a committed the same actions that Clinton and her organization committed, we would be facing charges now.
Oh, that’s for sure, Ron.
The multiple and endless investigations into the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation are reminiscent of investigations into any organized crime operation. You have the illegal activities (bribery, fraud, perjury, destruction of evidence etc), dirty cops ~ in this case, seemingly the entire upper echelon of the Obama intelligence community, maybe including Robert Mueller and James Comey ~ and even a few dead bodies, people who “met with unfortunate accidents.” And, yet, somehow, they always seem to know nothing, and no one ever gets indicted.
As far as the FBI goes….I think that Mueller and Comey have behaved, at best, irresponsibly, at worst, lawlessly. Who can reasonably justify squelching an investigation into a Russian bribery scheme, in order to allow the Uranium One deal to go through? But, Mueller allowed it, as did Rod Rosensteiin, the US Attorney to whom investigators reported. Who can reasonably justify allowing Hillary to get off scot-free for her blatant violations of the Espionage Act and for deleting classified emails and acid-washing her illegal server? But Comey allowed ii, as he allowed her to avoid testifying under oath, along with her closest aides who were given immunity, even though they gave no information leading to the prosecution of a crime.
I do question why the Trump administration ~ and particularly Jeff Sessions ~ has not released more information that would clarify exactly what’s going on here. You may be correct in that this is just more of the same mob-style political maneuvering.
But, I do think that it has become clear that “draining the swamp” is a much more complex and dangerous task than anyone imagined, and that there are those in Washington who will do whatever it takes to preserve the status quo.
By the way, it is being reported that Paul Manafort has been arrested on tax evasion charges this morning. That’s classic ~ if you can’t prove any other crime, go for tax evasion…..
With respect to Mueller and Comey – I think by Washington standards Mueller and Comey are men of integrity.
And that this the problem.
Trump was elected to purge washington of exactly this.
I do not think that Trump voters expected that Trump would drive the corrupt from the temple and replace them with the virtuous. Trump voters accept that they are replacing entrenched corrupt insiders with different people – no likely to end up any less corrupt, but atleast they would not be entrenched insiders.
AS to Why DOJ FBI etc are hiding all this – despite Sessions and Trump.
99.99% of the federal government is the very same people who have been there for the past 8 or more years. These people were there and participated with Comey, Mueller, …. in all this – why should they not stonewall.
Tillerson has a similar problem at State. He has only replaced a few positions.
Many many people in key positions have been there fr a decade.
This is also why the damaging and often eroneous leaks.
Trump needs to fire people – ALOT of people, before he is going to make serious progress.
A major part of the “resist”, kneecap Trump program – particularly the efforts by those in the bureacracy is that Trump really is a serous existential threat to much of the federal government. Not because of his ideology or policies. But because he could clean house and they could lose their job.
The last thing that most federal employees want is a culture of personal responsibility and accomplishment starting from the top. A culture where you deliver or you are gone.
Just some very simple things – without changing any policies at all, Trump could easily purge 20% of federal employment with no effect – maybe actually a positive effect on productivity.
Romney was pummeled for taking over companies slashing staff and restoring them to profiability. This is purportedly inherently evil.
Let me ask you – if you work at PDQ corp, and PDQ is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy – what do you want ? To do nothing, and have everyone be out of a job and the stockholders lose everything – that would be other peoples retirement funds.
Or would you prefer to see someone come in cut 20% of the staff and have 80% of employees keep their jobs.
Most big organizations would do the same job BETTER with less people.
In both government and big business, the importance of a middle manager is determined by the number of direct reports they have – not what they accomplish.
I have bumped into this in my consulting work. Quite often I get hired as a consultant to do some hard task that the inhouse engineers can not manage.
But it is very rare that I get hired to do the entire project, without any inhouse engineers.
Because the division head hiring me measures his importance by the number of people who call him Boss everyday, not the number of consultants he has working for him.
This even extents to telecommuting. There are myriads of studies proving that working from home is incredibly effective. Businesses try it, it succeeds, and then they slowly phase it out. Why middle managers hate it. There is no one in the office for them to boss arround all day. ‘
My point is that it is not at all hard to get more done with less people, and the federal government could do so easily. Often reducing staff alone makes things more efficient – and even reduces work load. People then have to make decisions, they do not consult committees, there are not 4 levels of review before approval. Information is received decisions are made and we move to the next item.
Those in government intuitively know they are expendable – no matter what they claim.
This is not about ideology for them, it is about self preservation.
If you are on the left – this will terify you. If you are not, this could be amazing.
If you buy regulation – you are going to demand this is heavily regulated now.
But you are going to fail. The necescary technology is affordable, and beyond the ability of government to control.
3D printers made it possible to make interesting things in your home without government oversight.
Affordable CNC machines have made it possible to make things like semi-automatic weapons – in your home. Frankly there is no difference between the requirements to make a semi-automatic weapon and a fully automatic one.
Like it or not, you have lost this area of the regulatory war. Unless you are sending the police into every persons garage a major area of regulation will slowly and inexhorably become moot.
Now recombinant DNA techniques are available affordably to people in their own homes.
Again you can not stop it.
If this causes you fear – you can not stop it.
If this fills you with optimism – it is coming anyway.
I think the clips are optomistic about time frames, but it is coming. ‘
Unmentioned are molecular assembly equipment – essentially the 3D printers or CNC machines for chemicals. These are rapidly becoming affordable.
You will be able to download the data for Arithromyacin, or DDT, or THC and make it in your own home.
So much for drug laws.
He is asking them to DO SOMETHING about Clinton and those engaged in the coverup of Russian U1 corruption. The only way that is “related” to anything about him – is that Mueller and Comey and several others in the SC office were involved in the coverup of the U1 scandal, AND of course – there are russians in both investigations.
I do nto think Trump should be Tweeting that someone should DO SOMETHING.
I think he should ORDER the AG to re-open the investigation. That is well inside his power.
If Mueller can not figure out that he must resign. Whn he is forced to testify in the house, senate and is interviewed by the FBI – possibly as a target, that would likely change things.
Jay, get a clue Muellers toast.
Monday’s indictments might well be a hail mary.
But this is bigger than Mueller and Clinton.
Podesta was represented by Elias when he testified to congress that he knew nothing about the Fusion GPS funding. Maybe Podesta did, maybe he did not, but Elias did.
There probably is not a crime there but there is a disbarable ethics violation – at the very least failure of candor to a tribunal. Worse if Podesta did know about the Fusion GPS funding there is Perjury and presenting perjured testimony.
Trump should not have to fire Mueller – he really must resign. He is going to be a target of the Senate investigation of Russian Corruption and Bribery, as is Rosenstein who also must resign, and several members of the SC staff.
Sessions should apoint an new Deputy AG, who should pick a new SC who is not from washington – some State AG would be a good choice. and the new deputy AG should craft an SC authorization that is clear and narrow and require the new SC to come to the new Deputy AG if he thinks he has found something that requires expanding his scope.
That is called “the rule of law”.
The alternative is the house and/or senate can investigate as they please – that is their perogative. And Dems have the opportunity to flip the house in a year so they should make their case to voters.
Separately Trump should ORDER the U1 related Russia corruption investigation re-opened by the FBI. And frankly he should again put someone in charge that is NOT from washington – another State AG would be an excellent idea.
Trump needs to wrest control of DOJ/FBI from this incestuous washington elite corp that is protecting themselves.
When Comey was made FBI director he was purportedly a Republican, a Mueller Protoge and both had an excellent reputation for integrity – as frankly had Lynch when she was made AG, Now all of them look like hacks who cover each others backs and are more interested in protecting their own personal power.
I do not know that I would call them the “deep state” but they are certainly an entrenched power protecting their own interests and independent of the president, and barely answerable to anyone.
And frankly Jay you should hope that is what they are.
The only dots left to be connected in an Obama Administration mess much larger than Watergate is finding out that the FBI paid Steele, and/or finding out that the FBI used the Steele Dossier information to get a warrant to wiretap the Trump campaign.
Are you incapable of seeing how egregiously criminally corrupt that would be ?
If either of those prove true – you had better be hoping that the FBI and Comey were acting without the knowledge of the whitehouse.
And now they are coming for Lincoln statues ?
http://reason.com/archives/2017/10/16/not-even-lincoln-is-spared-the-wrath-of
Still citing neocons I see.
Anythings possible. But:
1). I think Mueller has had his hand forced buy the Russia Corruption revelations.
The demands for his resignation have already started, and he really must resign.
I think he rushed indictments in the hopes that might make it harder to force him out or fire him.
2). Even if he actually has something remotely valid to go after, there are really only two possibilities – Flynn and Manefort on FARA – and I do not think anyone has ever successfully prosecuted a FARA violation. The law is likely unconstitutional
Or some other really low ranking figure on some meaningless pseudo crime.
The objective with that would be to flip them and try to climb the ladder.
It would be very unusual at this point to indict someone significant.
Mueller has not even interveiwed most of the signifcant people.
That also is not unusual. To the extent we know what he is up to, he appears to be doing what Comey did NOT do with Clinton. He is leaving most of the big fish alone and trying to build a case from the bottom. You do not interview the big fish until you have enough information from other sources to catch the in lies. One of the greatest dangers in these types of investigations is making an eroneous statement to investigators.
This is how Fitzgerald tripped up Scooter Libby. BTW if you have another Scooter Libby result Mueller is going to be remembered forever as a failure.
The Libby charges were ludicrous. Fitzgerald got Libby for a misstatement to the FBI, while trying to get Libby to rat out Chenney, when it was an open secret in washington that Richard Armatage had outed Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. Nor was outing Plame a crime – she was not a NOC at the time she was outed. Outing her put no one at risk, it merely made it impossible for her to take future undercover work. The whole investigation was a farce
As has already been repeatedly reported Putin has been trying to subvert US elections for more than a decade. The IC has known it. His efforts have been puny and ineffective, 2016 is not unusual. The only part that is unusual is that AFTER the election the Left whigged out.
At the moment there is more credible evidence that Putin was trying to screw Trump, than screw Hillary. Most of those FB and Twitter activities were Progressive issues. The Steele Dossier was from Russian intelligence officers.
All of this is pretty solidly proven at this point.
BTW Putin does not likely care much about “getting caught”.
There is nothing we can do to stop him.
But again unless you are going to claim that Putin actually succeeded in hacking voting machines – Putin FAILED to subvert US elections.
Only left wing nuts think they are allowed to control the entire internet such that people can not hear things they do not want them too.
Putin like every person or leader in the world is free to weigh in on US elections – overtly or covertly. You can not stop him – unless you are prepared to go to war with the nation with the worlds largest nuclear stockpile.
Further you still have not tied Trump or his campaign to any of this, and if you could, you would have to get past merely acquiring OPO research.
What is readily apparent is that the left is desparate. This is not merely falling apart – but doing so in a way that is exposing democratic corruption, not Trump.
Why should Trump and the GOP show more outrage – than Obama did when he KNEW the russians were bribing US businessmen to get the U1 deal and to compromize them.
When he knew that the Russians had done much the same things in the 2008, and 2012 and 2010 and 2014 elections ?
Obama was busy kissing up to the Russians while he knew this was all going on.
Please dont give me this hypocritical fake outrage.
I do not actually care that Russia might have been paying chicken feed for facebook adds.
I beleive the current analysis is that of the 100K spend – 6500 were for Trump or Trump issues.
This sums up what any objective observer of the Scumbag Administration Of tRUMP realizes they have been doing to undermine trust in Muellers investigation:
It’s the same dishonest creepy allegations into Mueller’s past investigations that Dave the Goniff has been making here, to disqualify his present investigations- motivated by spiteful partisanship.
Your ouija board again telling you what other peoples motivations are ?
It really does nto matter what the motives of those reporting the U1 Russian corruption investigation are.
The facts do matter.
From as early as 2010 the FBI knew that Russia was bribing and compromising US businessmen associated with the U1 deal. One of those approached by Russia came to the FBI and acted as an informant. Mueller was FBI head, Comey was part of the investigation, as were many others now in the SC office. Holder was AG. All of the above AND the CFIUS committe was ALL aware that Russia was bribing US businesses to push this deal. The administration was worried that Congress would get wind of the corruption investigation and kill the deal. So they hid the investigation and stalled it.
The administration was also worried that the investigation would expose Clinton’s entanglements with Russia.
All the above is pretty well established fact right now.
The DOJ has just revoked the gag order on the informant who is purportedly begging to talk.
The next step is going to be going back through the congressional testimony of all these people to determine if any of them actually lied to congress. Or failed to disclose things they were obligated to, or failed to provide documents they should have.
Mueller is inextricably linked to all of this.
You are pissed because Flynn and Manefort may have violated FARA – this is worse, and there is almost certainly no MAY here.
There is no good reason to Trust Mueller or Rosenstein or Comey at this point.
Trump did not undermine them. They undermined themselves when the slow walked the Russian U1 corruption investigation, and deceived Congress about it.
Trump can not take away the integrity and trustworthyness of another person.
They have to do that to themselves.
Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, Holder, and Lynch have done this to themselves.
We have a nation of political traitors to the rule of law.
There is no political bipartisan space in the nation.
If Nixon was being investigated now, after the firing of Cox, Republicans would have ignored it, and disparaged his character, and refused to impeach.
Here’s one of many despicable reversals on Mueller from the Republican hypocrite aristocracy, to show the end of national agreement that law trump’s political privledge.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/705142/newt-gingrichs-stance-special-counsel-robert-mueller-give-whiplash
That should be ‘we have become a nation…’
Nixon was a progressive.
Gingrich is often brilliant, but he is also hyper partisan. I rarely care what he says one way or another.
What is wrong with reversing on Mueller ? We did not know that he was engaged in a coverup of russian bribery and corruption until this week.
As Mark Anthony said – “But Brutus is an honorable man”.
Many of us though Comey was honorable at one point. I do not think many democrats do now.
Regardless, your own actions determine your integrity, not what others say about you.
You go from Gingrich the political hack to Schiff the political hack ?
Regardless, we will see monday IF Mueller indicted anyone and if so who.
Given how much of the news has been wrong on this I would not be holding my breath.
But I suspect that Mueller has indicted someone – because the revelations about his involvement in the U1 corruption forced his hand. The pressure on him to resign is going to be enormous, and indicting someone is a hail mary.
Normally if he did indict someone now – they are likely a small fish – that is not a complaint,
it is how Comey should have handled the Clinton email mess – Pagliano should have been indicted. Then you used them to roll a bigger fish – Pagliano to Cheryl Miller.
And so on until you get the shark.
Well the indictments are out.
And they are a giant nothing burger.
There is absolutely nothing about the Trump campaign at ALL.
Zilch, Zero, Nada.
There is absolutely nothing about Russia – it is all about the Manefort and Gates engaging in unregistered lobbying, tax evasion, some real estate fraud, and the typical – you lied during the investigation.
Reading the indictment there is lots of hyperbole and evil sounding things – particularly for left wing nuts who have never read Lerhned Hand’s famous decision on tax evasion, the gist of which is the desire to avoid taxes is NOT a crime, in fact avoiding taxes is a civic duty.
With respect to the allegations.
Manefort was paid by for work outside the US. The US is the only country in the world that taxes income made in another country. Arguably it is not constitutional to do so.
The US has no jurisdiction outside US teritory.
The same argument BTW applies to the reporting claims regarding foreign bank accounts.
It is illegal to move US income to foreign banks to avoid US taxes.
It is not illegal to keep foreign income in foreign banks.
Anyone who thinks you should be obligated to tell the US government about your foreign wealth that was not earned in the US – must be a progressive.
Government is not entitled to know something because it wants to.
Arguably a demand for such information is a search subject to the 4th amendment.
The next claim is that Manefort was acting as an unregistered foreign agent.
No one has been prosecuted for violating FARA for 40 years.
This is a weak claim. That said Manefort appears to have actually been careful.
He arranged things such that the Ukrainians paid him to hire US companies to lobby for Ukraine. That does not violate the law. Mueller is trying to get Manefort by claiming that Manefort supervised those companies. Given that the law itself is dubious – that is a reach.
Mueller appears to have missed a more significant claim.
If the Ukraine paid Manefort to hire US firms to lobby in the US, then most of Maneforts work was done in the US and therefore taxable in the US.
I am very unimpressed that Mueller and his dream team did not figure this out.
The next claim is that Manefort evaded taxes by paying for US purchases with foreign earned money. The legality of this is far more complex than Mueller represents.
Money transfered into the US is taxable only if it enters the US as income.
Manefort is likely to lose on this – because it is clearly an effort to evade US taxes.
But again evading US taxes is not illegal – See Judge Hand. Violating tax law is illegal.
This activity is an a pretty dark grey area.
The next claim is that Manefort misrepresented his use of properties he mortgaged, or the use of money he borrowed.
That is a civil not criminal matter, and is a claim that must be made by the lender.
Mueller repeatedly claims that Manefort got favorable treatment because of the misrepresentation.
Mueller makes the classic mistake regarding credit of beleiving that things like interest rates and credit are the outcome of mathematical processes.
While banks have standards – even rules, and for government guaranteed loans there are rules that have the force of law, credit and interest rates are a judgement and they actually are negotiable. Getting a loan or favorable interest rate – even as a result of deception is not a crime. The crime would occur if you defaulted, anything else is a contract claim.
Mueller presumes the bank gave Manefort something he would not have received otherwise – because there are guidlines for loans.
Mueller is near certain to get convictions on much of this – if the case is tried in DC.
Whether those convictions survive appeal is a much more difficult question.
Preet Bahara just lost several big financial impropriety cases in New York on Appeal,
for reasons that would apply here. Just because some financial conduct clearly is an effort to game the system does not make it illegal. The conduct must actually violate the letter of the law interpreted very narrowly.
Reading through the indictment, I think it is rushed and sloppy. I think Mueller pushed this on Friday because he grasps that the U1 revelations are going to put serious pressure on him to resign and having a pending prosecution makes that somehow harder.
Anyone can prosecute this, and arguably if this were transfered to DOJ it might be dropped or plead out for large fines. Manefort’s clearly got the money.
Nor is this an espeically good case to get Manefort to roll on Trump. It is unconnected to the Trump campaign in anyway. In fact the Ukrainian connection sort of ties it to Clinton in a distant way.
Dave, this appears to me to be a case of going after the lieutenants to roll on the general. “Tell me what you know about Trump and we will negotiate lessor charges on each charge we picked out that is remotely chargable offense”.
Yes, it is a common tactic.
Sometimes it works.
Of course there still must be something to “get trump” on.
Which is part of the problem. There has really been no evidence of anything.
The press has been tearing this apart for a year now.
If there was a “there, there” they would have found it.
The more “damaging” news today was the Papodopolis information.
I beleive he is pleading to false statements to an investigator.
The misstatement is tiny – I wish I could get the courts to hold people acountable for such tiny misrepresentations under oath – and this guy wasn’t under oath.
That said, He was a minor Trump campaign functionary.
But he was working with someone who was working with the Kremlin.
He was trying to get dirt on Clinton from the Russians – though he never got any.
He was also trying to setup a face to face meeting between Trump and Putin, but was unable to do so.
There was nothing actually improper about anything that he was doing.
But it is actual contact between the Trump Campaign and the Kremlin, albeit about 3 levels removed.
It looks like Trump was looking for something similar to what he had with the Mexican President. A public meeting that would add credibility.
Anyway Democrats should be very worried right now too.
The podesta group was listed repeatedly in the evidence against Manafort.
Podesta resigned.
Podesta may not have the same tax evasion problems as ManaFort, but he has WORSE FARA problems. Manafort fif his lobbying for the Ukraine on level removed.
He can argue that he did not violate the law.
Podesta can’t, and the Podesta Group was not registered either.
I would further note that the technique of trying to roll up what you beleive is a corrupt organization from the bottom tends to work. But the technique itself is corrupt.
It is like torture – you can not always tell if your witnesses are lying to save their own skin.
This happens in criminal cases all the time. The first person to make a deal – gets the deal.
Everyone else gets fried. It does not matter who is guilty of what. Quite often the most guilty party gets the best deal.
Regardless, I think Trump sent pretty clear signals with the Arpaio pardon.
Yes, that does seem to be the usual way that these things work.
Although, I find it interesting that, only hours after the Manafort indictments were announced. Tony Podesta, brother of Hillary’s campaign chairman and head of one of Washington’s most powerful lobbying groups, stepped down as the chairman of The Podesta Group. Apparently, he is also a target of Mueller’s investigation, and he has had extensive business dealings with Manafort.
There is also a report that the meeting between Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer that made headlines earlier this year was a failed set-up to trap young Trump into collusion.
Very tangled web.
There is alot going on concurrently.
The U1 coverup was incredibly damaging to Mueller and Rosenstein and Comey.
I think they rushed the indictment of manafort to push that out of the media.
But the Senate and House are going to start calling Mueller and Rosenstein and Comey and many of Muellers team as witnesses.
It is going to get very messy. They now have a huge conflict of interest and if they do not resign there could be a gordian legal knot.
I do not expect Mueller will resign. but it still creates problems for him.
Regardless of what Sekulow says The Arpaio pardon was a message.
Mueller is going to try to roll Manefort and Gates.
He may succeed, though who knows what he will get.
Remember there must actually be something there for Manafort to give Mueller.
The more insteresting news is the Papodoulis news.
That mirrors the Trump Jr. thing.
WE do now have confirmed attempts by the Trump campaign to:
Get dirt on Clinton from Russia – once again they failed.
And to set up a face to face between Trump and Putin.
But we still do not have collusion.
I beleive Podesta resigned because the Podesta group actually showed up in the evidence in the Manafort indictment.
Mueller appears intent on prosecuting FARA – which no one has done before.
If FARA holds up they gets Podesta, Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Probably all of Fushion GPS, Bill Clinton, ……. There is really no end in sight to FARA claims.
Personally I think most (not all) the financial claims against Manafort are crap.
But a jury will still convict him – that is the Leona Helmsley effect.
Can you provide a link to the entrapment story ?
There wouldn;t have been anything wrong had Trump Jr. received dirt on Clinton from Natalia. The meeting fizzled because Natalia had nothing, not because Trump Jr. would not have bit.
Is it any wonder that when the President Of The US LIES ABOUT EVERYTHING, truth is corroded to nothingness?
Lying AssWipe spreads more fake news on Hillary’s ‘uranium deal’
I use ‘AssWipe’ advisedly as the charges are described as ‘crap’ in the article.
I’m sure Dave will come up with some rationalizing hyperbole or ‘whataboutism’ to insist the Uranium Deal was the result of Russian collaboration with the Clintons, or the Clintons and Obama, or the Clintons and the 11 other agencies who signed off on the deal, a deal which hasn’t enriched the Russian government, or in any way been detrimental to the US, because Uranium isn’t a money maker overall, and NONE of it can be sold outside the US.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-spreads-more-fake-news-on-hillarys-uranium-deal-2017-03-28
There is zero doubt that the russian’s bribed and compromised US business men. There is an informant. the FBI was running them.
Atleast early on this was a big deal investion.
The problem came when the Russian corruption investigation ran smack dab into the U! deal.
Whether the U1 deal was a good deal or a bad deal is a completely independent discussion. Even if it was a good deal – what occured is criminal and corrupt.
When the administration discovered the FBI investigation in to Russian bribery and corruption was intersecting with the U1 deal – and possibly the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton’s themselves. The administration buried the investigation until after congress approved the deal.
Your precious CFIUS committee – was aware of the russian efforts at bribery and corruption.
It no longer matters what influence Clinton had with the CFIUS committee.
The WHITE HOUSE was pushing for the deal.
The facts here are NOT that Clinton pushed the deal through CFIUS, but that the whitehouse did. They are not that Clinton supressed the FBI investigation – the sec state does not have that kind of power – the white house did.
And the whitehouse deprived congress of knowledge of bribery and corruption related to the deal because they knew that congress would not approve it if they did.
So that you understand – I do not have a problem with the deal itself – and I have said that before. If Russians want to buy interests in US uranium companies – fine with me.
I do not think such deals should involve the government.
But such deals are “regulated” – remember, that thing you love so much, and require a wide variety of approvals – including that of congress.
And this administration stalled the investigation and hid it to protect the deal.
It is also possible it did so to protect the clintons.
Regardless, the actions were corrupt and criminal.
Though there is a nexus with the Clinton’s in this, the big revelations are only tangentially related to Clinton. They run from the whitehouse through DOJ to the FBI and Mueller and Comey.
Despicable Dunce In Distraction Mode
We are back to the Clinton emails – because there is constantly new information coming out.
This case has not gone away. Judicial watch is continuing to try to get Clinton Emails through FOIA requests.
What has recently been revealed is the FBI has 72,000 Clinton emails – that is near double what was previously reported. At the current rate of release it will be 2020 before they are all made public. But there is a new release every month, so there will be a clinton email story every month.
Separately there are 2800 Clinton emails found on Weiner’s laptop – these were NOT part of those backed, but completely separate emails actually sent to and account and retrieved on Weiners Laptop. Several hundred of those where classified.
That essentially means we have pretty much exactly what got Petreus convicted – sharing confidential information with a significant other.
Poor Trump, who would’a thought the Dems did business with the Russians when he thought Putin loved him only. The Reset button needs a Re-Reset button. Poor Romney, so sad to be ahead of the lying curve. Poor U.S./us, we are doomed the the morass of political fatbergers, as if we need more of them. Sad, sad.
So you want Trump to threaten war with Russia because they “meddled” in our election.
Yet, Obama was aware that Russia had done the same meddling in every election from 2008 through 2016 and during that time he stalled an investigation into Russian bribery and corruption, never bothered to investigate election medlling, and pushed his Russian Reset normalizing relations with the same people you want Trump to go to war with over do the same things Obama was supposed to make nice with them and cover up their corruption and bribery despite ?
Call me a warmonger, that’s better than a fatberger.
A meaningless bit of ad hominem is worse than a war monger ?
And not just any kind of war but one that could annihilate the entire human race ?
All of us are a bit tense over North Korea. But at the very worst NK can kill perhaps half a million people and do a couple of trillion dollars in damage.
That is unbeleivably horrible, the worst single act of violence in all human history.
But it is nothing compared to what would occur if the US and Russia went toe to toe.
I am not even remotely interested in confronting Russia over some tweets and facebook posts. Something that they not only have the right to do, but that we can not stop them and that if we could that too would overall be worse than allowing it.
I would also like to know why the sudden change of heart ?
Russia has been “meddling in our elections” for decades.
Obama knew it, the CIA knew it. Nothing was unusual about 2016.
And in fact we still have no evidence that Russia favored Trump, but plenty of evidence they Colluded with Clinton.
We also have them in 2010 bribing and compromising US businessmen, and then the entire Obama administration – including Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein turned a blind eye – while Clinton profited, and while the administration pushed through the U1 deal and hid all the perfidity from Congress.
Why is Russia important now ?
Why was it so important to make a deal with them in 2010 that we turned a blind eye to far worse than what occured in 2016, but now we must face them down ?
The only thing I can see is that Trump unexpectedly became president, and the left is totally unable to accept that they have been rejected by the electorate.
Forget that The Russians did nothing unusual. Forget that they did “collude” with Clinton.
Forget that the Social Media adds heavily favored Clinton issues. Forget that what is becoming increasingly evident is that Clinton ran an incredibly corrupt and dirty campaign.
The left must beleive that Russia changed the outcome – because it is unwilling to face up to the fault is with the left itself, not with Russia.
Dave, did I ever tell you about the time Ayn Rand grabbed my ass?
Really happened.
I was about 18 years old.
My friend was working as a page at NBC in NYC.
He snuck me in to the Green Room, where guests waited before going on air. I was there to meet my favorite writer, one of the two to be interviewed: no, not Ayn; but Mickey Spillane.
Like me, Ayn apparently was a great fan of Spillane’s character Mike Hammer. She oozed enthusiasm for Spillane during the interview; she oozed enthusiasm for me too, half her age, with hugs and pats, and the ass squeeze at the end. That was after she invited me for a drink when the interview would be over. I said ‘great, no problem,’ then ran out like a bat out of hell after she was summoned. My friend the Page said he had gotten an invitation too. Ayn was very outgoing and friendly to younger men, apparently.
I did read her books after that. I liked them even though they were tedious to read; but they were no where as entertaining as Spillaine’s books, or as eye catching as Spillaine’s covers.
Cool, JJ.
Aparently everyone from Hollywood is a peodophile – presumably you know Rand wrote for hollywood.
Anthem is the best dystopia ever written, better than 1984, animal farm, and Brave new world.
We the living is pretty good and quasi autobiographical. It is a good picture of pre-stalin Russia.
Atlas Shrugged is great – though it would be better without the 300 page John Galt monologue, and Rand faded at the ending.
The fountainhead is one of the most tediously bad books I have ever read.
I never got more than half way.
Did Kevin Spacey grab your ass too ?
Never met Rand. Read some of her work.
Like some of it.
Not an objectivist. Objectivism is a cult.
Rand BTW is not libertarian. Her philosophical roots are Aristotle.
She is also extremely anti-religion in any form.
https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/924370964405768194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fjacobb-38%2F2017%2F10%2F29%2Fsharyl-attkisson-poses-the-question-to-the-fbi-concerning-last-years-dnc-hack%2F
Fatberger robots are so cute, you just push a little button and they holler “ad hominem” and spew tons of information, enough for the whole family to read and enjoy through the whole winter or a vacation at a Gulag (whoops, now we will get a few thousand words on Gulags).
Nobody hollering.
If you do not want to be accused of ad hominem – do not substitute insult for argument.
“fatburger” has no meaning, beyond some implied insult.
Warmonger has a pretty clean meaning.
“If you do not want to be accused of ad hominem – do not substitute insult for argument.”
Truly a rolling of the floor gasping for breath laughing moment. Dave, whose picture is next to the word hypocrite in my online dictionary, whose entire 10 volume set of TNM works are based on rudely calling nearly everyone who disagrees with him stupid, or ignorant, or clueless, or retarded, or a moron, seriously expects someone here believe his complaint about ad hominem postings.
Dave, your whining has no force, its just whining. Have some Cheese.
Roby,
I have addressed this is excrutiating detail in recent posts.
Argument + adjectives or anything else, is still argument.
lots of adjectives + ad hominem – not argument.
Further saying “If you step off a cliff, you must be stupid” – is a valid argument.
I suspect if I go through enough of my own posts, I might find a few rare instances of actually calling a specific person a moron, or stupid. If so I apologize.
But as I noted there is a huge difference between
“you are a moron” and
“If you jump of the cliff, you are a moron”
The latter is an argument. It also is not “calling someone a moron” – unless they jumped off the cliff.
Well, apology has to be applauded, so, applause for the apology.
But you are being disingenuous with your explanation
“But as I noted there is a huge difference between
“you are a moron” and
“If you jump of the cliff, you are a moron”
The latter is an argument. It also is not “calling someone a moron” – unless they jumped off the cliff.”
What you actually recently stated had nothing to do with jumping off a cliff, instead what you stated was that if one believes in CAGW they are a moron. (previously you stated the same thing but used the word retarded, doubling down on your rhetoric is a bad habit of yours). You captured, by my count at least 4 people here, myself, Jay, dduck, and, I believe, Rick in your moron net. Not to mention a huge number of scientists. Which you realized when you wrote it so you are trying to go free on a loophole.
So, using your own approved formula
If you think that I, Jay, dduck, Rick, and most of the international scientific community are morons, Then You are a moron!
Really, you do a whole lot of this. You might get a nicer reception if you were to stop.
Roby;
AGAIN please go read my actual words carefully.
There are actually multiple levels here.
You are free to beleive in anything.
All beleifs are not equal, some beliefs are stupid – I would think that even you would agree with that.
Pretty much every time you mention belief and “climate change”, I am going to go off on you for confusing religion and science.
Belief is about religion. If you have to beleive in Climate change – it is a religion not science.
The claim that CAGW is science – is moronic. If you know the slightest about science, you know better.
Confusing actual science and religion is moronic.
If I have in the past called you or any other specific person here any name – I apologize, that is wrong.
But I do not in the slightest apologize for calling some beliefs stupid.
Or for saying that anyone who believes some things is self evidently stupid.
Am I obligated to treat the belief in human sacrifice or genocide as rational ?
Is it possible for you to grasp these relatively easy distinctions ?
Or are we going to continue this post modernist rot, that all beleifs and ideas are equal, that there is no truth – not relative truth not absolute truth.
Because that is what you are arguing.
I absolutely positively hold your beleifs up to scorn – and I am not apologizing for that.
There is nothing wrong with that. Further I have demonstrated through argument repeatedly that they are worthy of that scorn.
You are fully free to do the same – with facts, logic, argument.
I really tire of this argument with you. We have been through it innumerable times.
You have never even tried to counter it.
I am left to conclude you either can not manage critical thinking or your are deliberately hypocritical.
Regardless, you do not apply the same standards of conduct or speach on those who share your views as others.
Anything that you must beleive in is not science.
If you are offering CAGW as beleif – you still might be a moron, but that is not self evident.
If you offer it as science – you are by definition a moron – regardless of who you are.
Separately why is it that you think a large body of august people holding a view makes it rational ?
A millenia before columbus it was established the earth was round and exactly how big it was. Shortly thereafter it was known it was not the center of the universe.
Yet the majority of scientists at the time of Galleleo “beleived” otherwise.
More recently the majority of the intelligensia has bought every single malthusian claim that could be couched as science since Malthus.
Yes, I question the intelligence of those buying, silent spring, peak oil, the population bomb and myriads of other such nonsense.
It has all universally been found wrong.
If you are not skeptical of such malthusian claims – you are not a scientist, you are a moron – and I do not care how many degrees you have.
There are very good scientific reasons to doubt all these claims.
There are also historical and logical ones.
And at the end there is a fatal one – and another reason our science has been turned into religion.
Science can sometimes tell us the consequences of some action.
Science can not tell us right or wrong, good, or evil.
When scientists shift from telling us what might be the consequences, to what we should do, they change from scientist to priest.
It is not an accident that I describe the adherents of CAGW in religious terms.
Because it is a religion, and religion is not science.
Even you keep using the word belief. Science is about things we know, not things we must beleive.
“Belief is about religion. If you have to beleive in Climate change – it is a religion not science.
The claim that CAGW is science – is moronic. If you know the slightest about science, you know better.”
If you seriously believe that the nonsense in your quote is anything more than your absurd opinion, then you are delusional and a moron to boot.
Am I doing it correctly now? I think I am following your rules, if I stick to if –> then, I am making arguments. If I use that format it is not an ad hominem either because its if–> then.
If you can’t tell the difference between your opinions and facts then you have a sort of God delusion.
If you think your ideas about what is fact and what is your own opinion carry any weight with me then you are dumber than a pile of bricks.
If you think I am going to accept your opinion as to which beliefs are more valid than others as fact then you need to take your head out of your ass before you get an infection.
There, that must be the right form in which to address you, it meets all your rules.
It is possible for you to be accurate in your remarks.
You are quoting me – that would not be my quote, it would be yours.
Regardless, which part do you think is wrong ?
Do you think science is what you beleive ?
Or do you think religion is not what you beleive ?
Do you think that something that you have to beleive in is science ?
No you are not “doing it right” nested references to faith do not convert something into an argument.
I have no difficulty telling between opinions and facts,
Nor do I have any trouble telling between opinions with a high probability of being true and those that are certainly false.
You are still selling this post modernist nonsense that all opinions are equal.
Maybe this will help
I understand that my arguments carry no weight with you.
Given that you can not tell the difference between religion and science, that is not surprising.
Given that you think all opinions are equal – that is not surprising.
I doubt you know what post modernism is, but you epitomize it.
I am pretty sure you are far to old to buy into this kind of rot.
With respect to CAGW – unfortunately this graph stops at 2013 – the problem has gotten worse since then
In actual science when a model does not conform to reality – scientists, revise their hypothesis and update the models.
BTW this result is predictable by anyone understanding basic math,
The Arrhenius equation, Plank and Stephen-Bltzman.
Temperature increases are Log(CO2) that results in a parabola on its side.
What is disturbing is that such an incredibly large number of reasonably well educated people are so ignorant of simple math.
The models BTW require exponential increases in CO2 AND large positive feedbacks.
Both of which have been falsified.
You are still arguing CAGW when within the past year numerous leading Warmist scientists have said “OOPS!” – they are still hedging their bets – purportedly the predicted warming has not occured because something magical has stalled things for two decades – but any day now serious warming will restart.
None of this is about “my rules”.
I do not make the laws of nature, or math or logic.
“If you think I am going to accept your opinion as to which beliefs are more valid than others as fact then you need to take your head out of your ass before you get an infection.”
This is not an argument. It is a statement of fact – or close to it, it is actually a statement of your intentions – concatenated with an insult.
It is probably true – no amount of facts, or valid argument will alter your views.
I have told you before that your world view is self contradictory – please resolve the conflict between “all opinions are equal” and “mine are right” ?
What does it take for you to get past labeling something as merely an opinion as a means to ignore it ?
Some (most) opinions are self evidently false and deserving of insult.
Some opinions are self evidently true and deserving of respect.
The rest fall between, and must be evaluated based on their likelyhood of being true, as well as how their being true or false effects various other propositions.
Every view that you hold that you call an opinion has consequences – not merely the direct ones as applied, but also those of consistency with other “opinions” you hold.
In law as an example it is not necessary to prove that something someone said is a lie, to convict them of perjury. It is only necessary to prove that two different statements they made can not both be true.
Your views do not exist in a vacuum.
If you are inconsistent then something in your system is inherently false.
If your purported science requires temperatures to rise by .5C over 20 years and the actual change is 0.01C then what you claim to be science is in error (or your measurements are wrong). If you are unwilling to accept that – you have entered the world of belief, religion, not science.
While the immediate argument is CAGW, the problem is pervasive to your entire world view. It is built of inconsistency. Something about it is self evidently false.
“You are still selling this post modernist nonsense that all opinions are equal.”
If you believe that I said that anywhere Then you can go find my quote and show me.
If you can’t find my quote that says that I believe that all opinions are equal (something I don’t believe), then you are either misreading things as usual or deliberately twisting my words.
If you want to know whether I believe the ridiculous idea that all opinions are equal Then you can simply ask me instead of making wild and absurd statements.
If you ask me, Then I will tell that, no I do not believe that all opinions are equal, I merely believe that in many but not all cases opinions cannot be proven or disproven and cannot be ranked.
If you can’t find a better way to answer me than to put idiotic words in my mouth then you are a tiny intellect.
I beleive that you mean what you say.
When you say that is just a difference of opinion, or that is your opinion, you are echoing the philosophy that all opinions are equal.
Do not tell me that I am expressing an opinion. I know what is opinion and what is not.
You label things as opinions so that you can dismiss them – that is post modernism.
Opinion: A judgment or estimation of the merit of an idea:
Opinions aspire to be facts, or logical conclusions drawn from facts.
Opinions do not have absolute truth/false values.
They have relative ones.
When you stating that something is an opinion, you are attempting to dismiss or duck it.
You can not successfully dismiss something because it is an opinion.
You dismiss it by argument – facts, logic, reason to demonstrate it has a high probablity or certainty of being false.
If opinions can not be ranked then they are equal – QED post modernism.
In fact opinions can be ranked. I would suggest looking into epistemology The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
Not only can opinions be ranked but it is quite important that we do.
You hold opinions that contradict each other. Thus ends the debate that opinions can not be ranked. If you have two opinions that are in contradiction – one is false – with absolute certainty. We may not be able to know which one, but we know that one is false.
You seem to be drawing out the Rand quotes
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand
Roby;
I am not putting words in your mouth, just taking what you say to its logical conclusions.
“Given that you can not tell the difference between religion and science, that is not surprising.
Given that you think all opinions are equal – that is not surprising.”
Seriously who do you think you are? I have a doctorate in Cell and Molecular Biology. Whereas you are an underemployed cooder who spends all your time being a nitwit online. One who, by the way, cannot read even the simplest texts accurately.
Your cranky ideas of what you think I know I know are not surprising coming from a man who is so mentally defective that he not long ago could not think of a single example of trump lying. Deliver your absurd lectures and harranges to someone in person in your own town if you wish to play the fool.
If you can find someone in your town who won’t run like the devil when they see you coming Then you may get a chance to deliver your spittley lecture.
If you think that your opinion on climate change is more correct, more weighty, and more persuasive than the majority opinion of the international scientific community then you are precisely the delusional lunatic I have taken you for.
If you think I am going to waste my time debating climate science with some online extreme libertarian nutjob, then you need to get a clue, I’m not.
And, by the way, If you actually believe that extreme libertarian fairy tale then the level of your naivete is 11 on a 10 point scale.
If you cannot tell that there is no useful point to our having this conversation yet then you need to see your psychiatrist about changing your medication or increasing the dose.
Now, have the last word, or the last 10,000 words. I promise to give them the attention they deserve.
“Seriously who do you think you are?”
I have no trouble with who I am.
Further I am clearly someone with far greater logical skills than you.
“I have a doctorate in Cell and Molecular Biology.”
Are we debating molecular biology ? Ridiculously stupid appeal to authority.
“Whereas you are an underemployed cooder”
That would be underutilized – not employed. I am self employed.
I can get a mid six figure job any time I want, if I will relocate to one of the Tech centers.
I am an embedded software developer. That is the top tier of softwere developers.
That is not some “coder”. I have been published atleast half a dozen times,
I have several awards. I have my name in the linux kernel – there are only about 2500 people in the world who can say that. I get hired when “cooders” F’up and my clients need somebody who knows what they are doing.
I get incredibly difficult tasks that involve broad multi-disciplinary knowledge.
I have worked on projects that involved Predators, detecting nuclear contraband in ports,
accurately triangulating the position of objects using radio waves without using GPS,
determining the stress on an axle using indirect observations.
Oh, and I am also a landlord, and a practicing registered architect.
” who spends all your time being a nitwit online.”
Not so much and only when not doing other things.
” One who, by the way, cannot read even the simplest texts accurately.”
Or maybe you are having a problem reading.
Our core problem is that you think that you can skip the process of making an argument and just skip to spraying insults.
“Further I am clearly someone with far greater logical skills than you.”
The sole point of your existence on line has now been realized. You’ve bragged about your logical skills and been better than someone, ooo a lefty, according to you. Your head is probably the size of a balloon at the present moment.
Lets see now, previous to that post you have used your excellent “logical skills” to show that because I say that I have an opinion therefore I am implying that all opinions are equal and am being post modern. Which is idiotic. People have had opinions, in the sense that I mean, since the beginning of time. It a funny pursuit for a libertarian to be constantly insisting that people have opinions that they don’t actually have.
Its simple Dave, if a question has a precise answer then a group of opinions can be ranked. If a question does not have a precise answer then opinions may be more difficult to rank, or may not be possible to rank. WHich does not mean that they are equally valid just that ranking them on problems without precise answers is itself a matter of opinion. You have your opinion of extreme libertarianism I have mine. You believe that your opinion ranks higher. I believe that your opinion is naive. There is no solution, we simply disagree. We each believe that our opinion is better, but only you believe that it can be proven that your opinion is better. You life would seem to be so lacking in normal pleasures or responsibilities that you try to trap people into playing the argueing perpetually with Dave game. That seems to be your greatest pleasure, which is pretty pathetic, in my opinion.
What you actually have is a problem with the very concept of having an opinion and the very concept of problems that have no one correct answer.
Oh, Cry me a river about my insults, I am an honest hothead. I avoid passive aggression, if I am going to be aggressive there won’t be any being cute about it. I’ll insult you and say I insulted you because you are an obnoxious pest. In your case you are of the passive aggression model, you think you have some logical out so that you can taunt and irritate people as much as you like and then play innocent. Thats a game for a pussy. i prefer my way.
You have also shown to your own great satisfaction that since I believe that the scientists who warn of the unpredictable consequences of human caused increase in CO2 and the connected climate changes should be taken seriously, and you, not so much, that I don’t know the difference between science and religion. Which is another example of you being insulting in your passive aggressive pussy way. Apart from calling us all morons, which according to your excellent logical skills is not actually a case of insulting us. Dave, you are an idiot, one with too much free time on your hands.
Yes, you know how to annoy people, you could get a doctorate in obnoxious. I wonder how that skill got to be such a huge part of your life? Its likely that you are online so much because of your social skills, or lack thereof.
Take a chill pill.
I regretted that post immediately after I sent it.
Not because it was wrong, but because you suckered me into your idiotic appeals to credentials. I have excellent credentials. But my arguments are not good or bad because of some degrees or courses. But because they are valid.
The fact that my logical skills are better than yours is just a fact. Not something my ego is tied to. I do not beleive I am better than everyone else. I am just surprised to find so many people are so abysmal at logic.
Regardless, I can divorce this from you and I.
You can pick any embedded software developer at random, and any molecular biologist – and in a test of logic, the biologist is almost always going to lose.
You are not going to make it as an embedded software developer unless you are very good at logic. Different professions have different skillsets, and it is rare for anyone to do well in that profession without also being good at the professions core skills.
I am or once was incredibly good at chemistry – meaning the formula’s facts and theories.
I won the country science fair in Chemistry both times I entered.
But I could not perform the most basic chemistry experiments without getting bad results.
We each have different skills.
To reiterate an argument I make constantly – we are not equal. That is life get over it.
As to the rest: When you attempt to end discussion by noting that we just have a difference of opinion, and you do that constantly, that implies one of two things which are very nearly the same:
That all opinions are equal
or that differences in opinion are inconsequential.
Identifying you as post-modern is an error – because you likely have no idea what that means, regardless of the fat that you fit it well.
More accurately you are not honest enough with yourself to appreciate that opinions are important – and that particularly when they drive choices – choices that we sometimes impose on others by force, we have an obligation to get them right.
Whether you grasp what post-moderinsm is, you are teetering on nihilism.
So get a clue – if you are going to use force against others – and that is what government is, Then you have an obligation to get the “opinion” you are using to do so right.
You do not get to duck justifying your “opinions” – because they are just opinions.
You can mess up your own life however you please.
You have no right to do so to others.
People have had opinions since the begining of time.
They have had good ones and bad ones, false ones and true ones,
and they do not get to duck responsibility for imposing those opinions by force, by claiming they are mere opinions.
We are not debating “opinions” on the taste of Austrailian wines.
We are debating “opinions” used to justify the use of force against others.
AGAIN the opinion that Jews were vermin did not justify the holocaust.
The opinion that negroes were inferior did not justify slavery.
Opinions used to justify force have consequences, and you are morally obligated to get them right.
“Its simple Dave, if a question has a precise answer then a group of opinions can be ranked.” – no it is not “simple” – atleast not as you describe.
There is a whole branch of the science of knowledge associated with all of this.
Regardless, your whole explanation here is crap. Over simplistic is not quite the right qualification – artificially arbitrary is better.
We have tools and skills to evaluate opinions – logic is and important one of those.
We do not arbitrarily rank things – atleast not if we are using those “opininions” to justify the use of force. What you do in your on life is your own business. There is no obligation not to screw yourself.
I have already repeatedly given one simple logical principle – if two propositions are in conflict – you know atleast one of them is false.
There are many other rules. Further, more complex analysis can be done by combining rules.
You keep trying to flip this back to “ideology” – because again if you can label something “extreme libertarianism” you can escape from contemplating whether it is true or false.
Back to that nihlism and post moderism.
Separately – thus far I have not find that you have anything.
We have been over this ground before – you are without principles.
That makes making arguments easy – you can pull them from thin air, though you are not very good at even that, but it also results in contradictions all over the place – and again contradictions dictate error.
Is there always a solution – no, that said there actually usually is.
The vast majority of possible “opinions” are demonstrably false.
Given that if our opinions contradict, we know that atleast one is false.
There are only a few possible systems of values that do not contain contradictions.
This is not a question of belief.
Believing in CAGW does not make it true, disbelieving does not make it false.
An opinion that conflicts with reality is false – no matter whether you beleive it or not.
There are some opinions that can not be tested by reality – those are beliefs.
If something can be tested by reality and has a high probability of being true – it is not a belief.
Must we continue this nonsensical idea that you can psycho-analyze someone over the internet.
You are not a psychologist, and you are very bad at it, and it is unethical for psychologists to diagnose people they have not met.
You do not know whether I am happy or not, or much of anything about my life beyond what I tell you.
I am not the one that continues this perpetually. This does not end, because you bob and weave and refuse to commit to logic, or any principles.
Accept logic as immutable and almost anything as axiomatic, and I can either disprove your axiom or get you much of the way to my “opinions”
That is not hubris – it is just how things are. There are only a few possible axioms.
I have no problem with the concept of an opinion.
I have no problem with your following whatever opinions you wish in your own life.
I have a problem with imposing untested opinions on others by force.
I do not care that you wish to pretend that all opinions are equal or that ranking them and testing them is arbitrary – so long as you do not seek to impose them on others by force.
You are free to be wrong (or right), You are not free to use force.
I do not have an issue with problems that have no correct answer.
We have some problems that will never have a correct answer, and others that we do not as of yet know the correct answer, and finally problems that we know the correct answer to a high probability.
Regardless I have never argued absolute Truth.
But the absence of absolute truth does not preclude absolute falsity.
Nor does it preclude non-contradictory arrangements that are consistent with reality, and contradictory arrangements, or arrangements that are not consistent with reality.
I know you claim that you do not beleive that all opinions are equal – but your arguments rely on the existance of atleast a very large set of opinions that are of indistinguishable merit.
Further they preclude the possibility that any opinions in that set could possibly be evaluated or compared to each other.
Your entire argument is that you get to say as you please, that some opinions do not need supported or compared or evaluated. Again into nihlism.
I do not care about your insults.
I care that you are prepared to impose your unjustified opinions on others by force.
And more of your amatuer psychobable.
I am not passive agressive – quite obviously – I am directly confrontational.
Can you atleast know the meaning of this crap before you use it.
If you want credibility for that doctorate you have, stupid errors like that are not the route.
I am not “taunting” you. The process is called logic.
And now references to guilt and innocence ? how is that relevant ? Did one of us commit a crime ?
Can you think before you post ?
You should trivially know that I am going to be looking closely at your words,
you can know ahead of time that if you significantly misuse a word, I am likely to call you on it.
My diagnosis of you from a distance, Dave, is nuttier than a Planter’s Peanut Can
“You have also shown to your own great satisfaction that since I believe that the scientists who warn of the unpredictable consequences of human caused increase in CO2 and the connected climate changes should be taken seriously,”
If it is not predictable, it is not science, those offering warnings are not scientists, and should not be taken seriously.
I do not expect perfection alot of science is probabalistic.
But a variance of 2.5 std dev is just not science.
I find it hard to beleive you are a cellular biologist and do not grasp that.
You must have had to take statistics. 2.5 std dev means less than a 2% probability.
Why are you still trying to sell this rot ?
You can not make credible warnings about the future until you can accurately model the recent past.
The only think I claim to be right about regarding CAGW is that so called scientists are wrong. Given a 2.5 std dev variance, that argument is over.
I have made no specific predictions about future temperatures – beyond that warmists are wrong.
I absolutely agree that future temperatures are unpredictable.
Something unable to predict within 2.5 std dev’s is not science.
If you think it is, then you do not know what science is – despite your degree.
Roby;
I am more insulting and obnoxious than I ought be.
But I am an amateur compared to you.
Back to psychoanalyzing over the internet.
I have a great deal of respect for Bill Gates efforts at Philanthropy.
No one can doubt that the Gates foundation has incredibly good intentions.
Nor that they provide copious amounts of money to try to deliver real improvements to peoples lives.
Finally – particularly in smaller scale projects, they have had some noteworthy successes.
BUT in every single large scale project I can think of they have failed – badly.
They spent $1B on mosquito nets for sleeping in Africa to reduce malaria and to reduce the use of pesticides. The result was the first spike in Malaria in africa in decades, and the nets got used for everything from straining food to fishing.
The article below reports the failure of common core.
I think there are some good ideas in Gates Common Core approach.
Yet, still the results are the waste of billions on private charity and Trillions in public money for nothing.
I would ask everyone but particularly those on the left to ponder why ideas that seem to be good if not excellent fail – often catastrophically. Gates is smart, and the Gates foundation is very smart. I am less willing to credit those in government with real intelligence – but there are some.
Why is it that very smart people come up with solutions that sound really good, but still fail – often catastrophically ?
I will suggest contemplating that the answer is that there are very few problems we can solve from the top down. As a Libertarian I discount that the government is ever able to get anything right. I am not surprised by big government failure. But the efforts of Gates and others do not run afoul of my ideology. Yet, even private charity tends to do little better than government at solving problems. I DO NOT oppose private charity, but I note that it fails quite often for many of the same reasons that government action fails.
Because good ideas imposed from the top – even absent the force of government, rarely work. Gates’s successes have been almost entirely in small programs. Projects targeted at specific communities. Even the pilot for Section 8 – a government program, was spectacularly successful.
There are several things that can be learned from what fails and what succeeds:
Solutions that arise from the narrow community they are intended to help tend to work.
Those imposed from the top as one size fits all tend not to.
Details matter – this is a permutation of the above – even a big idea that could work in much of the country, will fail if it is imposed exactly the same everywhere.
What inner city baltimore needs and what Kansas needs are not the same – even when they have nearly identical problems.
Putting enormous resources including the best and the brightest to work solving a problem in one community quite often succeeds. With the best minds and well directed resources amazing things are possible.
This does not scale at all. There are not enough of the best minds. Outside the world of successful pilot projects, solutions have to be implimented by ordinary people in ordinary communities throughout the world.
The ultimate resource is the human mind. Not money. Enough smart people with the freedom and desire to do so, can change any community and solve any problem in some community. But those people are a scarce resource, and even if you succeed in say attracting the best and the brightest to teaching – then you do not have them as scientists, engineers, entrepeneurs, ….. When we make a problem nationaly important and direct vast resources to it – we take resources away from something else.
We can pretend that Money is magical – and spending lots of money on roads and bridges does not mean there is no money for houses and commerical construction.
Whether that is true or not, there are only so many people, and only 15% of the population has an IQ over 115, only 2% of the population has an IQ over 130. only 1/3% has an IQ over 140 less than 0.05% has an IQ over 150.
Out of those people we must have doctors and lawyers and engineers and scientists and teachers. The only limited resource is the human mind.
We must make burgers with the people we have. We must teach our children with the people we have. We must cure disease with the people we have, we must build bridges with the people we have. we must invent the future with the people we have.
No amount of money, and no brilliant ideas imposed from above will increase the human intelligence available.
Raising intelligence takes decades – centuries.
We can do better – we know that because we know we did better in the past.
But I am not sure that we can return, as the fundamental difference is that teachers in the past had not received 20 years of past modern indoctrination before starting to teach children.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/25/bill-gates-tacitly-admits-common-core-experiment-failure/
Well Jay – sorry Democrats are ENTIRELY on the hook for the Steele Dossier.
The Washington Free Beacon did pay Fusion GPS
To collect PUBLICLY available information on Trump. Not to hire spies.
The Singer/Free Beacon relationship to Fusion GPS ended early in 2016 – BEFORE Steele was hired. The FreeBeacon did not receive even an early form of the Steele Dossier.
Democrats started paying Fusion GPS starting in April 2016.
The entire Steele Dossier start to finish is the result of democratic funding.
It is also possible that Fusion GPS received money from Russians to produce the Dossier.
That would mean Clinton was not merely paying for OPO research from Russian spies, but that research may have atleast in part been paid for by Russia.
That is a reach at the moment – but I would note – there is more evidence of that than Trump/Russia collusion.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/29/devin-nunes-shifts-russia-dossier-focus-from-donal/
Blah blah blah!
What’s illegal about Democrats who wanted to elect Clinton hiring an American firm who hired a RESPECTED former British spy to dig up negative info on a narcissistic nincompoop?
Did the Democrats use the info to try to subvert the Election? Did they leak ANY of it during the campaign?
You’re as full of self conceited crap as usual on this topic.
I have not said that procuring the Steele dossier was illegal. Though I will tell you that if it becomes the source of an warrant you have entered an entirely different world.
You are the one making the claim that what Clinton did would have been illegal, if done directly. Sorry, using cuttouts does not convert something from illegal to legal.
If you can pay a law firm to hire a opo research firm to hire a british spy to hire russian spies to get OPO research on your opponent – you can also hire the russians directly.
There is no legal distinction – except maybe that if the act is illegal, in the first scenario you have far more guilty people.
I have said his before – if Trump Jr. had gotten useful OPO research from Natalia – still not a crime, and not collusion.
We can add if Papadoulis had gotten useful IPI research from his contacts – still not a crime., and not collusion.
If he had gotten a face to face with Putin – not a crime, not collusion.
You can disagree, but if I am wrong – then there is a long long list of democrats – ending with Clinton headed to jail.
BTW it is completely irrelevant whether Steele was “respected”.
In fact it is even irrelevant that Steele hired russians.
If getting OPO research from Russians is a crime, getting OPO research from British spies is also a crime. The fact that we mostly like Brits, and mostly dont like Russians, does not change that they are both foreign agents.
I keep noting that Clinton got dirt from Russian agents – because it sounds worse.
But there is no legal difference between russian spies and british spies.
We have sent people to jail for espionage for providing secrets to israeilies.
The Steele dossier was peddled to the media from June through the election.
Until Buzzfeed none of them would touch it.
HOWEVER some of the stories did make it into the media, and the existance of a dossier with lots of secret dirt on Trump was known PRIOR to the election.
No Clinton did not “subvert the election with it”.
Because even if she had read it aloud from the Democratic convention that would not be “subverting the election” – just as Russians running FB adds for black lives matters and other democratic causes did not “subvert the election”
The fact that you do not like the outcome and can not believe it does not mean the election was subverted.
Regardless, please find me a specific federal crime ?
Do you read the crap you write ? What does “self conceipted” even mean ?
And how does it apply ?
https://www.popehat.com/2017/10/30/lawsplainer-the-manafortgates-indictment/
Jay, Very good article, unbiased and to the point. I see tax evasion as a primary cause of many of the charges which I think I heard Manafort had been investigated for a fews years back. I also see the issue for working as a foreign agent which he filed paperwork after the fact. But reading between the lines, I see weak proof that will not hold up in ciurt and is being used to hook the big fish.
Keep your powder dry and in its pouch until the real charges that can hold up are filed and directed toward the real target. Manafort and his assistant are just part of the rich Americans that use shady dealings to build their wealth. If it were not for these tyle of people NYC would be 1\2 as big as it is today.
More evaluation of the indictments:
Read it all…
https://www.lawfareblog.com/robert-muellers-show-strength-quick-and-dirty-analysis
Partial excerpt:
“The first big takeaway from this morning’s flurry of charging and plea documents with respect to Paul Manafort Jr., Richard Gates III, and George Papadopoulos is this: The President of the United States had as his campaign chairman a man who had allegedly served for years as an unregistered foreign agent for a puppet government of Vladimir Putin, a man who was allegedly laundering remarkable sums of money even while running the now-president’s campaign, a man who allegedly lied about all of this to the FBI and the Justice Department.
The second big takeaway is even starker: A member of President Trump’s campaign team now admits that he was working with people he knew to be tied to the Russian government to “arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government officials” and to obtain “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of hacked emails—and that he lied about these activities to the FBI. He briefed President Trump on at least some them….
The release of these documents should, though it probably won’t, put to rest the suggestion that there are no serious questions of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in the latter’s interference on the former’s behalf during the 2016 election. It also raises a profound set of questions of its own about the truthfulness of a larger set of representations Trump campaign officials and operatives have made both in public, and presumably, under oath and to investigators.
And here’s the rub: This is only Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s opening salvo.“
Jay
And here’s the rub: This is only Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s opening salvo.“
We think alike. I said keep your powder dry. He is using the lieutenants to get to the general? Why post stuff until itleads somewhere? We already knew he worked with Putin and Russians on deals. But when the collusion is made public, then we can debate where it will go from there.
Hoefully not a Warren/Ellison/Booker/ Sanders administration.
I do not beleive it is clear that Manafort ever worked for Putin.
He worked for Russian surogates before working for Trump.
So did podesta.
It would not matter if he did. But Jay is already claiming to have crossed the finnish line, when frankly on the whole this has been a net worse week for Mueller and democrats than Trump.
Apparently there are rumors that Podesta is a Mueller target.
Muellers brief is large enough to go after the Clinton campaign.
Given the U1 revalations I think the manafort indictment was rushed
and I think that there will be alot of pressure to resign.
Mueller is going to end up being atleast a key witness and possibly a target in Congressional investigations.
Mueller may well go after Podesta and Clinton as a means of innoculating himself.
Regardless, the Obama administration looks more corrupt than ever.
Clinton looks dirtier than ever.
The Clinton side of this is growing faster than the Trump side.
While a bit hyperbolic, there is still a difference between hyperbole and crime.
Podesta – has done everything Manafort has – except MAYBE the money laundering – though who knows there is alot of U1 related money that went through the podesta group.
Papadoulis lied to an investigator – actually if you check out the “lie” it is next to nothing.
I really wish I could get the courts to treat worse misrepresentations seriously in cases I have been involved in.
The rest of Papadoulis is more nothing burger. He was a short lived low level functionary on the Trump campaign, and tried to get Dirt from Russia on Clinton.
We have been through that before. Not a crime. If it was Clinton would be in jail.
as would the perkins law firm, the DNC and All of Fusion GPS.
Separately he tried to get a face to face between Trump and Putin and failed.
Trump was after face time with all world leaders. Remember his flight to meet with the mexican president. Regardless, still not a crime.
Much of what they have on Manafort and Gates is or should not be crimes.
But they likely will be convicted anyway – Manafort has a leona helmsley problem.
The FARA stuff is more significant – no one has been prosecuted under FARA before.
Arguably Mueller is seriously reaching regarding Manafort. They did not do direct lobbying. If Mueller wins on FARA once removed – everybody in Washington is in deep shit. That would include both Bill and Hillary.
Regardless, none of this bothers me – because none of it distinguishes Trump from Clinton or Democrats.
I do not know if Podesta has actually been told he is a target – but if Mueller does nto indict him now – Mueller again faces questions about integrity. There is little to distinguish Podesta from Manafort.
Is your argument that political consultants who work for Trump are subject to different standards than those who work for other republicans or for democrats or for clinton ?
Are you saying that Bill Clinton taking money from Russia is different from manafort and podesta taking it from Ukraine ?
Anyway if Mueller wants to go through Washignton prosecuting everyone simmilarly situated to Manafort – he can be my guest.
Mueller would be doing Trump a favor and “draining the swamp”
And if Mueller does not he looks biased and without integrity.
I would also remind you – that YOU wanted the ridiculously broad brief for Mueller.
All things Russia and all things election and anything that comes up.
That allows him to go after podesta, Clinton, Clinton Foundation, Fusion GPS, Perkins, the DNC, …….
And if he does not – he looks partisan.
No jay – no collusion yet.
Everything Manafort and gates had to do with Ukraine and was before he worked for Trump.
There is zero in the Manafort gates indictment that connects Trump to Russia, or has anything to do with the Trump campaign.
The Papadoulis thing is again a nothing burger.
He sought OPO research from Russia and failed to get it.
It would not be a crime if he succeeded – or Clinton, Fusion GPS and Perkins would all be in jail by now.
He also sought a face to face between Trump and Putin – and failed
Again not a crime.
Trump was after face time with any world leader he could manage,
he ended up settling for the president of mexico.
Not a crime,
BTW collusion is also not a crime – but we do not have any collusion here.
Thus far the closest thing that we have to election collusion involves Clinton and the democrats.
If the left or mueller tries to run up the flag pole something Trump or his campaign tried to do, that Clinton actually succeeded at, you will likely trigger unbeleivable pushback.
I would prefer that all our politicians had unquestionable integrity.
But Trump voters are going to be angry as hell – and not likely alone,
if you try to go after their hero for something Clinton actually did.
You do not seem to understand – what Clinton did with the Steele Dossier stinks.
But it is not a crime. It might be collusion.
You want Trump, you have to deal with the standard of political conduct Clinton set.
Anyway, I get tired of your nonsense that if you can make a true statement that has both Trump and Russia in the same sentence you have established collusion.
No you have not.
In more than a full year of investigating, you have found two very unsuccessful attempts at contact between Trump and Russia.
Mere contact is not collusion,
Failed contact certainly is not collusion.
If this is the opening salvo – it is a dud. It shoudl have Dem’s more terrified than Trump.
Trump can pardon PM for Federal “misunderstandings”, but if he laundered money through NY real estate, his goose will be cooked by NY A.G. Eric Schneiderman.
NY AGs are ruthlessly ambitious, BTW.
NY ag’s can only prosecute NY crimes.
I pointed out the jurisdictional problems that the Feds have regarding Manafort – the US does not have jurisdiction over actions and assets outside the US.
That problem is a million times worse for NY.
Federal money laundering is far broader than State money laundering.
I really can not follow any of this and see how an NY AG can prosecute anything.
I do not think NY can subject money earned either in DC of Ukraine to NY income taxes – so there is no tax evasion. The banking laws are federal.
The real estate deals are only money laundering from a federal perspective.
Money laundering is really the worng term here.
Money laundering usually means turning criminally earned money into clean money.
In this case it means converting untaxable money outside the US into taxable money inside the US without paying taxes. That is really just tax evasion.
There is no NY tax evasion.
Ken White aka PopeHat is excellent.
He is a former US attorney, and a strong civil libertarian.
I have been following his blog as long as TNM.
I do not think Mueller will have any trouble convicting Manafort and Gates.
Not because he has the evidence, but because he will likely have a DC jury and the Leona Helmsley effect. Manafort is just somebody you want to throw in jail.
With respect to the “fraud” claims – no one got the slightest bit hurt – that is not fraud.
Getting a better deal than others is not fraud, getting loans others can’t is not fraud.
But he will be convicted of it anyway.
Most of the tax stuff has two problems – it is minor, and it should not be illegal.
US jurisdiction ends at US borders.
Mueller missed the most serious tax problem.
If Manafort did his work for the Ukraine in the US, then that work was taxable in the US regardless of where it was paid.
Mueller misunderstood how income and taxes work.
If Manafort worked for the Ukraine outside the US, and never brought the money into the US it is not taxable.
If he brought it into the US it is taxable when he brings it in – but only the US does that, and it is wrong, it is also lousy policy.
But if he earned it by work in the US, it is taxable in the US no matter where he was paid.
We loath people with foreign bank accounts. And we have laws about that.
But those laws are again wrong.
Our law ends at our borders. but the US federal govenrment – particularly at the instigation of the left seems to beleive it has juridiction over the world.
Ron, there is a great deal of truth to the idea that one’s side should keep their powder dry.
Manafort claims that he was illegally wiretapped, and that those tapes were the basis of this indictment. If the phony Steele document, that we now know was bought and paid for by the Clintons and the DNC, was the basis for a FISA warrant used to tap Trump Tower, where Manafort has long had a suite, then it would be difficult to make the charges against him stick.
How could we find out if phony evidence was used to get the FISA warrant?
Well, Trump could order the release of the FISA warrant application. An awful lot of people have wondered why he hasn’t already done so…but, it wasn’t until just this week that we found out that Hillary was directly responsible for the Steele “dossier.”
Any surveillance of a private citizen based on a demonstrably phony, political document would be a 4th amendment violation. And Manafort’s lawyers can reasonably assert that the basis for the warrant is material to his defense, and demand to see the application.
So, perhaps both sides have dry powder ?
It is not the fact that the Steele dossier was phony that is the problem.
It is that it is an effort by the political party in power to spy on the opposing political candidate that is the problem.
There was a claim that the watergate breaking was about someone in the Watergate DNC office running a prostitution ring from that office.
There is some plausibility to that as there was a nearby prositution ring.
And the phone that was tapped did not make sense politically.
But even if watergate was a criminal investigation authorized by the president – it was still an attempt by the government to spy on an opposing political candidate.
Nothing Ken White said contradicts anything I have said.
It is likely Mueller will be able to convict Manafort and Gates.
They have the Leona Helmsley problem – a washington Jury is likely to convict them without evidence.
Regardless, none of this touches the Trump campaign in any way.
The FARA prosecution should scare the shit out of everyone. Nobody has been prosecuted under that – and you could easily get Bill Clinton for running afoul of FARA.
Podesta just resigned from his own company.
The more useful news to Trump hates is the Papodolis stuff.
As I noted in another post it is another instance of the Trump campaign trying to get dirt on Clinton and failing. It is also another instance of indirect contact between the Trump Campaign and the Kremlin.
But again we have indirect contact between the Clinton campaign and the Kremlin too.
The difference is that Clinton actually got something from the russians – Trump didn’t.
Anyway – you keep hoping.
The difference is the Russians got NOTHING from the Clintons, Zero, Zip, Nada.
But they got PLENTY from tRUMP. I bet if you screwed up your brain in thought, you could list them yourself.
“The difference is the Russians got NOTHING from the Clintons, Zero, Zip, Nada.
But they got PLENTY from tRUMP. I bet if you screwed up your brain in thought, you could list them yourself.”
Are you serious ? How much tinfoil are you wearing ?
Please what did Trump get from Russia ? Zip, Nada, Nothing.
What did Trump give to Russia ? Zip, Nada, Nothing.
What did Russia get from Clinton ? The U1 deal.
What did Clinton get from Russia – hundreds of millions to the CF, half a million in speaking fees, and that OPO research that you claim is invaluable.
There is no Quid and no Quo with Trump and both with Clinton.
You are so deep in the bubble it is beyond beleif.
When all this started I though Obama was merely a poor president.
Now I think that the Obama adminstration may have been the most corrupt in modern times.
When all this started I was suspicious of crooked Hillary, now we have atrainload of evidence against her. The “old news” just keeps getting bigger and more solidly proven.
When all this started there was so many bad acts done by Lynch, Holder. Mueller, Rosenstein, Clinton, Podesta, Comey, that I did not know of.
Now there are more coming out every week.
We might find soon enough that the Steele dossier was used to get a warrant against a political opponent.
Can you grasp how incredibly illegal and corrupt that would be ?
Even Nixon was not able to use the FBI to do his wiretapping.
Masterful Demolition of the Bullshit Uranium Accucations Against Clinton
If that is your idea of shred you are not capable of thinking.
1) This is not “old news” – but even if it were, it would not matter.
What is new and large is this goes way past Clinton which completely obliterates the CFIUS nonsense. Worse still CFIUS KNEW that Russians were bribing and looking to blackmail US businessemen.
So did Mueller, Rosenstein, and Comey and many of Muellers staff.
This was known in 2010. And it was hidden from Congress – who also had to approve the deal.
Maybe Clinton influence CFIUS and the FBI and DOJ and ……
Maybe not
What is now blatantly obvious is that the entire obama administration was involved in a coverup.
This is no longer about Clinton, this is now about the white house.
Clinton was just profiting from a deal that she brokered and Obama wanted.
Do you think CFIUS is going to stop something that Obama wants ?
Why did the FBI and DOJ slow walk the investigation ?
Why didn’t they tell Congress ?
Jay, the Democrats are in deep shit here.
It does not matter if the U1 deal was a good thing for the country.
And you can tell that reid is an idiot because she makes this ludicrously stupid argument that the uranium was not for weapons.
1) So what – all energy – not merely nuclear energy is a matter of national security.
2) All uranium can be refined to U235 for weapons. And the russians have had the technology to do that for 70 years.
3). All uranium can be used to produce plutonium.
Does becoming a democrat turn off half the cells in your brain ?
How can you listen to someone who makes arguments this stupid ?
You Sean Hannity fans obviously remember this vote of confidence:
https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/766819052656340993
Attaboy Jay, give em hell (the trump free internet legal team that is). They long ago pronounced that there is no evidence of trump or his associates doing anything improper or illegal with their Russian contacts. I long ago said that it was quite presumptuous for anyone to make that claim. I have no idea how this will turn out in the end and make no predictions or claims. But the Mueller investigation is 110% legitimate and must proceed. If it is stopped that will be a huge moment.
Listening to the people who will believe anything about the Clintons or the Democrats and are eager to play the aggressive prosecuting attorney and believe nothing improper about trump or the GOP and always ready to play the stonewalling defence attorney is making me sore and pissed off. You won’t bring them back to reality but its good to hear a voice of reason here! I’ll include Ron and dduck in the voices of reason category too even if they are not exactly of my own political persuasion.
Roby;
Are you really trying to sell Clinton as virtuous ? as not corrupt ?
Even if you caught Trump in bed with Putin – that would not change the fact that the Clintons are the most corrupt politicians ever.
Though I have to say this recent U1 stuff is bringing the Obama administration to a close second.
It is acceptable for the FBI and DOJ to turn a blind eye to the fact that Russians are bribing americans and to fail to inform congress about that, because the administration wants a deal to go through ?
If GE bribed DOE to build a power plant and the FBI got word and investigated, and the administration told the FBI to bury the investigation and hide it from congress because the power plant was a good thing they wanted approved – would that be OK with you ?
Roby;
I have been clear about this for a long time.
Until the US government becomes involved – everything associated with the Steele Dossier is “legal”. It is dirty and revolting, but legal.
Russian agents providing dirt on Trump to Clinton – legal,
Through British agents – legal
through fusion GPS – legal
through a big washington law firm – legal
through the DNC or the clinton campaign – legal.
The washington freebeacon – legal.
AND if Trump tried to do the same thing – legal.
What I have a problem with is this stupidity that it is illegal for Trump to look sideways at a russian, but legal for Clinton to have actual dealings with them – if she uses enough cutouts.
That said it is dirty. And it was dirty for Trump to try. But that is politics – pretty dirty.
The most frightening/disappointing thing I saw this week was the WSJ editorial telling Trump to fire Mueller and pardon everyone under investigation. WSJ & Fox News have melded into one propagandist entity- this the danger of having someone like Murdock owning both and using them to spread his own fevered ideology.
I’m sorry that you’re pissed off, Roby, but that’s because you’re so damn partisan these days.
It is alleged that the 2 companies that figure prominently in the Manafort indictment, and who are likely to be in legal hot water themselves are The Podesta Group and Mercury, both big time Democrat Lobby and PR firms, the former founded by John and Tony Podesta, who are kinda, sorta connected to the Clintons.
All of the charges against Manafort are from when he was working with THEM, not with Trump.
So, if Mueller is not a dirty guy, and is truly investigating Russian interference in US politics, there may be some uncomfortable moments ahead for Democrat apologists like you and Jay.
Those companies are likely in more hot water than Manafort.
Mueller is applying a very odd interpretation of law.
As is Roby and Jay
Roby and Jay are all trying to say that those at one end of a chain are not responsible for the act at the other end, if there are sufficient number of levels of remove.
That is you “collude” with Russia through a Lawyer, a research company and a british agent, you can pretend ignorance.
Mueller is claiming that if you are in the middle of the chain you are responsible for the acts at the end of the chain.
In the case of Manafort and gates, they were not doing the lobbying, those they hired were. Those they hired were responsible to register under FARA. They were the only ones with direct contact with legislators and government agencies.
In the context of washington I do not know what dirty means.
I do not think that Mueller is notably partisan.
I do think that Mueller is highly political.
I do not think it mattered to Mueller whether he was doing the bidding of Obama or Bush during the U1 mess. What is clear is that he was not the stand up rule of law person that he is portrayed.
What is evident is that Mueller is a danger to the rule of law.
That his application of the law is driven by his own interests, not the law itself.
That Mueller will use what power he has to destroy people,
or at other times to ignore them without regard for the law itself.
Jay and Roby do not seem to understand how incredibly dangerous that is.
It is pretty much exactly the soviet show trials.
It is Beria’s “show me the man and I will show you the crime”.
It is the law subservient to the whim of those in power.
Roby would be perfectly happy to have a legal system that only applied to Republicans.
They so lust after evidence of wrong doing by Trump they are excusing the growing mountain of wrong doing done by Clinton and the entire Obama administration.
Trump just demanded the resignation of Price over Private jets.
Why didn’t Obama demand Clinton’s resignation over the 500K speaking fee to Bill Clinton ?
It is increasingly evident that though Clinton might have brokered the U1 deal, that the administration actively sought that deal as part of the so called “russian reset”.
It is not Clinton that stalled and covered up the DOJ/FBI investigation of Russian bribery and corruption in the US.
The left continues to make a big deal over the fact that CFIUS has many members – as if you can avoid responsibility for misconduct by doing it as a group.
I do not think that Clinton lobbied CFIUS. It is self evident the Whitehouse did.
Further the CFIUS committee apparently knew of the bribery and corruption investigations when they made their decisions.
But what is damning is that as a consequence of an exceutive branch coverup Congress did not.
“It is alleged that the 2 companies that figure prominently in the Manafort indictment, and who are likely to be in legal hot water themselves are The Podesta Group and Mercury, both big time Democrat Lobby and PR firms, the former founded by John and Tony Podesta, who are kinda, sorta connected to the Clintons.
All of the charges against Manafort are from when he was working with THEM, not with Trump.”
Oh My God, I read this (below) last night and I thought it was humor until I read your post this morning. Truth is stranger than fiction.
“WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Asked to comment on the arrest of Paul Manafort on Monday, Donald Trump told reporters that he was not sure “who this Manafort person is.”
“There’s been a lot of talk about this guy, Peter Manafort, or whoever, this morning,” Trump said. “The name doesn’t really ring a bell with me. I’ll have to have someone Google him and figure out exactly who he’s supposed to be.”
When reporters pointed out that Manafort had been his campaign chairman in 2016, Trump responded angrily. “I just told you I never heard of him,” he said. “What’s his name again? I can’t even remember his name. That’s proof.”
Before bringing his conversation with reporters to an abrupt close, Trump offered a theory of who Manafort might be. “You’re telling me he ran a campaign,” Trump said. “If he ran anybody’s campaign, it was Hillary’s.”
On Capitol Hill, Trump’s Republican defenders seized on his denial and called for immediate hearings to determine possible links between Hillary Clinton and Paul Manafort.”
Unbelievably, it’s actually true! Its funny, but its not funny.
Roby;
The Borowitz report is SATIRE.
It is like the onion.
So ?
Is it beyond your ability to contemplate that Manafort could have contributed to Trumps election, and not be a good guy ?
Clinton is surrounded by an awful lot of people hard to tell from manafort.
Pretty good!
Jonah sizing it up…
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453235/paul-manafort-indicted-donald-trump-russia-probe
Mostly pretty good article.
Almost everything said about Manafort can be said about Podesta, and much of it about the Clinton’s.
I am not a republican.
I think many of the charges filed against manafort should not even be crimes, and I am not sure they actually are.
That does not make Manafort into a good guy.
But I am the guy who is going to hold my nose and defend Nazi’s marching through Skokie. Our civil and criminal rights need most protected when we are dealing with the sleaziest of us. Nothing is going to make Manafort less sleazy.
One thing that is quite clear from the indictment – presuming the facts are correct, is that Manafort went way out of his way to avoid taxes. That may or may not be illegal, but it is not appealing. He also provided his services to some pretty bad people.
There are alot of people like that. some republicans some democrats.
Political consultants do not seem to care much about party – atleast many of them
for all I know Manafort has represented democrats in the past.
I think Podesta has dealt exclusively with Democrats. He is getting hard to distinguish from Manafort.
I have a bit of a problem with goldbergs implication that if there is nothing there, Manafort will not be flipped.
Goldberg does nto seem to consider very seriously the possibility that someone looking to avoid prosecution will say anything to get off.
Last Papadolous plea does not change the known facts or the spirit.
It has the Trump campaign once again failing to get dirt on Clinton from Russia.
Something the Clinton campaign succeeded at.
It has Trump failing to get a face to face meeting with Putin.
Mueller made no changes about either,
The guilty plea was for a misstatement to investigators. One that as I recall was not consequential.
This is one of the huge problems with the lying to investigators laws – and several other related laws.
If there is no underlying crime, there should be no convictions for ones actions while being investigated.
If the police investigate me for murder and I tell them I was home with my wife, when really I was at a hotel cheating. The only crime should be what my wife does to me.
So long as I am not guilty of murder the rest is not a police matter.
The dominos will be falling..
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/special-counsel-papadopoulos-small-part-of-large-scale-investigation/index.html
The article is crap.
Though clearly Papadolopis was not paying attention.
There is no accounting for smart people acting stupid.
So let me clue you in. DO NOT TALK TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Not if your guilty, not if your innocent.
If they want to talk to you – get a lawyer.
To the greatest extent talk through your lawyer,
If that is not possible talk to them with your lawyer.
If you are talking with law enforcement you are at risk.
They are not ever your friends.
If all the people – democrats or republicans associated with this are not smart enough to grasp that – the deserve what id coming to them.
Just about every legal expert that has published on this investigation has said, Mueller will be looking to catch people in lies. Stupid lies, innocent lies, unrelated lies, He will be looking to trick people into making mistaken statements. It does not matter if the lie is relevant. Once you have someone in a lie – you own them.
Most people will sell out their best friend rather than go to jail.
“The multiple and endless investigations into the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation are reminiscent of investigations into any organized crime operation. You have the illegal activities (bribery, fraud, perjury, destruction of evidence etc), dirty cops ~ in this case, seemingly the entire upper echelon of the Obama intelligence community, maybe including Robert Mueller and James Comey ~ and even a few dead bodies, people who “met with unfortunate accidents.” And, yet, somehow, they always seem to know nothing, and no one ever gets indicted.”
That recent post of yours was impressive Priscilla. Dead bodies, organized crime, you have entered Hannity territory, and you are never going to come back.
What you and Dave fail to realize is that trump is POTUS, not the Clintons.
Me Partisan? I voted for Bill Clinton, what was known was that he was a womanizer when he was elected, unfortunately, like many (maybe almost all?) presidents. By the time he was under siege for Lewinsky I had realized that he was a sexual predator, not because of the willing Lewinsky, but in general. I had no trouble politically disowning him. He was unusually good at domestic politics (lousy at foreign policy) and from my part of the spectrum. Didn’t matter. And I never went back on that. The Clintons disgust me, have for decades, all the same the dead bodies and organized crime point of view that you hold goes way too far. Just because people have shitty characters does not mean that they can be excused of absolutely anything.
I found W to be a decent man and found the rhetoric from the left against him to be excessive and out of control, it disgusted me. He was not from my part of the spectrum. Did not matter, I found him to be decent and honest.
I voted twice for Obama, but at some point in his second term I decided I had had enough and wrote him that letter that he did not have the character to be president. Mostly, his politics matched up with mine. Didn’t matter.
I despise the character of trump but believe than on North Korea his path may be the best of the terrible choices. I’m giving it a chance.
You have said that you like my take on things. The above examples of my opinions may be some of the reasons for that.
You are perpetually gracious to me, its dis-arming. Unfortunately, your political views are re-arming. I would love to be able to say that I like your perspective on politics. But I don’t. At this point I cannot accept that any decent and intelligent well educated person is still trying to rationalize trump’s behavior or defend his character. Your rationalizations of his behaviors towards women alone make me ill. I do not respect that point of view. He is a sexual predator, and proud of it. Your blindness is not excusable. You are never going to write trump a letter like I wrote to Obama, not if he walks down the street holding Paul Ryan’s severed head. You are that far gone.
Women who rationalized bill clinton’s sexual predator for political expediency (especially feminists!) disgusted me, then and now. Same goes for those who try to rationalize trump’s sexual behavior and attitudes, most especially those who are conservative women who get it about bill clinton but excuse trump. Its inexcusable.
My political hero is John McCain, and has been for many, many years. I loath trump. Your hero is trump and you think badly of McCain. We are not the same political species. I think you are a terrible judge of political character. In politics you are a perfect example of all that I think has gone wrong.
The country is gradually descending into madness. This will end badly for us, and possibly rather well for assange and putin. The Dem party has been hijacked by identity politics and naïve economic ideas that adult people should have left behind in their college days. The GOP is a complete moral and intellectual disaster, people who have any brains and decency are leaving it or declaring themselves at war with the trump GOP. The party of the dancing-fat-mostly-naked-man convention is not an option either. I am watching my country slowly fall apart.
Shit.
Ha, correction: Just because people have shitty characters does not mean that they can be Accused of absolutely anything.
“Ha, correction: Just because people have shitty characters does not mean that they can be Accused of absolutely anything.”
Self evidently false.
You can accuse anyone of anything. I have excellent character. I am very proud of how I have conducted my life. I have made numerous poor choices – choices that harmed me.
But I have never intentionally harmed anyone else.
But I have been accused of theft and even murdering my father.
Poor character makes us more likely to believe accusations.
We beleive the myriads of accusations against Trump and Clinton because both have poor character.
But we investigate and prosecute people based on constitutional and legal standards.
Not merely accusations.
Again something you have not grasped.
You keep playing Beria – “show me the man and I will show you the crime”.
That is not the rule of law.
We are barred from using the awsome power of government to tear a persons life apart merely because they have been accused of something.
As the saying goes, Roby, you are entitled to your own opinion,you are not entitled to your own facts. And the fact is that, while I have been very critical of McCain’s behavior in campaigning on a platform of repealing Obamacare, I voted for him, and I have identified him, in this comment section as an “American hero,” for his military valor and service to this country. I have also been clear that I understand why he hates Trump, but I think he is wrong to use his personal animosity toward the president to screw over his constitutents and do precisely the opposite of what he promised them. Perhaps your memory is becoming too selective, but you don’t have to go back very far on TNM to validate everything that I just stated.
I will thank you to NOT tell me who my heroes are, and why I make independent judgments that may be different from yours. You claim to know that Trump has “bad” character, but you simultaneously defend a woman who has stayed with and enabled a serial abuser of women, who has lied about the deaths of Americans to save her own political skin, who will not take responsibility for her own humiliating electoral defeat and has accused the man who defeated her of doing precisely what we now know that she did~ that is, used Russian sources to try and invalidate a free election.
If (and it is still an “if”), in fact, Trump and his campaign were illegally spied upon by the sitting president and his former secstate, who was running on a platform of preserving his legacy, then that would be a scandal that would dwarf Watergate by several orders of magnitude. In my opinion, the evidence that we have seen points in that direction, although, unlike you, I am open to evidence that would disprove my current belief.
We have been discussing the Manafort indictment, and I have introduced some aspects of it that interest me, and which have not received much coverage in the press. I’ve also noted that the indictment does not include any evidence of Russian collusion by the Trump campaign, which is after all, the whole point….isn’t it?
So, as always, I value your opinion, and I will continue to express my own. I am not “blind” and I am not viciously or bitterly partisan like Jay. If our differing opinions cause you to think less of me, that is unfortunate. If our differing opinions cause you to think less of me, that is unfortunate.
“The country is gradually descending into madness. This will end badly for us, and possibly rather well for assange and putin.”
Ah, we do agree on this, that’s for sure.
“I will thank you to NOT tell me who my heroes are,and why I make independent judgments that may be different from yours”
I can find where you wrote that you and others find trump sort of heroic if you like and the place were you wrote that McCain is one of the biggest hypocrites in politics. Not making this up. McCains actions are not out of spite but out of common decency and common sense from where I sit. He is being what he always has been, a maverick. Good on him, we need more in politics who represent the country first and their fucking party second. You have called that hypocrisy, it makes me cross since he is my idea of a true hero and a moderate.
“You claim to know that Trump has “bad” character,”
Damn straight, nothing could be clearer. Even Dave get that.
“but you simultaneously defend a woman who has stayed with and enabled a serial abuser of women,”
Soap opera shit, between the clintons, could care less about that particular facet. I “defend” her when the accusations become completely ludicrous, like murder. When they are on point I am happy to not defend her, see below.
“who has lied about the deaths of Americans to save her own political skin”
some truth in that
“who will not take responsibility for her own humiliating electoral defeat”
I’m with you 100% on that, bleh time for her to go! May the withered hag and her narcissistic spouse please disappear.
“and has accused the man who defeated her of doing precisely what we now know that she did~ that is, used Russian sources to try and invalidate a free election.”
At the moment, that is nearly pure speculation on your part. You have already convicted clinton and exonerated trump and both very prematurely. And, it does not relieve the POTUS of his own guilt if he did it. He is the POTUS, not clinton.
Priscilla, sometimes unfortunately admiration is not symmetrical. I have a sneaky feeling that while I really admire Ron’s thinking habits, mine probably drive him nuts, I’m liberal, too excited, too likely to get angry and insulting with Dave. It does not change my admiration for his way of looking at things. Likewise between you and I, your kind words are flattering, I only wish I could reflect the same back on you, but unfortunately I can’t. Just the way it is.
Roby;
All the things you claim are between the Clintons are the very same kinds of things that Trump’s character is judged on.
If Bill Clinton’s treatment of women and Hillaries not merely enabling it, but slut shaming his victims is “between the clintons” – then why isn’t all of Trump’s mysoginy between him and those women or him and his wife of the time ?
You want Trump’s tax returns to be public, but Hillary’s public disparagement of the women Bill has assualted and possibly raped – that is “between the clintons” ?
You an incredible hypocrite. You only see the sins of those on the left.
I beleive I already posted this. Regardless, it is one reason why many of us loath the left.
You think that bad character and crimes can be wiped clean by ideological acts of penance. Assault and possibly rape possibly hundreds of women – and you can be made clean again by working on gun control and funding a women directors initiative.
Reprehensible actions are not unique to one party.
But on the right they are usually permanently fatal.
On the left they require a week in a sex addiction clinic.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453245/liberal-insurance-supporting-progressive-causes-absolution-moral-wrongs
Trump was not POTUS when the Clinton’s were selling influence.
Trump was not POTUS when the executive was spying on americans,
Trump was not POTUS when the DOJ and FBI were hiding Russia interferance in election, as well as other acts of bribery and corruption from Congress.
What is self evident is that even as POTUS, much of the machinery of government continues to act with the same disregard for the law as it did under Obama.
The FBI and other agencies continues to stonewall congress over numerous demands for records that could only help Trump.
It is increasingly apparent that many of the people in the current administration are loyal to themselves and their cronies and are busy covering their own asses and blocking the efforts of the president to accomplish the tasks for which he was elected.
Rosenstein as an example, was a key part of the coverup of the Russian corruption and bribery during the Obama administration and an Obama apointee.
How is he deputy AG ? How is he the person appointing Mueller ?
How do you expect a thorough investigation of Russian influence from people who covered up Russian influence in the prior administration ?
One of the problems with organized political corruption such as that of the Clinton’s is that in addition to their real misdeeds, in the eyes of some of their opponents they assume mythic proportions, and become responsible for murder’s. That once you know they can do evil, you can blame almost anything one them.
There is alot attributed to the Clinton’s I do not know that they have done. Maybe they have done none of it.
But there are lots of things we know they have done.
Manafort is headed to jail for essentially the kind of money laundering the Clinton’s have done. They merely put a Charitable foundation in the middle, and aparently ran the dirty money through a Canadian branch.
Regardless, Roby – is there anyone here who beleives you would not want Trump’s head on a spike if he had done a tiny fraction of what we KNOW the Clinton’s did.
When you are not up to your ass in hypocracy – your views will have much more weight.
You and Jay keep trying to paint the rest of us as big Trump supporters.
I did not vote for Trump. I do not like him.
I support some of what he does or wants to do, and oppose other things.
But I am not so politically corrupt that I want him removed as president by any means necescary merely because I oppose some of his views.
I have noted before this Russia Collusion thing is going nowhere – because he can’t go anywhere. Because if Trump actually sat down with Putin and Putin endorsed him for President – it still would not be improper – disturbing, but not improper.
You need to prove that votes were altered or voters were paid for their votes.
This argument that people did not vote the way you wanted to because of “russia” is stupid.
As I noted before my Grandmother voted for the most handsome candidate.
There is no reason that someone uses to drive their vote that is illegal.
Short of bribery or force, there is no “influence” that is or should be illegal.
Candidates are allowed to lie to get elected.
One of the issues is specifically what we have going on right now.
We do not ever want some portion of the government trying to decide that some voters made the wrong choice.
If you can say the election turned because voters read too many Russian false Facebook posts,
then you can police the media too. Many many stories on the media were false.
You inherently trust some group of elites of your own ilk to decide what influences others are allowed to experience.
You are quite literally arguing to head towards 1984.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0thehNSUbc
Roby “The Dem party has been hijacked by identity politics and naïve economic ideas that adult people should have left behind in their college days. The GOP is a complete moral and intellectual disaster, people who have any brains and decency are leaving it or declaring themselves at war with the trump GOP.”
And fear and hate have taken over common sense and common good. The voices of the moderate middle have been silenced by the loud voices of the minority extremes on both wing tips. The moderate middle accepts the choices of the extremes to give us candidates that provide nothing but division and distrust.
Ed Gillespie is not a “Trumper”. Ed Gillespie is a right of center conservative that was more in line with the Bush’s than the extreme wing of the party. He was a counselor for “W” and was an adviser to Mitt Romney’s campaign. He reluctantly supported Trump when Trump became the nominee.
When fear and emotions drives elections, elections will not end well. That is how we ended up with Trump. That is how foreign governments end up in the hands of dictators.
Pretty bad. I don’t remember ever seeing any TV campaign advertising that was not fear based. It runs from bad to worse. This example is Willy Horton bad.
Under my proposal to shoot all the politicians we have now and replace them with randomly chosen citizens I should have been broader in my targets: shoot the whole political apparatus, the consultants, the propagandists, all of them. The system has evolved into a wretched freak that is headed for extinction.
I guess that might be a little harsh, I do know that we can’t actually do that.
Gillespie is not a “Trumper”, but the ad is offensive beyond that.
Even if the target was Trump – the ad would be offensive.
Or more accurately it reveals those who created it as completely unable to to see their opponents.
This short quote from the article Jay linked sums the whole damn thing up as of the moment, nothing more needs to be said. This is what the view from reality sounds like:
“And that just brings us to the fundamental truth of this entire story. If Trump is guilty of seriously and secretly colluding with Russia — something I’m still skeptical of and that lacks much proof — then he is in big trouble because Mueller will figure it out. If he didn’t, he’s not in big trouble because Mueller will figure it out.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453235/paul-manafort-indicted-donald-trump-russia-probe
That whole easy clarity is of course short circuited by the fact that if Mueller finds evidence on trump then the whole trump-defence-no matter-what brigade will declare that the whole investigation and Mueller himself were dirty, biased, unconstitutional blah, blah, blah. Anything is fair as long as we win, a slogan trump pretty well ran on (if we lose it was rigged).
And, to be fair, if Mueller does Not get trump then the ever increasing rabid portion of the Democrats will froth at the mouth in a way that is identical to those on the right who are after Comey for not getting hillary. The partisan madness goes in both directions. political bankruptcy looms.
I, like Goldberg, have big doubts that literal collusion occurred, because it was unnecessary. putin hates hillary and had long ago chosen his horse in our race. Mueller will likely find lots of dirty, stupid, venal, and even rather traitorous in my opinion actions, but the biggest hope of the Dems, flat out collusion, is likely to be dashed and they will be furious.
Comey has disgraced himself. The left is conflicted because they think he contributed to tanking Clinton, but they think he helped trying to get Trump.
But the left is less concerned about actual ethics that outcome.
AGAIN – what is “collusion” ?
How are we to know whether it occured if we do not know what it is ?
I think Putin does hate Hillary. Putin is also the leader of Russia, he does not allow personal feelings to drive him to poor choices. Hillaries missteps have been very good for him politically.
Putin did not work to elect Trump or to elect Hillary.
He worked for exactly what he got – to discredit the US elections.
It is increasing evident that some on the Trump campaign were desparate for dirt on Clinton from Russia. My guess is we may see a few more examples of attempts at that before we are done.
But we are unlikely to see successes – because had those occurred Trump would have used the dirt.
Regardless if there were dozens of efforts to get hillary dirt – that will not undermine Trump.
Since you are open to reading certain articles by never-trumpers at National Review, I would encourage you to follow Andrew McCarthy’s coverage of the Mueller investigation.
McCarthy, like most of the NR writers, was a never-trumper, but he is also a former US Attorney, and he is following the news from that perspective. This is his article from yesterday:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453244/manafort-indictment-no-signs-trump-russia-collusion
Today he wrote an interesting column on the Papadopoulos plea.
NR is a particularly good source of relatively unbiased opinion…although, even the NR folks have certain biases, of course. Cherry picking tweets and articles, as Jay does, is not the best strategy for getting a balanced view. Jonah Goldberg and David French (who actually considered running against Trump in the primaries) are most likely to write pieces that you and Jay would agree with (Kevin Williamson as well) but they are also pretty balanced. I often disagree with David French, but he is correct in his view that hiring Manafort was a mistake. On the other hand, Manafort was renowned for his work in helping Reagan gain the amount of delegates needed for the GOP nomination, so I tend to think that that was the reason that Trump hired him, not because he was a conduit to the Russians.
But, as they say in auto commercials, your mileage may vary.
Manafort is one thing, for me its Roger Stone, he simply oozes sleaze, just a vile man. If trump goes down there will be a Roger Stone connection. I do check in on the Nat Review when I’m off the wagon and looking into political crap.
I was doing so well at keeping politics out but the WSJ supporting firing Mueller got me off the wagon, one of my kids told me. God, how I hate this political cesspool. Shoot em all and start over, repopulate congress by random selection from the phone book and a background check.
I do not like Roger Stone.
I do not like most of these political consultants. regardless of their ideology.
My dislike does nto preclude me from on occasion agreeing with them,
or presume that I want them silenced.
For law – almost anything on Volokh is excellent
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/?utm_term=.f98f57c2ff70
After that, Johnathan Turley, Andrew McCarthy and Ken White are really trustworthy sources.
National Review is slowly becoming more “libertarain”, regardless they are a good source of the thought of a particular brand of conservatism.
WSJ usually reflects a big business crony conservatism.
WSJ has been known to have some incredibly good editorials. It has also been known to offer complete crap.
As a constitutional and legal matter, Trump can fire Mueller and disband the SC.
The question is whether he can do so politically.
If the issue is ethics – Mueller must resign. The U1 revelations are far to damaging and have too much overlap with what he is now doing.
If he does not Trump should fire him.
But he is not going to, because he can not politically.
I think he should fire a bunch of others. I think he needs a show of power to the administration so that more in it grasp that they all serve at the pleasure of the president.
One thing I Can say that I admire about you Priscilla is that you take my hardest punches and keep your composure. That is a rare and enviable gift. I am sure that that characteristic has come in extremely handy in life.
“And that just brings us to the fundamental truth of this entire story. If Trump is guilty of seriously and secretly colluding with Russia — something I’m still skeptical of and that lacks much proof — then he is in big trouble because Mueller will figure it out. If he didn’t, he’s not in big trouble because Mueller will figure it out.”
The problem with that is that it rests on faith in Mueller.
What the U1 stuff revealed is there is no reason to have faith in Mueller, and good reason not to.
I would also ask you what constitutes
“seriously”
“secretly”
“colluding”.
One of the problems with this entire investigation from the begining is that it is a snipe hunt. There is no crime being investigated.
Is “secretly” trying to get dirt on Clinton sufficient ? Or does it have to be getting dirt from Russians ? Does it have to be “secretly”.
Generally “secretly” is only meaningful in that it is consciousness of guilt – we beleive that when people do things secretly they know what they are doing is wrong.
But there are many reasons for secrecy besides hiding malfeasance.
There is no crime of “colluding”. Usually the word used in a criminal context is “conspiracy”, and for conspiracy to be a crime – it must be conspiracy to commit a crime.
Conspiring or colluding secretly to do something legal is not going to get you anywhere.
What I am trying to get you to realize is that MAYBE Mueller will get a bit more of this manafort or Papadopolis nonsense.
tax evasion, lying to investigators. but you are never going to get your “colluding with Russia” crime. Because there is no such crime – and really can not be.
I keep trying to get you to imagine what you think the worst thing that Trump might have done might be.
To get what you want, you need something that is not “persuasion”, because only Clinton voters will see persuading people to vote for Trump as a crime.
You do not seem to get – politicians are allowed to lie, and political speach is the most protected domain of free speach, and as a practical matter it is not possible to foreclose the ability of foreign nations to speak. Further you are not getting anywhere by jumping up and down and frothing over something the Russians might have done that Trump could have done for himself.
I honestly do not know why Mueller is still investigating.
There is not only no there, there – there can not be.
Again what is it that you think Mueller can find that would be the crime you need ?
Here is Andrew McCarthy on the indictments. I had expected that he would find more meat than he does.
McCarthy notes the same problem with the Money laundering claims that I do – the money is not the proceeds of a crime.
The big claim – which I do not think Mueller made – would have bene tax evasion.
I am guessing based on other information that Mueller might have been barred on that claim – as I beleive the IRS investigated Manafort previously. If Manafort reached a prior settlement with the IRS, Mueller can not charge him with a crime for a resolved matter.
Regardless, all the Manafort money games create a Leona Helmsley problem for Manafort. But Mueller’s legal grounds appear to be very shaky.
This is likely to prove an incredibly expensive fight for Manafort, and possibly one they need to get to appeals courts to win, but it does not look like their risk of serious jail time is very high.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453244/manafort-indictment-no-signs-trump-russia-collusion
Victor Davis Hanson and an excellent post on why we do not trust the left.
You are all the worlds worst hypocrits – and you get away with it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453245/liberal-insurance-supporting-progressive-causes-absolution-moral-wrongs
This is how the left sees everyone else.
https://twitter.com/latinovictoryus/status/924972736996364289
A reasonable and moderate viewpoint from The Week:
“Why not appoint another special prosecutor to investigate British meddling in our sacrosanct democratic process? The facts are there in plain sight. A former member of Her Majesty’s Secret Intelligence Service collaborated with a presidential campaign in an attempt to alter the outcome of the 2016 election. So did a former member of the British Parliament, who peddled disgusting conspiracy theories on Twitter and even attempted to collude with the Clinton campaign on advertising strategy. The speaker of the British House of Commons attempted to discredit Clinton’s opponent. Should we see whether the Right Hon. John Bercow has ever emailed anyone who has ever in any capacity ever been in contact with anyone in the Obama White House? Hillary Clinton thinks we are in the midst of a “new Cold War.” Are we also in the throes of a rebooted War of 1812?”
The above is sarcasm, but the article, in main part, makes a very valid point: This whole thing has gotten way out of hand ~Special Prosecutors need to be limited to a specific mission and not given unlimited time and budget to conduct fishing expeditions.
http://theweek.com/articles/734070/mueller-running-amok
“Special Prosecutors need to be limited to a specific mission and not given unlimited time and budget to conduct fishing expeditions.”
So if a Special Prosecutor finds evidence of felonies or other high crimes during his investigation he should just ignore them right? Even if they’re committed by persons relied on by the President or other officials who make decisions effecting the future of the nation?
Really? You think the nation better served when slimebags like Manafort advising narcissistic nincompoops like tRUMP should be exempted from criminal prosecution because the evidence found was peripheral to the main thrust of the investigation?
By that narrow standard I guess you don’t want police who stop drivers for speeding or erratic driving to be able to arrest them if explosives are found during the stop.
The only one government entity that can go on snipe hunts – that is congress.
The DOJ investigates crimes constrained by the 4th amendment.
The SCO is part of the DOJ.
If you want a Ken Starr like independent council you need a new IC law. The IC is under congress not the executive.
The SC is by law appointed ONLY when an investigation can not be performed by DOJ because of a conflict. Essentially where DOJ would be investigating itself.
Apponting an SC to investigate Clinton would be stupid – there is no conflict.
If there is – those people should be fired or excluded from the investigation.
If the DOJ/FBI can not investigate a person no longer in government something is very very wrong – and the solution is to clean house at DOJ/FBI not to bring in another SC.
Charging Mueller to investigate Russia was outside the law.
That is counter intelligence and again can be done by the FBI, CIA, NSA,
Further an investigation of foreign powers and non-US persons operates under rules far more relaxed than a criminal prosecution. Russia and russian agents have no constitutional rights. Nor are we investigating crimes.
When an investigation becomes an investigation of a person and a crime, then it must be shifted to a different portion of DOJ/FBI that follows US Criminal procedures.
When if leads to a person in the chain of command from FBI through to the president who can not be recused, THEN an SC is appointed.
They are narrowly appointed to investigate that person and that crime.
If they encounter tangential crimes – so long as they are not intrinsically tied to the person that is the conflict – they should be reffered to DOJ/FBI.
Manafort & Gates should be turned over to the DOJ/FBI.
Nothing in their prosecution relates to the SC’s brief – not eve the expanded one that Rosenstein gave Mueller. Rolling people to climb a ladder might be a valid prosecution technique, but it has a lot of flaws. Regardless, the SC can not go investigated random armed robberies, in the hope of turning the perpetrator on Trump
All this stuff is called the rule of law.
It is their to prevent the mess we currently have.
If you pull someone over for speeding – how are you planning to find explosives ?
This is an extremely common issue with police stops. While the 4th amendment protections for cars are low, Still, you can not search a car, just because someone was speeding.
Again constitutional rights, rule of law. Generally when the police stop you they are entitled to use whatever is in plain sight. They are not free to search your car until they have a basis beyond a traffic stop.
Jay, I have to agree with you reluctantly about pursuing charges wherever they lead. What I dont agree with is wiring someone to trap another individual in a future crime. They need to be restricted to past crimes and that was not what seems to have occurred with “Pop”. They have reported many times that he wore a wire.
However, my trust level for anyone in the top 5% is one where I believe any investigation into their dealings over their professional lives would have a good chance to result in some charge. I think if Mark Cuban ran, like he says he may, there most likely is something in one or more of his deals thats illegal.
My hope is when the Muellers investigation is complete Clinton, Podesta and others associated with the Clinton Foundation involved in Russian deals are held justvas responsible as any Trumper is held. And my distrust of government makes me believe that will not happen.
I don’t have a clear picture of the George Papadopoulos (can you imagine the Russians struggling with that pronunciation 😊) situation, or exactly why that he lied about his contacts with them is significant – my brain is already logy from the volumn of chatter about Manafort. But I don’t have the same reservations you do to snaring peripheral figures via wiretapping if it garners pertinent info relevant to the investigation. Apparently the wiretapping (not yet verified) was about Papadop’s Russian connections in regard to negative Clinton info they possessed and wanted to shunt to tRUMP. That seems legit to me.
I don’t get your Clinton Foundation meaning. Are you saying illegal deals were made with Russians to benefit the Foundation?
George P’s mis-statements are not consequential and never should have been prosecutable.
Some days I think lying to law enforcement is a civic duty.
Regardless, his activities are indistinguishable from Trump Jr.’s natalia meeting.
He failed to get something that would have been legal.
If you come up with a dozen more George P examples – you still dont have anything.
I think it is near certain you are never going to find Trump actually got dirt on Clinton from Russia – because if he had, he would have used it, and he didn’t.
But even if I am wrong – getting dirt on Clinton from Russia – aint getting you anywhere.
I had not heard George P was wiretapped.
Regardless eventually the wiretaps are going to be a big deal .
A wiretap has a fairly high 4th amendment requirement.
I have a somewhat different view of constitutional rights than many civil libertarians.
I do not think you supress evidence illegally obtained.
You use it.
and separately prosecute those who obtained the evidence ilegally.
Send law enforcement to jail for illegal wiretaps and the 4th amendment might have some teeth.
Regardless, if wiretaps get evidence on Trump, Manafort, George P, ….
it is their lawyers who get to argue about the evidence – that is not important to me.
I do not accept that you get to get away wit a crime because the evidence was obtained improperly.
That applies to Hillary and the DNC emails.
If ilegal wiretaps prove Trump or others did something wrong – nail them.
I am not expecting that – but so be it.
The most important story for me is not Trump.
It is the fact that the Obama administration participated in an effort to get an opposing political candidate.
Clinton as a private citizen can do whatever she wants – pay Russian spies, ….
But the FBI should not be wiretapping political candidates and campaigns willy nilly.
I want to see the applications for wiretap warrants,
and if they are not rock solid based on FBI investigations, – not unmasking, not the Steele Dossier – then I want ALL those involved rotting in jail.
If anyone in the Obama administration was using the FBI the way Nixon used the Plumbers, then there should be very long jail sentences for alot of people.
You think Trump is a problem – I think there is plenty of evidence of very serious corruption that has nothing to do with Trump.
If the Clintons personally benefited from deals she made as Sec, State that is a crime.
Laundering the benefit through CF does not purge the crime.
To launder money criminally, the money has to go back to you after it’s laundered.
How did the Clinton Foundation do that? By having every Aids patient who received medications through the Foundation secretly mail back a nickel or dime in their foreign money in kickbacks?
I’m sure that Russians and other tried to curry favor with the Clintons by donating to the Foundation, but there is absolutely no evidence the Clintons benefited from that personally. And the amounts donated by Russians, and Muslim Nations, etc, is insignificient to the donations of European nations, and private individuals and corporations world wide.
During Hillary’s tenure as SEC OF STATE the Foundation was one of the most active charitable organizations in the world, millions of people on the planet benefiting from it. Now the Assholes who have been lying and denigrating it has effected its good works. That’s why I have little but contemp for criticisms of the Foundation, mostly generated by antiClinton propaganda.
“To launder money criminally, the money has to go back to you after it’s laundered.”
Nope.
The Clinton foundation served myriads of purposes – none of which was really as a charity.
It provided a sinecure for democratic political operatives who were not currently serving in washington. I means for the clintons to reward political loyalists.
Control of half a billion dollars of funding, provides the clintons with power,
One the one hand those wanting favors or just to be in the good graces of the clintons have a “legal” means of bribing them – contribute to the CF. On the other the disbursement of CF funds creates power and obligations to the Clintons.
Further CF is notortiously bad at charity and notoriously overweight in administration.
Aside from that massive staff of sinecures – nearly every clinton aide at the state department was simulataneously serving at CF often with do nothing jobs.
Do you not have a problem with Russians paying CF hundreds of Millions when Clinton’s support for a deal is necescary, and that money going to Clinton alcolytes and staff for doing little or nothing ?
Beyond that CF pays for the Clintons private jet, and their meals and their hotels and there travel to CF sponsored conferences all over the world.
And just so you understand – we are not talking small change here – a Clinton trip to a conference in London or Paris could cost millions.
Please do not tout the aides stuff that has been debunked many times.
First let me cite data far bigger than CF. Aide to africa over the past 50 years had exceeded $1T dollars. All that aide has had ZERO effect on africa.
This is well known and inside the aide community there is a great deal of self examination going on as a result of this. And it is very complex, because there are alot of people – such as CF workers whose lives are tied up in helping people in africa, and clearly the only result has been jobs for them.
I am not blaming that on CF. But I am flat out saying that if you are selling CF based on effective Aide – that is a fail.
CF’s Aides contributions – had no effect on Aides trends in Africa.
CF’s aide to Haiti has no effect on Haiti.
CF is not unquiely bad with respect to that.
Beyond that only a very small portion of CF’s money is spent on direct aide.
The vast majority of it is spent on conferences and get togethers of people involved in aid – basically on cheerleading sessions where those involved in aid celebrate themselves.
VF had one of the worst rankings for efficient use of money for aide.
They were so bad – that instead of fixing the problem – they “fixed” the people ranking charities, forcing them to come up with new ways to rank charities to make CF look better.
Basically they strong armed the rankers into counting funding conferences and the like as direct chartity.
Of course the Russians were currying favor.
But do you think they would have contributed 100+M without getting what they paid for ?
We have more obvious examples of quid pro quos at lower levels.
Throughout the Clinton emails that are slowing being made available are hundreds of requests by CF staff for access for donors to bypass normal channels at state while Clinton was there.
Personally I think the Clinton Foundation is one of the most brilliant forms of political corruption I have ever seen in my life. And if they had been slightly more careful with it.
Confining it to providing jobs for cronies and being careful about personal benefits that it would have been near impregnable.
Actually no, The russian donations were NOT insignificant – they amoutn to about 1/3 of the CF’s endowment. The next largest source would be the mideast – not Europe.
There was also a surprising large amount of contributions from despots from Africa.
It should be obvious to you by the sources of donations that these were people who were buying influence.
Millions of people accross the world did not benefit from CF.
AS noted before Africa has not benefitted from 50 years and $1T in aide.
The fact is that charitable aide is horribly ineffective.
I am not opposed to it. I give to some of these groups myself.
But we know exactly what improves the lifes of the least well off accross the world – increased liberty – particularly economic liberty.
Charity has ZERO statistically measurable benefit.
If Charity is net Zero and the CF is one of the least efficient charities trying to claim they did good is ludicrous.
I am not looking to piss over the good intentions of others.
But I am not pretending that good intentions are the same as success.
BTW the CF is not alone in this – pretty much NO ONE has been effective in Africa.
Pretty much NO ONE has been effective in Haiti.
Unfortunately William Easterly retired a few years ago, but he is one of the worlds most respected development economists and he used to have a blog called “aide watch” where he reported on the studies of the effectiveness of aide accross the world.
In a prior post I noted that Bill Gates spent $1B on mosquito nets in Africa to reduce malaria and actually caused an increase.
He has spent more on education in the US with only a very small number of tangible results.
I greatly respect Gates and his efforts. But charity is incredibly hard.
Many of the same reasons that govenrment handouts fail, are present with charity.
Often we have problems – such as the lack of clean drinking water, that have simple solutions to us – drill more wells for water, And we impliment them and they fail – because even though drilling wells is easy and cheap for the west, it is not for africans.
We go in drill new wells and these wells work for a few years and then fail.
Because the africans do not know how to maintain them, and do not know how to fix them, and just stop using them when there are problems.
Aide has in myriads of instances in africa proven actually destructive.
We tried to stop desertification by impeding the migration of elephants and other large herds as they were destroying the grasslands. We followed that policy since the 50’s, we have since discovered that actually makes things worse. That periodically the grasslands
need destroyed or burnt so that the can regenerate. that if they are left alone they die slowly as opposed to get suddenly destroyed, and they can not recover when they fail slowly.
I am not sure it is possible to attribute good intentions to CF.
The Clinton’s are smart enough to know all I am telling you and more.
I do not think they have ever cared about actual charity – just the appearance of charity.
The left’s obsession with virtue signally.
But even if you do decide CF had good intentions – it has predictable failed.
Though not uniquely or alone.
Easterly and aide – long but excellent.
If you watch different channels you would think you were living in different countries with different news happening. Trump, Manaford, Pop, Podesta, Russia, Uranium, Clinton, Bills $500,000 30 minute speech, Clinton Foundation ,money laundering, collusion, Facebook, etc,etc.t
When all the facts are in, we will know who did what,when and how.
We all should agree to chase down whatever malfeasance has been committed regardless of by who.
There are still questions of how we do so, and who should do it.
I have increasingly serious problems about Mueller doing this.
Mueller was sold to us as the straightest shooter in washington.
It is clear that he too is bent. How bent – I do not know. He could still be the straightest shooter in washington. But that would just make Washington irredeemably corrupt.
With respect to how – I want the 4th amendment back.
I have argued here before for an independent government entity investigating political corruption. But I want it as truly independent of politics as possible, and I want it to be permanent and ongoing. I am not sure but I think we need to amend the constitution to do this. I think it either need to be in its own independent branch or part of the judiciary.
It needs to have a set budget, it needs to be able to determine its own cases and investigate them and prosecute them. It should do so a quietly as can feasibly be done.
It should be confined SOLELY to prosecuting government malfeasance.
——
We are all going to speculate before the facts are in, that is human nature.
Some of our speculation is going to be wildly wrong.
Regardless, there are actually things that can be examined based on the facts that we know.
Someone should be telling everyone associated with the Trump campaign not to talk to investigators without a lawyer – not because they have done anything wrong, but because minor mistatements can subject them to criminal prosecutions.
And otherwise to be forthcoming with investigators.
There can be 50 more of these Donald Jr. George P revelations and Mueller will get nowhere. Trying to get OPO research on Clinton is not going to make this “collusion” case.
I do not think Mueller will ever find evidence that the Trump campaign succeeded.
Because if it had gotten useful dirt on Clinton from Russia it would have used it.
But if I am wrong – that is still not “collusion”.
One of the problems the left has is that Clintons actions have defined the terms.
Mueller must come up with Trump Campaign conduct that is more egregious than Clinton’s.
The next area is the DNC leaks.
The timing on those practically precludes Trump involvement.
Further it is near certain now, that was a leak, and that even the separate hacking that did occur was not likely Russia.
What is evident is that the DNC IT security was a seive.
I would also note that The DNC leak episode has now been linked with Perkins Coie and Fushion GPS. That makes the refusal of the DNC to provide the FBI with physical access all the more disturbing. The decisions regarding the causes of the DNC leaks was made based on political expedience not facts.
Regardless, If trump was involved in the DNC leaks it would not likely be through Russia.
It would be more likely that Trump paid someone off directly to get the emails from the DNC and provide them to Wikileaks.
Thus far there is there is zero to suggest that.
The russian efforts to hack voting machines appear to have been real and weak.
This is a real problem we need to address. Again there is no connection to Trump, but it still a problem. We need confidence that our vote is recorded as we intended.
The integrity of our voting system is a solveable problem. But neither the right nor the left seems interested in actually solving it.
The last issue is that of foreign powers essentially speaking politically to US voters.
This appears to be where the left is now fixated.
This is by far the most dangerous – not to Trump, but to us as a society.
Social media companies are now falling all over themselves to identify suspicious activity.
And congress is egging them on. The press and the left are frothing at the mouth over this.
The end result of this will either be self censorship of legal censorship of social media.
We already have myriads of examples of bad and tiilted self censorship of social media.
This does not end well.
The left has never been able to accept that ordinary people collect information from various sources process it and make their own decisions.
That the quality of those sources vary, that all those sources have different ulterior motives, that in the end people have to think critically and make their choices.
That many of them are going to make their choices for reasons others of us do not like.
We do not want government deciding who is allowed to speak to us.
We do not want government pressuring private actors to decide who is allowed to speak to us.
The words the left uses are telling “Russian influence” – of course the russians influenced the election through speach. But so did CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NYT, WaPo, RNC, DNC …….
Where influence means they provided information that is outside the scope of anything the law should involve itself in.
Nor does the veracity of the expression matter. Again we do not want government deciding what is true enough for people to hear and what is not.
I am very concerned about this move towards censorship of the internet.
Whether by govenrment or privately.
I have already reduced my use of Google as a result of the Google firing of a behavioral scientist over his remarks.
I was also concerned that Der Sturmer was driven to the dark web.
I am seriously wondering what the alternatives to Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube are.
The left has decided it must blame something besides itself for losing the election.
The left has always been more strongly associated with the censorship of political expression.
I think the freedom and chaos of the modern internet is a tremendous societal net positive.
I do not want anybody – not the govenrment, not Twitter, not Facebook deciding what I or anyone else can see or hear, or who is free to speak. Not even Russia
Dave, like I said, we will know who did what when and how when the carges are filed. Probably around Sept 2018.
Im not sure you will ever take politics out of political investigations with any governmental agency with the way our system works. Everyone running a governmental agency is political appointee. Even a private company with a gov. contract would come under political pressure from congressional members.
You keep talking about the investigation leading nowhere. (Fox News) Jay keeps posting all these links to Trump being a big part of collusion and Russia (MSNBC). Thats where I say its like living in different countries
Maybe we will get an answer over time. Maybe not.
I think most of us are sure we know the Truth regarding Clinton’s email,
yet we do not agree and the investigation provided no closure.
Which might actually be a major factor in the 2016 election.
Getting government to police itself is damn near impossible – I will agree.
Our founders did a remarkable job with their system of pitting ambition against ambition.
Perfection is not acheivable.
That does nto mean we do nothing.
I rarely watch Fox.
But I would ask that you look more closely at my arguments.
I am not saying there is no evidence of conspiracy – and that might change.
I am saying that the actual facts we really know preclude finding what the left is looking for.
I am saying assume the worst thing that Trump could possibly have done.
If that is inconsistent with facts we currently know – excluded and try the next possibility.
Ultimately, I do not think that you can reach something that has any chance of persuading Trump voters.
Out differently those things that are actually possible, do not rise to a level to sufficiently offend anyone who is not already offended.
Trump did not get OPO research from Russia – because if he had, he would have used it, and he did not. Therefore it is unlikely to exist, and right now no one would fault him.
Trump did not collude with Russia for FB ads – why would he ? Buying 100K of Facebook adds is something the Trump campaign could have done while picking up a hoagie.
Trump did not collude with Russia to hack the DNC – the timing does not work, and it would make more sense for Trump to buy the DNC emails directly and provided them the Wikileaks.
No one has thus far tied Trump to the Russian voting machine nonsense.
Even the left makes little issue of that.
And that is the most substantial issue to me.
It appears they did not succeed. But eventually they will.
Jay seems to fixate on a quid pro quo.
That is another reason Trump did not work with Russia.
There can be no quid pro quo.
International agreement is notoriously difficult – because there is no superior government to enforce the agreement.
You can agree to anything with another nation and go home and repudiate it.
There are market force like presures but little more.
Secret internation agreements are worse – there is no enforcement mechanism.
To “collude” with Russia Trump has to promise something in the future in return for something today from Russia. Russia has to trust that Trump will honor not merely a secret promise, but one he can easily repudiate and will never admit.
Further Russia has gotten no Quid Pro Quo – the absence of a promise honered makes it unlikely any promise was ever made.
Finally, Russia like everyone else expected Clinton to win.
They might have hedged their bets with Trump,
They might have tired to weaken Clinton.
But the rule is “If you strike the king, kill the king”
There is no death blow to Hillary from Russia.
I am not saying that Trump/Russia collusion is completely impossible.
I am saying that based on the facts we already have it is highly unlikely.
As we learn more it becomes increasingly less likely.
If Mueller is going to “get Trump”. that is going to occur by rolling alot of people.
Catching them in more of this Manafort stuff – i.e. lies or corruption unrelated to the thrust of the investigation, and then Mueller will ultimately likely have to make some very novel claim – something close to one of the ones we have already seen
Obstruction by firing Comey or something like that.
I am not the slightest reluctant, persue the evidence wherever it leads.
The only issue is whether the SCO should be pursuing things
We are not looking for Mueller to setup an independent DOJ.
The scope should have been properly and narrowly defined and things outside of scope should have been kicked back to DOJ unless they too were conflicted.
“My hope is when the Muellers investigation is complete Clinton, Podesta and others associated with the Clinton Foundation involved in Russian deals are held justvas responsible as any Trumper is held. And my distrust of government makes me believe that will not happen.”
That would not bother me a bit. My only use for hillary was to prevent Bernie or trump from being POTUS. Now that that is settled, I hae no use for clintons. I agree that if clintons actually wind up in the net and did wrong then they should face consequences.
Politically, I think it is going to be damned hard for trump or the clintons to face consequences, other than public opinion and the opinion of history.
Roby, the Clinton’s have been covered with Teflon since they began public life. How else did they skate on all the investigations that came their way. This one will end up the same.
The only difference with trump is he has many enemies in the GOP. Much like JFK and so many innuendos over the years that Johnson was involved in the assignation because of his great hate for the Kennedy’s and his belief he should have been president in 1960. They may not kill Trump, but impeachment is a legal way to remove him from office. How else do you save the republican party from imploding like it is today.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/357995-dem-pollster-vast-majority-of-trump-voters-say-he-should-stay-in
Bet that’s true for the Trumpanzee rationalizes here too…
Jay, I hope Word Press has cleared up for you. For me it is the worst I have about ever used.
Now, the constitution has clear requirements to meet for an impeachment. If all the criteria is met for this to happen, then I would support that 100%.
As for the 49% that support impeachment, did the pollsters clarify the persons knowledge as to how impeachment works and what is required for that to happen. It only says “However, the poll found that 49 percent of all Americans support impeaching Trump, a record high result for the firm.” When you see things on the internet and on TV as to how out to lunch most Americans are concerning their government and how ignorant they are when it comes to the constitution, I am willing to bet that 15% of these respondents knew the requirements for impeachment and the other 34% think we can remove a president through the impeachment process without due process of law. Congress just meets and votes him out!!!!
I find it sad that immigrants who have achieved citizenship have a far greater understanding of our constitution and laws than those educated in our state and federal supported education systems. And even private school education in this regard leaves much to desire. One has to wonder just how well teachers would do if you gave them a civics test.
word Press worse for me too.
Today it lost a long comment I tried to Post- never made it here. More than frustrating. Also the screen froze up a few comments back… I couldn’t add letters to post or click the post button.
And still have to log in for each new comment.
Jay;
Choices are relative.
Should Trump stay in ?
If the alternative is President Pence ? Yes,
Clinton ? yes
Sanders ? yes.
The only choice actually on the table is pence.
Give me a better choice.
Been too busy with the new job to look on here…but it seems the same old same old. Rick claiming to be moderate while sounding awfully right to me…more so now than when I was on here last time. Where did you find these so called stats from the FBI? 18.5x more likely? …and could it be that black men are nervous after centuries of abuse by white men? Could it be that police are more likely to be looking for crimes in the black neighborhoods than the white ones?? Could it be that white men are more likely to be let go? or not convicted? I won’t even get into the economics, which sucks for over half the country right now, with the ones who were poor already suffering even more. I know, I live in rural Appalchia.
1200 comments…500 of them by Dave…
You are free to speculate on the causes for various racial disparities.
But theories that are not consistent with known facts are falsified.
Racial demographics on crime and violence follow trends that are consistent throughout the world.
Black men in Africa, in Europe, in the US are many times more violent than whites.
Asians are less violent.
This is one of the issues that strongly suggests that genetics and environmental factors interact.
Because there are a number of attributes – such as Violence and IQ that appear to have very strong racial correlations – which suggests they are genetic. But they also have changing trends over time – and those trends do NOT vary by race.
Rates of violence are declining worldwide. If violence is genetic – then why is it declining. If it is not genetic why is it not uniform accross races ? If it is cultural why is violence by race unifrom accross cultures ?
Moogie – 1 post.
Dave – 4 posts.
To me…it seems conservatives must repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat until it is believed.
I would like links to all these thing you take as gospel.
I have worked long enough in the black neighborhood to be deeply deeply suspicious of white “facts”. If they are all from right wing thinktanks … don’t bother.
Moogie, Please try not to pigeon hole all conservatives into one bucket. And I believe you will find some “conservatives” here that would not consider Dave a true conservative.
“Moogie, Please try not to pigeon hole all conservatives into one bucket. And I believe you will find some “conservatives” here that would not consider Dave a true conservative.”
The world would be a much better place if conservatives actually beleived the same things as I do.
Facts are facts – they are neither white nor black.
Are you saying that the logs of complaints to police, the logs of police calls, the logs or arrests, the logs of prosecutions, the logs of convictions, the logs of sentences,
are all off by a factor of 18 ?
There are numerous sources and analysis’s that validate the conclusions that you are rejecting.
One – but not the only would be the work of Heather Mac Donald. Whose books have been positively reveiwed by that “right wing think tank” the New York Times.
Regardless, the raw data is available, you can check it all yourself.
The trends in human violence have been declining slowly for centuries – regardless of race.
BUT the rates of violence have past and present varied based on race.
They vary based on race REGARDLESS of country of culture.
That is a fact. It is not a republican fact, or a democrat fact. It is not a white fact, or a black fact.
Dave you are a f******* idiot. Done.
Can I presume that you beleive there are white facts and black facts then ?
Is there a law baring more than 500 comments ?
If you posted another 500 comments would that make mine more or less true ?
If I post another 1000 would that make it impossible for you to past ?
You attack Rick’s statistics, presume because you do not like them that he has swung to the right.
Then you speculate regarding alternate causes.
You are not the first to speculate – spculation is good. But we test specultion, and reject that which does not conform to known facts, or worse contradicts reality.
There is enormous amounts of demographic data on crime and race.
We no longer need to speculate on most of it. We know the answers. Your speculation is not consistent with the data.
Glad to have you back.
Moogie. ” Rick claiming to be moderate while sounding awfully right to me…more so now than when I was on here last time”. Your question about his stats were a good one.
It political scale one is viewed at depends on the person reading the information and how that person was raised, their current environment and living conditions, the expectations one places on themselves and others, their views of government and how well government provides services and the expectations of what government should be providing.
We have a host of different views and comments and in some respects one can find moderate views, conservative views, very Libertarian views and liberal views. Each of us reading others comments will hold a very different view. While Roby may find Jay’s comments moderate, others find Jay’s comment very liberal. While I find Roby’s more moderate left, some find his also liberal. Many find my comments very conservative, while others find them more moderate right. And Dave can be considered very extreme conservative, while I find them very much main stream Libertarian for the most part. Priscilla is found between conservative to moderate right and dduck between moderate and moderate left. Its all in the eyes of those that read their comments. And each may view themselves very different than anyone else views them.
And your past comments concerning past articles by Rick may be found to be moderate by those on the moderate left to liberal scale, while very liberal by those in the conservative to moderate right scale.
The last factor in ones “moderate” thinking is trust in government. While some here believe in government and trust it to do the right thing, others have varying degrees of trust.
The one thing that can be said about those posting here is anyone who post comments and backs them with facts usually finds themselves in a conversation with someone who provides facts that support another viewpoint or accepts those the commentator made. Most of those exchanges are rather non-personal in nature and stick to the facts.
But lo be to those that make a comment without any facts or uses another persons viewpoint to back a comment. Not many here will let that slide, left, right or center. Facts will come to prove that position incorrect or possessing no base to even be considered. And the fact one makes comments just regurgitating the liberal or conservative talking mouths viewpoints without anything to back it up will not go unnoticed.
Moogie, Happy New Year.
Well, I head back to work tomorrow ( I went back to teaching high school) so this will be it. After I worked 10-12 hr days all last semester to lay the foundation to be a good Earth Science teacher…they told me last Friday I will only have one class of remedial ES, and Ecology AND Anatomy & Phys. 3 preps. I’ve not taught A&P in 15? years, never taught Ecology. Students come Monday. So I will have to be working even more long hours when I’d hoped to be somewhat normal after last semester. And I will be trying to get applications done for other districts…its only taken one semester for these people to piss me off, and I want to get out of hillybilly Trumper hell. After 19 years, I’ve had enough. Not mention the 2 hr round trip commute to wherever I work.
One big lie conservatives tell is how our schools are overrun with all these “liberal” teachers…I’ve taught in TX,NC and VA and have yet to run into ANY. We are too dam busy teaching our subjects to engage in any political BS.
PS…I asked for links to these “facts” about black people.
You are free to live wherever you wish no one is forcing you to live in “hillbilly hell”.
If you personally feel unqualified to teach something – then you should not do so.
I do not understand why you are complaining that you had do work to be able to qualify for a job.
I would certainly hope that before teaching an assortment of sciences that you did the work nescecary to be qualified.
Based on your posts Ralph Nader would be conservative compared to you.
So I doubt you have met a “liberal” teacher.
Moogie, sorry to hear your experience has not been positive. But please keep an open mind and dont blame conservatives for all. the educational problems. The people running schools are the problem. In both liberal and conservative districts, there are problems. California has problems. Texas has problems. My kids went to Catholic schools, and although their experience was not as bad as NC schools, they still had issue with the schools. Common sense in many things was completely lacking.
It all comes down to common sense and the lack of those running education. Our kids are the future of the country. Our businesses are going to be run by these kids. And we have them in the hands of individuals that are underpaid and under appreciated. Too many of the good teachers leave teaching. Too many incompetents become principles. And way too many school boards are run by idiots.
We need to keep good teachers, good policemen and good fire personell to teach our kids and protect our security through higher salaries, but due to stupidity in benefit management and state spending, those professionals are underpaid.
I can give hundreds of examples of government waste that could fund teacher salaries and keep good people in education administration. But NY, CA, IL and other liberal states have many of the same problems as WVA schools and they certainly are not bastions for Trump.
What I read what that Moogie was unhappy about having to learn what she was going to have to teach before teaching it.
And unhappy because the school only did not assign her the classes she wanted to teach rather than those they needed taught.
And unhappy because there were no teacher left of bernie sanders where she has been teaching.
And that she does nto like the people where she has chosen to live.
I do not have much sympathy for any of that.
I do not think anyone here would feel sympathetic if I complained because I am not Bill Gates.
I am glad she is going back to work – being productive is better for ourselves and the world.
I am highly skeptical over whether Moogie teaching science is good for students.
But that is up to the parents in here district as far as I am concerned.
Dave, you and I have had this discussion many times. I have said police, fire and educatuon are underpaid professions, You have said they are free to find other work at better wages.
And that is exactly what too many of the good ones are doing, leaving the less competent in those jobs. And as fewer good students enter those professions, the remaing good ones finally say enoungh is enough kf this BS I have to out up with from the state requirements, the idikt principles, the ignorant schook bkards and other piss poor teachers transferred around school to school for various reasons.
Money is not a motivator, but lack of money is a significant demotivator.
Cyber chartering my kids taught me rapidly that teaching was not one of my skills.
The fact that teaching is not a skill I have does not make it an extremely valueable scarce skill.
My grandmother was a teacher. The family architectural business that I was a part of for decades specialized in education. We probably did a couple of hundred schools over the course of 30 years.
I have met and worked with hundreds of teachers and administrators.
Teachers, firemen and police are NOT professionals. There is no personal liability for your work, and the licensing and education required are not nearly as difficult as that required of actual profesionals.
I have met really good teachers – and really bad ones.
Just as I have met really good professionals and really bad ones.
That most architects are no someone I would hire to design a dog house does not make teaching into a profession. That I respect and value teachers does nto make it into a profession.
In most of the country teachers, firemen and police are quite well paid for the skills and training demanded of them.
Regardless you want to assure that pay is what it should be – remove teaching from the public sector.
The role of free markets is to allocate scarcity. As you note if the pay is not good enough teachers will leave until it is. I would suggest that the pay is not the big problem with retaining teachers.
Good teachers leave teaching because teaching is an everybody gets a participation trophy occupation.
I noted my kids were cyber chartered. Cyber charters have no problems attracting really good teachers – even though they pay less and are not unionized.
Why ? Because they have high expectations of the teachers, but also because they are no (or less) BS institutions. There is more schedule flexibility, they work from home, they get to deal with teaching – there are no discipline problems.
Open borders, and legal drugs and prostitution are definitely extreme right wing views!!!
People with more intelligence than Dave would have interpreted what I said that the SCHOOL is FORCING me to teach something that I cannot prepare to teach in 5 days. I would LOVE to be better prepared. I went back to college this summer and took 2 courses to prepare to teach Earth Science – and passed the endorsement test. – then they are TELLING ME i must teach other things. I’m relating what idiots I work for in the school system.
What a moron you are to say the things you did. I’m telling you WHY school systems suck, and you use it to put me down. God you stink as a human being.
My wife is a long time middle school teacher at LAUSD.
Teachers are great overall.
Bureaucracy sucks overall.
That’s the reality.
You need to compartmentalize the BS.
Overtime the rewards compensate for the failures.
She regularly has students she taught as kids come back to thank her for teaching them work habits that got them college scholarships.
That doesn’t stop her from bitching about bureaucratic incompetency, annoying parents, and pain in the ass kids.
Jay, is she fairly paid. (Everyone would like more, but fairly)
Does she see good teachers leaving for better paying jobs?
Does she have to spend her money for school supplies?
Does she agree with top down teaching requirements, or does LAUSD give teachers lattitude in what and how they teach as long as certain criteria are covered?
Are students held back if they flunk out?
I have friends in Fresno and she was a teacher for about 10 years. She resigned and went back to school for radiology tech degree. She enjoyed the kids, but all the other BS drove her out.
My wife is a Publc Defender – she works for the county.
The county just paid for an expensive stuffy to determine if they pay enough.
That was a stupid waste.
If you advertise for a job and can not get qualified candidates to fill it – then in one form or another they job is not sufficiently rewarding.
While teaching is not exactly a free market. There are sufficient such elements in it to address Moogie’s issues.
If the demand for teachers was greater than the supply – she would name her conditions – or her price or both.
My guess would be that her problems are because the local supply of teachers is greater than the demand. That means the school gets to dictate terms.
When enough teachers are pissed and leave – the balance will shift.
Thanks for the sympathy, you are more grounded than some. The whole reason I returned to teaching after leaving 15 years ago was because my former students made me feel I had done a lot of good. I have worked in the inner city, suburbs and rural schools. I’m one who enjoys the challenge of a diverse, disadvantaged population, so you would think I’d be wanted, because I want to be in schools many other teachers are afraid to go to! But too often, like many other teachers, I have been treated like sh** by administrators. Dave would be a classic administrator….knows it all, insults people instead of motivating them to do their best. This is why teacher turnover is so high. Mine’s more worried about looking good than if the kids actually learn anything…which is all too common.
I am not surprised you are treated like shit by public schools – after all they are public schools, they are monopolies without real competition.
A private employer who treats employees like shit generally results in one of two things – out of business when no one will work for them. Ir with really crappy employess because ultimately the worst employees end up with the worst employers.
As I have noted before I managed a business with 55 people for 22 years.
Turnover was very low. We worked very hard to retain good people. And we had very good people.
Teacher turnover is high – because supply significantly exceeds demand and therefore administrators can afford to be obnoxious. If teaching were private – you would end up with better administrators, and high supply would mean only the best teachers could get jobs.
As I think Jay noted, in bad jobs, people who can not put up with the BS leave.
If the supply of teachers exceed the demand that near certain means the pay is too high rather than too low. Oversuply always means overly high price.
Administrators are not answerable to parents – that creates horrible incentives. A very common problem in government work.
Dave “eacher turnover is high – because supply significantly exceeds demand ”
Not sure where you are getting your info. Most everything I read is about shortages.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/09/18/where-have-all-the-teachers-gone/?utm_term=.e4f5c77c7aeb
In Niorth carolina we have shortages in all the critical subject areas. The liberals blame HB2)unisex-bathroom usage and other legislation. The conservatives have their own balmes. They are all horse poop. Stop wasting money on poor programs and pay the teachers that have math and science degrees so they teach and do not go to occupations that use their degrees and pay a lot more.
Its like you say Dave, the market sets the salaries and the market now is taking the good qualified people. Those that have math and science backgrounds are finding rewarding careers in other fields and those that are marginal in those areas are the teachers left in the system. NOT ALL OF THEM BUT A LARGE NUMBER!!! before someone says all teachers are not bad teachers!
Nursing had huge shortages when the starting salaries were 20% less than starting salaries for other professions with college degrees. When the medical providers starting competing for the nurses and drove up salaries to where they are very competitive with other careers with the same educational requirements, the shortage was solved.
When teacher pay becomes competitive with other professions with the same degree requirements, the teacher shortage will be solved. But that will take shifting local revenues from non productive programs to education.
Ron,
The law of supply and demand is immutable.
If you have actual shortages – price goes up. There is really no way around that.
Except in a price controlled market, rather than a free one – that is where you can get permanent shortages.
I would suggest that it is not wise to believe what people say.
Just to be clear – I do not have a problem with teachers getting paid the market price for their services – if there is an actual free market.
But there is not.
Getting teachers with Math and science skills is damn near impossible – people with math and science skills do not go into teaching, and people who go into teaching do not have math and science skills.
I am not saying anything about all teachers. I did not even try to address Moogies teaching – I have no idea how good a teacher she is.
What I want is a free market in education – controlled by the parents – who also PAY for their children’s education.
My expectation is that job satisfaction will rise, the number of administrators will decline precipitously, and the pay of teachers will decline. But if I am wrong – in a free market those things take care of themselves.
I think alot of the “nursing shortage” is actually driven by the much more serious “doctor shortage”
The fewer doctors we have the more responsibility we must give to nurses.
Further modern healthcare is getting increasingly technical. Nurses require a far higher skill level than they did 40 years ago.
But again we need to truly free the healthcare market and all this will fix itself.
Nurses and doctors will get paid the “market price” – maybe higher maybe lower than now.
The market price is by definition the price that most closely provides the level of service we want and need.
Not perfectly – because if we price nurses too high – we get shortages elsewhere.
The purpose of prices is not to perfectly meet every need – that is not possible.
But to distribute a scarce resource – human labor where it is needed proportionate to the need.
Shortages in one area cause prices to rise and people to leave one field and move to another, or people who have no job to get a job, or people to change their educational choices.
Separately I think teachers are more than competitive.
I do not think that a 4 year teaching degree has equivalent market value to a 4 year STEM degree, but in many fields starting salaries are comparable.
I do not think teaching is easy – I do not think being a good secretary is easy either.
That does not make teachers or secretaries “professionals”.
Regardless, get government out of it, and the market will work it out – regardless of what you or I think Pay will be proportionate to market value.
This is one of the areas I am at odds with you.
You seem to think there is an intrinsic value to things – that we can calculate the value of a teacher relative to an engineer.
Value is subjective.
The value of anything is what a willing buyer and willing seller agree to.
Prices are what shift resources to where they are most effectively used.
Do we need computer programers more than teachers ? Market demand will decide and in doing so establish the current price for teachers and that for programmers based on our needs and the importance we place on those needs.
One thing that happens – which is sort of what you refer to with “shortages”.
Is prices allocate resources – like talented people differently than some of us think they should.
BTW that is always the case. So we say there is a “teacher shortage” and we must pay more.
But that is likely not true. If we both have fewer teachers than we want AND are unwilling to increase wages. There is no actual shortage. There is just a wish for something we are unwilling to pay for.
I would like an infinite number of assistants who demand little or no pay.
The fact that I do not have them – does nto mean there is a shortage.
Dave you are the Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde on this website. Sometimes you say things that are extremely intelligent and other times you are totally insane.
” You seem to think there is an intrinsic value to things – that we can calculate the value of a teacher relative to an engineer.”
There is a value in everything. Molding the minds of kids so they grow up to be productive individuals is the backbone of this country. They are the ones that are going to become the engineers, doctors and other important professions. We can continue to have piss poor education and we end up with a country full of government employees or people on welfare. Better yet they become politicians.
There is no way you and I will ever ever agree on the issue that an engineer is more important than a teacher. That is total idiocy in my mind. And when teachers are being paid about 75% of what a comparable college graduate is being paid in another field, that is not competitive pay. Check it out. What does a graduate entering accounting make starting salary compared to teacher nationally. And remember, I am a financial individual who has worked around finance all my life and know accounting and what it takes to be an accountant!!!!!
Words have meaning. I do not think this is the first time you have read the word “intrinsic” out of my posts on value.
All value is the value assigned by humans. The basis of that value is subjective – whatever each of us as individuals choose.
There is no intrinsic value, nothing has value just because or as part of the nature of that thing.
Gold Cranks have constantly asserted that gold has intrinsic value and government currencies don’t. Without knocking gold which is a good form of money, it does nto have intrinsic value.
Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are threatening to depose gold all too soon, as the prefered non-government currency. Bitcoin clearly has no intrinsic value. But it has all the attributes that make gold valueable, and some that gold does nto have.
All value is beause we as individual humans choose to give that thing value.
Of course there is value in everything – that doesn’t make the value intrinsic.
You and I need not agree on the value of an engineer relative to a teacher.
But the market – and that is the sum of the individual values of each of us, HAS decided that an engineer is more valueable than a teacher.
And the correct value of anything is the value that those who want it are willing to pay. ‘
There is no other basis for value.
There are individual and subjective criteria that each of us use or pretend to use for value.
Things such as use value.
But all value is subjective. There is no INTRINSIC value to anything.
This is just an exapnsion of Adam Smith’s all money is a matter of belief.
If money only has subjective value – everything else is valued in money.
All value is subjective.
This concept that value is subjective. that there is no such thing as intrinsic value is actual a key feature of human existance and of the way markets work.
One of the critical functions of a free market is value discovery.
If value was intrinsic – we could quantify the attrributes of the thing feed them into a compute and get the correct value out.
If value was intrinsic – socialism and communism would be possible. They are not.
What is called the economic calculation problem – the determination of prices is the impediment to socialism that can not be overcome.
That value is not intrinsic means there is not and never can be some universal accurate means of establishing value.
All value is determined by humans through their choice to exchange or not.
This is not an Extreme position.
To some extent or another it is the theory of value used by all non-marxist economics.
It is the next step after Ricardo’s value in use of utility theory of value.
The subjective theory of value is the only theory of value that solves the diamond/water paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value
Teachers and engineers are each worth what we through exchanges on the market determine.
Subjective value is also important because it explains the fact that value changes.
If we have an actual shortage of teachers relative to enginneers the value of teachers will rise temporarly relative to engineers.
More idiot nonsense from Dave.
Free market only works when everyone has money. With over half of America living paycheck to paycheck, private schools cannot work. Most people do not have money to send kids to private schools. As pointed out by Ron, public school teachers are poorly paid compared to other industries. And you talk about me having a choice???? In this area, I went back to teaching because it pays TWICE what the average working class person makes around here. I tried for 15 years to find work that pays as well.
Up until the 70s, teaching was the highest paid career a woman could get. Therefore our best and brightest were teachers. But as other work that was better paying and less stressful opened up, Ron is exactly right…my co-workers are not the best and brightest in the 4 districts I’ve been full-time with (and others as a sub). And they sure as hell are not fighting for what is best for our students. And you are wrong…parents at this school have too much control over administrators. We can’t get the internet blocked from cell phones because of parents.
The real problem though is few people in the public system actually give a crap about the quality of teaching…or whether the students pass or fail. Yes, they are willing to replace any teacher with any teacher. They don’t care about quality!!! Quality teachers would stand up for the students and fight back against some of the nonsense dished out by those in charge. The one thing especially they don’t want you to do is fail any of them for any reason…which when a kid knows he cannot possibly fail no matter what he does…not much incentive to do anything. So in disadvantaged areas where education in not stressed by the parents…they really do not do a dam thing. In a class of 16, I think I had 11 which who were not doing ANYTHING. Literally. When I first began teaching 30 years ago, yes, I called parents…but at the high school level it has rarely done any good. Dave, you always bitch and moan about parent responsibility…but I have yet to have any of you (conservatives) tell me how to MAKE those parents be responsible. Please, in your infinite wisdom, tell me how to make them care about their kids!!!!!
It ought to be obvious that great public schools is what advanced this nation so much after WWII.
All this “individual responsibility” crap preached by conservatives is what is killing our country. Balance people, balance. Individual responsibility only works when corporations are paying responsibly. Our country fared MUCH better under those terrible “liberal” policies under FDR…when the majority of people were well-paid, enough taxes were collected to have marvelous infrastructure, we had great public schools (remember teaching was high-paid for women) hell, we sent men to the moon. The Greatest Generation ensured we all worked together for the greater good. Since we began living under conservative “thinking” in 1980…the quality of living has gone down severely for the majority of Americans.
But since Dave and his ilk only watch conservative “media” and believe everyone is just lazy….They are actually sick and tired from 40 years of low pay and the evaporation of their America dreams.
Moogie, I am on the conservative side except for social laws where I support government staying out of medicine, marriage, drugs and anything else that only impacts ones family or themself.
I agree with most everything you have said here except one thing. What you see in your schools is in a conservative district. What you would find is the same thing if you go to a blue state like NY, IL or CA. It also exist in purple states like NC.
Snowflakes exist as conservatives, liberals or moderates. How about a white female teacher flunking a black male student in a black district. RACIST TEACHER!!! Keep a kid after school for misbehaviour, parents have a cow because they have to come pick them up. Issue dress codes and send kids home, it becomes an overnight sensation that a female looking like a whore or a male with drawers showing to their knees gets unfair treatment. Give too much homework and parents complain.
This IS NOT a liberal or conservative problem! It is an American problem. You comment about FDR and how great that generation was. That was when men and women were on their own by 18 to 20 years old. They were married and had kids by 22. Today kids are still home by 30 and that is not due to no jobs or debt. Parents coddling kids and not making them responsible.
Parents producing snowflakes, not productive humans!
Control of the education of our children belongs in the hands of their parents.
By far the best way to assure control is to pay for it.
IF government quit stealing our money and horribly inefficiently and wastefully spending it on education then all of us would have more than enough to pay to educate our children.
With control of the purse strings comes control of the education.
If conservative families what their kid conservatively educated – that is their choice.
The same with orthodox jews, muslims, blacks, and urban progressives.
You should be able to send your kid to the school of your choice.
And as the parent you should have to figure out whether to send your kid to the academically better school or the ideologically better one.
One size does nto fit all. Public education drives us to one size fits all.
Our modern public education system was designed by the germans to produce cannon fodder.
That should not be our objective.
“Control of the education of our children belongs in the hands of their parents”
Yeah, right, if you’re in a time warp, and this is 1818.
No time warp. Real world.
We have spent a century making children the business of government – to the detriment of children.
Our past treatment of children was not optimal. But the state has proven an abysmal parent.
You complained – rightly about the fact that we are growing children to become whiny snowflake adults. Alot of that is driven by government.
At 4-5 years old – I was wandering arround unsupervised within 3 blocks of my home.
I walked to kindergarten – alone except the first day, 2 blocks.
Today there are alot of places in this country where a 15yr old unspervised can result in parents being charged with child endangerment.
There are less than 10 stranger child abuductions/yr today.
It was many times that when I was a kid.
All modern changes are not improvements.
With respect to uniforms and discipline and whatever.
Again a reason that control belongs with PARENTS.
I do not care if one school has uniforms and another allows kids to dress like tarts.
So long as I get to make the choice where to send my kid – and I have to figure out how to pay for it.
“Free market only works when everyone has money.”
Please do not EVER teach any child anything about money or economics.
You are a complete idiot in that regard.
Free markets work in china – where they have far less money than here.
They have elevated the media wage from $300/yr in 1976 to 11K/yr today.
Free markets work in india – where something similar but less dramatic has occured starting in the 90’s.
Or bangladesh.
Singapore and Hong kong have since 1950 gone from abject poverty comparable to china in the 70’s to higher standards of living than the US.
Meanwhile Venezella has gone completely down the tubes.
I would further note – money has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it.
Money is not wealth.
Having more money is trivial – government can just print more money.
That has never worked anywhere.
I keep telling you OVER AND OVER, standard of living is increased by producing more value with less human effort.
What you are worth is what you can produce. While non-free market systems try to “fix that”.
They fail miserably and the evidence in ALL cases is that the less free market is the greater poverty their is.
The top 10 economic freedom countries in the world are very nearly the top 10 highest standard of living countries in the world -there is some slight issues because a rising standard of ling requires SUSTAINED economic freedom.
Saying that I am wrong does not make me wrong.
Saying how you wish the world worked – does not make it work that way.
Whether you like it or not the evidence that freedom and free markets is inextricably linked to rising standard of living is pretty much absolute.
Free markets have done more in the past 40 years to raise the standard of living for the poorest in the world than all the social safetynets EVER.
I fully support charity. But if you are looking to make the world better for the least well off – start a business, not a charity.
I get angry at Buffet and Gates. They do far more to improve the world as entrepeneurs than as philanthropists. Gates has had an abysmal record in charity. he has blown billions of dollars with no benefit.
The world has delivered a Trillion dollars in aide to Africa in the past 50 years – and inarguably made much of Africa WORSE off.
Parts of Africa were better off under colonialism a centruy ago than they are today.
This is unforgivable as Aftrica has the greatest natural resources in the world.
The average catholic school tuition in the US is 2500/yr. That is NOT subsidized.
That is a bit more than half my school taxes.yr.
Yes, actually people DO have enough money to pay to send their kids to school – particularly in a free market school system – which will guarnatee that kids get the education their parents are willing to pay for .
Garbage collectors are paid poorly compared to rocket scientists.
There can be no doubt that collecting garbage is extremely valueable.
Wages are not based on objective criteria. They are based on our subjective values.
If teachers are paid less – it is because we as a whole value them less.
Though today teachers prices are distorted by government.
If you want to know the real value of a teacher. Get government out of education completely.
Maybe teacher pay will go up, maybe it will go down. But whatever it does – it will go to the real value that society as a whole places on teachers.
That is how free markets work. People through their purchasing decisions signal the market telling it what they want and what value they give it. The market then re-allocates resources to assure that we get the most of what we want the most and so on and so forth.
It also accomodates the fact that we want rocket scientists – and we value them very very highly – but we also want teachers. We need more teachers that rocket scientists, and we have more people who can be teachers than rocket scientists.
The market sorts that out. While it does nto get it “perfect” it does far better than anything else we have ever devised – it is not even close.
When government meddles it distorts prices, assuring that we are less well off overal and get too much of things we want less and too little of things we want more.
“If you want to know the real value of a teacher. Get government out of education completely.”
Name a free market economy whose government doesn’t regulate teacher credentials.
And your teacher grandmother needed to be certified to teach in public elementary schools in the US.
How do you expect to maintain credible standards in taxpayer supported school districts without standard testing methods to insure teachers meet those standards?
Sometimes you’re just too dumb to take seriously 😒
“Name a free market economy whose government doesn’t regulate teacher credentials.”
Kansas – just to start.
“And your teacher grandmother needed to be certified to teach in public elementary schools in the US.”
Nope. The requirements to be a teacher in the US have varied from state to state from urban to rural and over time with certification fading in and out and into vogue throughout the 20th century.
You are constantly presuming that what is now has always been.
“How do you expect to maintain credible standards in taxpayer supported school districts without standard testing methods to insure teachers meet those standards?”
I do not. Tax payers should not be paying for education any more than they should be paying for your lawn care.
The entire concept of public education is idiocy.
Like all statist nonsense it results in one size fits all garbage that ill serves us.
First you tell me that teaching does nto pay well enough and then you tell me you want back to teaching because it pays well.
Make up your mind.
YOUR behavior makes it clear exactly how markets work.
The wages of teachers were high enough to motivate you to go back to teaching – you just said so yourself.
Aside from those few who teach because it is what they love and they would teach even if they did not get paid, teachers are never going to be “the best and the brightest”.
Do you want your bridges to collapse when you drive over them ?
Do you want schools to collapse on you ?
Do you want your food to be posionous ?
Do you want you cars to explode ?
Do you want your doctor or nurse to kill you ?
As important as we thing teaching is. It is far form the most valued job.
It is NOT a profession. It is more valuable than garbage collectors, more valuable than carpenters and less valuable than most engineers.
The market – US have decided that. We have decided wisely
Because of how we have decided more of the “best and brightest” will go into engineering. or other actual professions.
These are not more valuable – because government has decided so.
They are more valueable – because you demand more of what they produce and pay more for what they produce.
Which is why if you want education and teachers priced properly – return them to the free market.
That is exactly what free markets do – establish the relative prices and value of things based on OUR values.
Dave, you have finally gone total bonkers. Hopefully your wife can get you committed before you do something stupid.
“Do you want your bridges to collapse when you drive over them ?
Do you want schools to collapse on you ?
Do you want your food to be posionous ?
Do you want you cars to explode ?
Do you want your doctor or nurse to kill you ?”
Who the hell taught the engineers?
Who the hell taught the construction bosses?
Who the hell taught your food safety individuals.?
Who the hell taught your car designers and engineers
Who the hell taught your doctors and nurses?
So lets take all the teachers and put them in a different PROFESSION because they are not professionals, pay them 25% more than they are making now becasue most could do other jobs that pay more and lets see just how many people have enough education to do all the things you listed in 10 years or so..
You have absolutely no idea what makes people what they are.If people are not taught at an early age how to do the most menial tasks, they will not have an easy time learning the hard stuff. Brains develop from stimulation and if not stimulated, they do not develop past a certain level. Education stimulates the brain!
You continue to live in your Utopian Libertarian world where no government is best government and every man for himself because everyone can do themselves better than someone else. You can make anyone sound like a bleeding heart left wing radical, even me and that is really hard to do.
By the way, Moogie never said she returned to teaching because it paid well. She said she looked for months for a better paying job (WVA coal country) and there were none, so she returned because teaching “paid better”. That is far from paying well. You want government to stop spending on everything. I want government to stop wasting money on crappy programs and spend it on the things that count. Education being one of them.
Now go back and check you education spending information and take out higher education. Just use K-12, You will find in the 1930’s we spent right at 3.5% of GDP on K-12. Due to the war and the increased GDP during the war, that dropped to 2.1%. After the war it climbed back to 3-3.5% by the 70’s and stayed there until the early 2000’s when it began to drop. Currently we are spending around 2.1%-2.2% on K-12 and all of these numbers include state, local and federal dollars. Compare that to non education spending to see where the tax dollars are going.
Where the climb in education costs has occurred in higher education. where it was less than 1/2% of GDP, it is now at 1.5%.
My current profession is as an embedded software engineer.
While I had a few courses vaguely related to that in college – my actual degree is in architecture not computers. I am self taught – as are the vast majority of software engineers my age.
Nearly everything construction related is either on the job or through apprenticeship.
There is no program for “construction boss”. There is no course or degree in “construction boss”.
There might be a degree in foods safety today. I doubt there has been most of the past century.
In fact the major of learning – even in fields where there are “teachers” is through experience.
Who taught the first doctor, the first engineer.
Who taught Michealangelo – painter, sculptor, engineer ?
Who taught Van Goch ?
Again there probably is a degree in autodesign today. I doubt there was a few decades ago.
The primary purpose of teaching/education is NOT to train us for a specific job.
It is to develop our ability to learn.
The most wonderful aspect of my job is that I am still learning.
But I have no teacher.
And if you decide to become a doctor, I’m sure you’ll learn that on your own, because there’s nothing better than a self taught surgeon
The first people to do anything are always self taught.
Subsequent surgeons are taught by other surgeons – not teachers.
Most actual professional learning is from others in the profession – not teachers.
I am well aware that teachers have a skill that has value that most of the rest of us do not.
But they are still a small part of how we learn.
The most important thing we learn in school is how to learn.
Maybe others are different, but I did not learn that from teachers.
Real – inflation adjusted Teachers Salaries have doubled over the past 40 years
During a time period where quality of education has declined.
Lets NOT do any centralized anything.
Lets just let the market determine the wages of teachers. That is the only REAL price or value to teachers.
“You have absolutely no idea what makes people what they are.”
Correct – neither do you, neither do teachers. You presume we know much more than we do.
“If people are not taught at an early age how to do the most menial tasks, they will not have an easy time learning the hard stuff. Brains develop from stimulation and if not stimulated, they do not develop past a certain level. Education stimulates the brain!”
Myriads of factors effect development and learning. Regardless, finding what each person needs is trial and error. One size does not fit all.
Further you are off on a tangent.
Most of us do not know what is necescary to assure that a building will not collapse.
“You continue to live in your Utopian Libertarian world where no government is best government ”
Limited government, not no government – it is faith in ever expanding government that is utopian.
We know that limited government is not perfect. It is just the best that is possible,
It is those who favor a bigger role for government that are chasing unicorns, seeking utopia.
“and every man for himself because everyone can do themselves better than someone else.”
There is an enormous difference between everyman for himself – actual primative anarchy and voluntary free exchange.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”:
Adam Smith
“You can make anyone sound like a bleeding heart left wing radical, even me and that is really hard to do.”
If the shoe fits.
Bleeding hearts.
We are debating teachers salaries – not charity or assistance for those truly unable to care for themselves.
Are teachers salaries a charitable contribution ?
If not, then why the emotional appeal ?
I have no animus toward teachers. I am arguing that like every other job there value is not intrinsic it is determined subjectively by all of us in the market.
No one says poor engineers they are underpaid.
If you want a converstation about charity – then lets actually address people who need charity – that would NOT be teachers.
And you can substitute pretty much any other job for teacher. And that really is my point.
Moogie just said she went back for more training so that she could return to teaching because it pays better, and then bitched about all the things that are wrong with teaching.
I have no sympathy. That is life. My job comes with good and bad too.
I also get to choose between getting better paid and having crappier working conditions and doing work I enjoy more for worse pay. A few of us get lucky and get incredibly well paid doing precisely what we love. But for one thing I actually fall into that catagory.
That one thing is I am not relocating. My choice, my consequences, my life.
Every single price should DROP over time.
Absent inflation from central banks it would drop in nominal terms.
It should always drop in real terms.
And it should drop substantially as a percent of GDP.
Why ? Because if those trends I note above are not true for most things – then standard of living is not rising.
AGAIN standard of living rises when you produce more value for less human effort.
The price of teaching like every other price should decline over time.
Though wages should drop slower than other prices,
Further productivity must rise. It should take less education dollars to deliver more value.
Anyway your %of GDP argument is completely useless.
That is not how the price of anything works.
If you want to keep prices constant as a precent of GDP – what you are saying is standard of living is going to be fixed. No one is going to improve over time.
I doubt that is what you intend.
But anyone making the argument that something should be a constant percent of GDP is saying exactly that.
That is also BTW why government should be getting cheaper as a percent of GDP.
God help me – you are actually selling FDR.
FDR pioneered economic regulation – the results were so abysmally disasterous that we did not seriously try them again until Nixon in the 70’s.
Hoover was abysmal – he as a PROGRESSIVE republican. Every New Deal program was pioneered by Hoover. But FDR put them on steroids.
The results were horrible. But for the onset of WWII – FDR would not have stood a chance of re-election. He is the only president ever to trigger a recession in the midst of a depression.
We have had two occasions in US history that a progressive republican caused an economic disaster and was followed by an even more disasterous progressive democrat.
The great Depression and the great recession.
Do you know that the US had the worst economic policies of all developed nations during the great depression ?
Do you know that the US stayed in the great depression far longer than any other developed nation ?
Nations that followed exactly the opposite programs as FDR – sound money, reduced government recovered rapidly – that is most nordic countries that were extremely free market in the 30’s.
A man said to the universe:
“Sir I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
There is no “balance”.
No one else in the world owes you anything.
The only real construct is the individual.
All other social constructs are artificial – they are convenient fictions. They are not real.
You fixate on corporations – again clueless.
Corportations, churches, civic groups – these are all just individuals freely choosing to work to a common purpose.
“remember teaching was high paid for women”.
No actually it was not. It was just one of very few jobs available to women.
It did not pay well.
Further you are worshiping FDR – few if any women worked anywhere outside the home prior to WWII.
No the greatest generation did not ensure all working together for the common good.
This was the genration for the cold war the anti-communist black lists.
This is the generation of Eisenhower and Nixon and Reagan.
Again you are a historical idiot.
This was a time of individuals seeking to do the best for themselves.
We did not begin living under conservative thinking in 1980.
We had been for a long time.
That said – the 80’s and 90’s were the longest sustained period of rapid growth in standard of living for all in the past century.
However bad you try to make the 80’s and 90’s – the decades before and after were WORSE.
”A man said to the universe:
“Sir I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
Hearing voices again?
You and Schultzmp have a lot in common.
😜
It is a very famous poem by Stephen Crane idiot.
The gist of which is you are owed nothing.
If you beleive differently – you are the one hearing voices, and at risk of starving.
Ah! I didn’t associate the quote with Crane.
Interesting writer and man. It’s likely you would have been critical of him as a contemporary: a social/moral critic of poverty, you would have treated him Harshly for being a social crusader in favor of justice for the poor and underprivileged.
A poet friend of mine (from my previous life) owned a small sailing boat we’d take out for fishing trips on Long Island Sound (you could still catch eating fish there then). He had named the boat ‘Hotel de Dream.’ Crane scholar that you are, I’m sure you recognize the Crane association …
You seem to think that writing honestly about something is the same as being a social/moral critic.
Crane himself would have greatly disagreed.
But then people see what they want in the work of others.
Hotel de Dream is someone else projecting onto Stephen Crane.
I think if you want to know Stephen Crane it is best to trust Stephan crane.
If we are going to do obscure boat fiction try “Tummler”
Ask Moogie who Stephen Crane was – she is a teacher, she should know.
Are you actually trying to sell the period of the vietnam war, stagflation, the oil crissis.
double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, the highest misery index ever
as a progressive utopia ?
God save us all from your idea of heaven.
“But since Dave and his ilk only watch conservative “media” ”
I do not watch any media – conservative or otherwise.
My guess is that I follow more left media than you.
” believe everyone is just lazy….”
Never said that.
Further I do not care if you are lazy.
If you chose a more relaxed life – I have no problem with that.
I do not think you are obligated to work your ass off to maximize goods.
Wealth includes going to the movies or dinner with your wife, or playing ball with your kids.
What I have a problem with is you whining that no one else has given you a free ride or that life is not easier.
I do not care what choices you make – call them lazy, call them ambitious,
You are free to make your own choices.
What you are not free to do is blame others for the outcome or demand a free ride.
“They are actually sick and tired from 40 years of low pay and the evaporation of their America dreams.”
That is why they elected Trump.
Good for your wife!
I would note that absent government, teachers AND bureacrats would be answerable to those annoying parents.
I can share Moogie’s and your wife’s frustration with bureacrats – they are nearly unnescary and serve no useful purpose other than to make life more miserable for everyone.
But raising kids is the responsibility of parents. and those educating them are or should be answerable to parents.
Again why we need to end public schools – so that teachers are responsible to the people who pay them – parents.
Did the school put a gun to your head ?
There was no force involved. A great deal of your misperceptions of the world are rooted in your misuse of the word force. I thought you are a teacher. Words have meaning. When you use them arbitrarily you get bizarre results.
I have no idea whether you can prepare in 5 days or not.
Presumably you do. You took the job, that is what is expected, do it or quit.
Some of us are fortunate and we love the work we do and get very well paid for it.
I love the work I do, I get very well paid for it. But I do not have as much as I want.
So periodically I have to do things I like alot less to fill in.
Or I have to live on what I make doing what I love.
If the only way I could make ends meet was flipping burgers – I would flip burgers.
At various points in my life I have had to do some really crappy jobs.
I had to dig ditches for hours in the hot sun over college vacations.
I had to shovel shit out of sheep pens.
I have to transport dead animals to renderers.
I had to mow 8 acres of grass with severe allergies.
and alot more.
You do what you have to do.
Yes, they are telling you that the subjects they need taught are not the ones you want to teach.
WOW!
You seem to think that the world will magically adjust itself so that it needs what you want to do.
Even the world that I do that I love. If my client wants a controller for a centrifuge – I do a controller for a centrifuge. I can’t tell the client – I want to do the software for home control.
Sometimes I get lucky and they ask me to do the exact same thing as I want to do.
Mostly I have to give them what they want.
That is just how the world is.
No you are NOT telling me why the school system sucks.
You are telling me that you were hired to teach something different than you want to teach.
I am sure many things about the school system do suck.
But the fact the subjects they need taught aren’t what you would prefer is not one of those.
I stink as a human ? Why ? Because I won’t let you cry on my shoulder and label yourself as a victim. When at worst you are someone who does nto have quite exactly the work they wanted.
That is not being a victim. I do not wish being a real victim on you or anyone else. That would make me a shitty human.
Telling you to suck it up. To either do they job that is available to you, or leave and find what you want – that is not being a shitty human. That is just not treating you like a damn snowflake.
Elsewhere in your rant you were practically demanding a world where all the other teachers shared your POV. While I highly doubt you are in some bastion of conservative teachers.
I am more likely to beleive you have a pet unicorn. Even if that is true – again suck it up.
If you do not like your co-workers – leave.
Regardless, you appear to have the skills necescary to feed yourself and manage your own life.
That quite often means taking the good with the bad. Life is not fair. Get over it. But it can be very good. You could be a teacher in a midwestern farm community in the 1800’s,
Aparently you are clueless about teaching and history.
Teaching pays MORE today than ever before.
We spend MORE today on education than every before.
And we do a WORSE job of teaching than ever before.
My grandmother retired from teaching in the late 60’s.
She was an excellent teacher, she was paid crap.
You are clueless.
You just make things up.
Before you start teaching kids – PLEASE make sure you have your facts right.
Because you are clueless.
“Gates has had an abysmal record in charity. he has blown billions of dollars with no benefit.” – Source???
“Teaching pays MORE today than ever before.” – Source???
And several statements insulting teachers. I only skimmed. Probably had worse drivel in there.
“FDR pioneered economic regulation – the results were so abysmally disasterous ” – bwhahahahaha only for the WEALTHY!!!
Conservatives live in fantasy land. Sorry Rick, I will not return to you blog until you block Dave, who takes up all this space and does nothing but lie to promote the cause of the wealthy.
Moogie;
Open your eyes to Reality. While if I want to I can produce myriads of sources.
The facts are self evident. Gates himself has admitted what I have said.
While I can give you sources – like the stories below – you are not going to get anything out of that unless you work it out on your own.
Use Google – it is your friend. Check out youtube if you can not read studies and reports.
There are myriads of discussions about the topics I address below.
I beleive there is video of Gates noting that he wasted $1B in africa fighting malaria and made things worse. There are definitely many many debates with various NGO’s and developmental economists trying to figure out what to do about places like Afrtica and Haiti.
One name that will near certain bring you lots of useful links is William Easterly.
He is a renowned development economist who has spent decades studing what works and what does not. As a result he has over time BECOME more libertarian – he started on the left.
BTW most of the leading Libertarian authorities on various issue in the world started on the left.
Anyone with a sincere desire to solve the problems of the world and an the intelligence to see things as they are and to evaluate what does work and what does not, anyone unwilling to declare moral (or immoral0 victory just because they have wasted alot of money proving they “care” and leaving those they “helped” worse off than when they started, ends up becoming libertarian.
If you truly want to help people – you have to learn how to help them help themselves, and the most critical factor is to provoke their own “self interests”, to persuade them bot indiviually and as a community – though the former is more important than the latter to make themselves better off.
To get ahead.
Successful charity is incredibly hard – though not half as hard as trying to do the same through government – the problem is that the incentives are all wrong.
As I have noted several times – the developed countries of the world have dumped $1T in aid – both public and private into Africa since 1970.
It is UNIVERSALLY agreed – RIGHT AND LEFT, that has failed and Africa is worse off as a consequence. I am not impugning the motives of those who seek to help africans.
I am impugning their results – and those speak for themselves.
There is both vast amounts of anecdotal evidence and statistical data on overall effects.
Specific to gates – the Gates Foundation spent over a Billion Dollars funding wide distribution of mosquito netting to combat Malaria. This was supposed to end malaria in Africa.
Malaria INCREASED Gates has noted this and aologized even WHO is quietly going back to insecticides.
I can address charitable efforts all over the world – gates and otherwise. The vast majority fail.
I beleive that Gates has been aggressively behind efforts to erradicate polio.
While that has not worked out as well or rapidly as he expected, I think that the data indicates that with many setbacks – Gates has made progress.
Gates has also heavily funded educational reforms in the US.
There have been a few very small scale incredible successes.
But his large scale efforts have FAILED.
There is actually a fundimental reasons for this. It is the same reason that the “seciton 8” pilot programs – which were targeted at removing people who could climb out of poverty from Cabrini Greed were phenominally successful, but when scaled up to a national porogram Section 8 has actually made things worse – spreading drug dealers from the impoversihed inner cities into working class poor communities that had escaped.
The problem, the reason that succesful pilot programs do not scale – is that it takes ALOT more than money.
Start a pilot program – bring in the best of the best, the birigthest minds, the best administrators, the best psychologiests, the best teachers, the best social workers, then cherry pick from the poor the most likely to succeed – if given the appropriate assistance – and the program works – often phenomenally.
But when you scale it up – you no longer have the best of the best running the program.
You no longer get to cherry pick the people most likely to succeed.
And the same program fails.
I am personally very interested in simple means to “drill” wells for water. This is a huge problem in africa and much of the underdeveloped world. It is a relatively easy problem to solve.
You can buy a gas well drigging rig for about 2500 that can drill a new water will several hundred feet deep if needed in a few days. We tried this in africa – and elsewhere.
It was a fantastic idea – mostly it was done by various missions and churches – it was well inside their capabilities.
And it worked. The wells were drilled the villages prospered, but over time the new wells failed – because wells have to be maintained and slowly village by village things went back to the way they were.
After much trial and effort what works is older and simpler technology – means that make use of resources that are readily availble within these undeveloped communities.
Either litterally diggng wells by hand – which is incredibly labor intensive and dangerous, or using simple biological machines to drill wells – methods that you can teach those in the village and they can themselves sustain.
Further it is actually necescary to get the village to decide to drill the well themselves.
You can not come in and do it for them. You can not come in and hire them to drill their own well.
They have to choose to dril the well and ask your help.
Because anything else – and they do not maintain it and in a few years it fails and we are back to the start.
The point is that charity is HARD. Thgrowing money at problems is NOT enough.
We sent Billions to Haiti after its sequence of natural disasters – it is WORSE off than before.
It has been noted here – that Puerto Rico is having severe problems recovering – while Texas and Florida already have mostly recovered – and in fact have local GDP well ABOVE before the storms.
Why the difference ? TX and FL are well developed affluent societies. They are “anti-fragile” they know what they are dealing with. Without any help from anyone else they would have solved their problems on their own. Give them money – and they know how to use it and will solve the problems themselves even faster.
We are having the same problems in PR that we had in New Orleans only worse.
New Orleans was NOT a well developed aflfuent society – it was an impoverished and corrupt one. The aide that was sent to NO was to a huge extent wasted. NO has only more recently started actually recovering – because no one is helping anymore and the people of NO have to fix their own problems.
I do not know what will happen in PR. But I know that more money is not the answer.
PR has had a horrible dependence problem for decades.
PR must figure out how to sustain itself – how to become an independent vibrant thriving state.
Probably PR needs to be independent of the US, because without independence it will not thrive, it will not depend on itself.
“Teaching pays MORE today than ever before.” – Source???
I am pretty sure that in the past few days I have posted a graph of median inflation adjusted teachers salaries from the 70’s to the present.
They have almost doubled AFTER adjusting for inflation.
That said if you have been alive long enough – you know that.
Inflation adjusted education spending as quintipled over the same period.
One of the focusses of that additional spending was raising teachers wages.
And that spending greatly succeeding in doing exactly that.
Over the same period of time quality of education DECLINED.
Over the past 50 years we have implimented just about every single left idea for improving education – and the quality of education has DECLINED.
Why ? Because improving education is not accomplished with more money or more resources or more technology or more …..
Ultimately learning is work, and teaching is HARD work.
The best teachers inspire students to learn.
They inspire the best and the brightest, and they somehow inspire the rest too.
No amount of money or resources or technology changes that equation.
Improving education is first in the will and desire of the student, and after that in the skill and commitment of the teachers. Money and resources do not effect that.
Money and resources – like recovery in TX vs PR only help those who really do not need our help anyway.
“And several statements insulting teachers. I only skimmed. Probably had worse drivel in there.”
Typical leftist garbage.
You equate disagreement with your oppinions with insult.
That you are wrong aboutn many things – is just a fact, not an insult.
The insults I target at you are for two things:
When your approach fails, you do not learn from it.
You are prepared to use force to impose your approach – and that it immoral.
Being found wrong is not “insulting”.
Purpotedly you are a teacher – trial and error, the scientific method is a major force in learning.
Mistakes and error are many many many times more common than success.
But success can be built on – with great effort.
My insult to you is that you have not learned from your failures,
and you continue to impose your ideas on others by force.
Even if you are right – which you are not, you still can not impose your ideas by force.
“Conservatives live in fantasy land. Sorry Rick, I will not return to you blog until you block Dave, who takes up all this space and does nothing but lie to promote the cause of the wealthy.”
Libertarian not conservative.
And the place I live is reality – not where you live.
Beyond that – again demonstrating the moral failures of the left.
You can not deal with disagreement from others, and your response is to demand that force be used to shut viewpoints you do not like down.
I do not promote the cause of the wealthy. I do not care much about the wealthy.
My arguments are about what benefits the least well off without regard for the most well off.
What distinguishes us – beside the fact that I am interested in what actually works, is that I do not presume that wealth and everything else is limited.
I do not care if the wealth of the top 1% qradruples if standard of living doubles for those at the bottom.
I do not care about this stupid meme of inequality – because fighting inequality means all of us are worse off.
I understand that in a robust economy standard of living rises for all of us – but it does nto rise equally.
But the alternative is that it is flat or declines for all of us.
You are more interested in punishing those who do better than helping those toward the bottom.
Today there is no excuse for not knowing what works and what does not.
We have more than a century of experience with socialism in all forms – from near communism through social democracies.
We have 3 centuries of experience with free markets – varying from very lightly regulated to relatively heavuly regulated.
We know that:
Regulation reduces the rate of improvement of standard of living – the more regulation the slower the rate of improvement.
that socialism reduces the rate of improvement of standard of living – the more socialist the slower the rate of improvement.
We know that the more freedom the greater volatility, the greater the improvement, but also the greater the inequlaity.
Things improve faster than every other arrangement for those at the bottom.
But they do not improve as fast as they do for those further up.
At the same time we know that those at the top – do not stay there.
There are very few companies on the fortune 500 that were there when I was a kid.
There is only 1 company in the top 10 in 1960 that is still there in 2016.
70% of those on the forbes 400 wealthiest people in the world are self made.
Of the remained even those who inherited some wealth, have still taken what they had and made far more.
Forbes estimated Trump’s net worth at 3.1B.
His initial inheritance was part ownership of a company worth about 45M. After his father died – and he had already done quite well, he inherited another 100M.
The fact that 70% of the Forbes 400 are self made has an implicit corralary.
Atleast 70% of those in the Forbes 400 today will NOT pass enough on to following generations to keep them in the top 1%.
People do rise to great wealth – and they fall from it.
People go from rags to riches – and riches to rags.
People inherit great wealth and blow it.
So unless you have control over others. Unless you can supress viewpoints you do not like, or atleast control how frequently they are expressed – you are running away.
You have no interest in a world where you do not have control of others.
In your world ideas other than yours are so dangerous they must be supressed by force ?
And you wonder why I call you immoral ?
Rick can do what he wants. If he choose to block or limit anyone that is his business.
But you will still be who you are. You will still be someone willing to suppress others by force if necessary.
You are no different from the southern progressive democrats who conceived of Jim Crow.
Given power you will use it to shut up those you do not like.
It does not matter whether you are silencing blacks or Nazi’s or me.
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. ”
It is irrelevant what view you hold – if you wish to silence others – you are a fascist.