Taking Down a President
The date: Halloween, A.D. 2017. The time: late afternoon, as long shadows crept across the garden and dead leaves fluttered to the ground. The place: my slowly darkening study here in Philadelphia.
Let me make an honest and abject confession: I’ve been haunted lately by a spectre so unholy that I almost dare not mention it. But mention it I must.
I’ve been starting to feel a perverse sympathy for Donald Trump.
There… I’ve confessed. But why, you wonder (and I’m sure you’re wondering), would a diehard moderate feel anything other than contempt for the man who, in the space of nine months, has already established his legacy as arguably the worst president in American history?
I suspect it’s the same emotion that causes some of us to sympathize with Frankenstein’s monster, or King Kong, or a British fox trying to elude the well-dressed killers with the hunting horns. It’s the spectacle of a lone misunderstood creature chased to its doom by a bloodthirsty crowd.
Trump, for all his faults (and there are too many to name here) has been hounded so mercilessly, doggedly and even sadistically since his election that, for me at least, he’s beginning to elicit that Frankenstein response: yes, he’s a monster, but it’s possible that he’s not quite as monstrous as the crowd that seeks his blood.
Was Trump really so monstrous when he called La David Johnson’s widow and told her, “He knew what he signed up for, but it’s still sad”? (The mainstream media generally omitted the last part of the sentence.) Was he a monster when he tossed those rolls of paper towels to the Puerto Rican victims of Hurricane Maria… or when he jokingly said to one of the trick-or-treaters who received his presidential Halloween candy, “You have no weight problems — that’s the good news”?
Substitute Obama for Trump, and you can bet the press and the Democratic faithful would have been charmed to the verge of tears. Yet in each case, Trump’s well-intended but socially awkward gestures unleashed a torrent of anti-Trump tweets, memes and amen-corner articles.
Does the man bring all this heavy opprobrium on himself? Well, he’s done enough of it without assistance; I have to give him credit for digging his own holes in his reputation. Trump’s narcissism is his Achilles’ heel; his pathological need for winning while others lose makes him a dodgy choice as president. (A national leader should want everyone to win.) I don’t see him as a racist, or a fascist, or even a stupid man. He’s a grotesque, clueless character — like Frankenstein’s monster, like King Kong — but, like them, he’s also hounded and persecuted beyond reason.
Granted, most sane Americans would argue that a blundering, blustering, arrogant president deserves to be hounded and persecuted — much like a giant gorilla leaving a path of destruction in New York City. How much more recklessness and petty vindictiveness can we take from our commander in chief? If only he could have delivered on his promise to “drain the swamp” or create “millions of jobs,” we might have forgiven his faults.
But now that Mueller’s investigation is closing in on Trump’s henchmen, and even Steve Bannon is fomenting rebellion among the GOP right-wingers, the president looks like a doomed and desperate creature.
The Democratic party machine, aided by Hillary Clinton and even Obama, tried to ruin him both before and after the election. The once-moderate CNN has essentially turned into NTN — the “Never Trump” Network. Even Jimmy Carter opined that the media have been harder on Trump than any other president in his memory. Where does a thinking moderate draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable criticism of the president?
I looked up from my laptop for a moment and glanced at a small white plaster bust of George Washington that sits in my study. His gaze is steady, his chin determined, his sterling character evident in every contour of his face. An idealized visage, no doubt, leaving out the pock marks and faulty dentures of the mortal man — but an image of natural nobility and courage.
And yet, as I write this, even the indispensable General Washington has been taken down a peg in our current revisionist climate. As a Virginia planter and slaveholder, he offends some of our more sensitive Americans despite his many virtues.
Washington held relatively enlightened views on race and slavery for a planter of his time and place: he came to respect the black soldiers in his army, he refused to engage in the slave trade or break up families, and he not only freed his slaves in his will but provided for their care and education. Yet it’s also known that he didn’t take kindly to runaways; they were his legal property, after all.
So should we condemn Washington despite his irreproachable character and incomparable contributions to the founding of the republic? Of course not. If we were to measure the worth of a man strictly by his faults, all of us would be condemned.
If we’re going to judge anyone at all — and I suppose we’re entitled to judge our presidents — we need to ask ourselves whether their virtues outweighed their flaws. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower and a handful of others would pass with flying colors.
Donald Trump doesn’t merit such generosity when we measure his virtues against his flaws; he is, always has been, and probably always will be a brash, dishonest, shockingly ignorant overachiever unsuited for high office. His flaws gleam like the shiny brass plating in Trump Tower. He’s more brand than statesman. And yet…
The public gang-assault on Trump since he upset Mrs. Clinton has been virtually unprecedented in our time. He may or may not have been guilty of collusion with Russia to win the election; at worst, he was no more guilty than the DNC. His narcissism and thin skin will be his undoing, whether he’s eventually removed from office or simply collapses in an ugly heap. Yes, he’s a monster, misunderstood or not — but it still saddens me to watch the airplanes circle him and conspire to bring him down.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate and author of Lifestyles of the Doomed, available wherever e-books are sold.
THE NEW MODERATE 
Dump Drumpf and make America America again!
A possible maybe,but not when your talking about the man responsible for not just 350 million of his own people but possibly the setting fire to the whole world.
On the plus side, he hasn’t dropped the bomb yet. I know he’s a disaster on many levels; I just thought his critics were engaging in overkill. (The media response to the girl who “didn’t have a weight problem” is probably what set me off, finally.)
Trump haters have no sense of humor about the guy. He often says stuff like that, and it’s obvious to the casual, RATIONAL observer that he’s kidding. It’s also true that this is the way that he’s been all of his life. Anyone who ever watched “The Apprentice” knows that this is the way he communicates. It’s not presidential, but, at this point, there are millions of people who say “So what? It’s action, not words that we want.”
“Overkill” is precisely what his critics do. They’re not even critics ~ a critic analyses the relative strengths and faults of a person. Trump’s so-called “critics” are more like mortal opponents, who hate everything about the man, and want him driven out of office, by any means possible, legal or not, ethical or not.
My concern is that, should they succeed, the thrill of victory will be very short-lived, as this sort of thing will happen to all of his successors, on either side, and will ultimately result in the collapse of our political system as we know it. (I know that many will say, “Good! That’s what we want,” but I think that we should all be careful what we wish for”.
“there are millions of people who say “So what? It’s action, not words that we want.”
There are many more millions who say ENOUGH!
Trump Job Approval CBS News Approve 39, Disapprove 55 Disapprove +16
Trump Job Approval Gallup Approve 35, Disapprove 61 Disapprove +26
Trump Job Approval Reuters/Ipsos Approve 36, Disapprove 60 Disapprove +24
“Trump haters have no sense of humor about the guy. ”
Have you got one about bill and hillary? I’ll answer for you, No! So, pleeeeaaase. Cry me a river.
I find nothing funny about having a pathological liar and sexual predator in the oval office. A while back I would not have thought you would either.
“They’re not even critics ~ a critic analyses the relative strengths and faults of a person. ”
Start with yourself. Have you Really made such an honest assessment of trump, especially his weaknesses? If you have, you have kept it to yourself here. The thing that sets me and Jay off about you is that you reduce his weaknesses by 95%. He is a sexual predator. You won’t admit it. That is denying reality, just something for you to argue about. 70% of GOP voters have been consistently saying in polls that trump is uniting the country. That is one huge excursion from reality most GOP voters are taking. Drunks are in the driver’s seat while the GOP has control of all the levers.
“Trump’s so-called “critics” are more like mortal opponents, who hate everything about the man, and want him driven out of office, by any means possible, legal or not, ethical or not.”
That would be a subset of trump’s critics, some of trumps critics. It is not for example, me, much as I loathe the man and his presidency. Nor is it the never trump conservatives and moderates and even some of the liberals. It is possible to loathe the man and still live within the Constitution. He will NOT be driven out of office illegally, see below.
“My concern is that, should they succeed, the thrill of victory will be very short-lived, as this sort of thing will happen to all of his successors, on either side, and will ultimately result in the collapse of our political system as we know it.”
A. Our political system as we know (knew) it has already collapsed. That is what many were hoping for, Pat Riot and Dave for example. Yeah, be careful what you wish for. Ain’t this revolution fun?
B. “This sort of thing” started happening with Clinton. A BJ from an intern was not worthy of impeachment, much as I despise Clinton. What was worthy of impeachment about bill clinton was not the subject of his impeachment hearings, because there was no truly solid proof of it.
C. Most importantly, everyone who is hyperventilating over the prospect of trump being illegally driven from office is ignoring one important fact: It ain’t gonna happen. As your good buddy Dave has said to me on 1000 occasions, get a clue! If he is successfully impeached it will be only with the sort of participation from GOP congress people and GOP voters that brought down Nixon. It won’t happen unless he is caught doing something so hideous that even you, Priscilla, abandon him. It seems impossible at this point that you and 25-30% of the voters but 70-80% of the GOP, the party in power, will ever abandon him, no matter what he does. So, he is safe. He can give an address to congress in his birthday suit while being made happy by an intern and you guys will say, well, bill clinton did worse and where does the Constitution say that a POTUS can’t do that? So, all this hand wringing about him being tragically removed from office is based on nothing. He is with us for 4 years unless he quits.
What can happen and what is happening is that he is being made ineffective and being opposed, ridiculed, and exposed. Which is his own damn fault. If he behaved presidentially he could fix that. Don’t blame “the resistance” for his ineffectiveness, that was a given once you GOP voters foisted this joker off on us.
Perhaps this exercise will make this clear: Write out a believable scenario under which trump gets impeached. If you take that task seriously you will find that any non fictional scenario involves the participation of the GOP, which means you. Will that happen? If so, wouldn’t it assume that he did something so utterly wrong that even you can see it?
You should worry about more real problems than trump being illegally impeached. That is a phony crisis and we have real ones, big ones.
“There are many more millions who say ENOUGH!”
Jay, where I differ from you is that in my opinion trump being impeached is not going to happen. Disapproval is not the same as approving his impeachment. If he were hypothetically to be impeached he will have done something so large that even half his base deserts him.
What is true is that 60% at least do not want the trump revolution, so he is being opposed tooth and nail and that is what is really driving his supporters crazy. Impeachment is a red herring. Many of them seem to believe that it is damned near unConstitutional to oppose the POTUS, If He Is Their POTUS.
Just like the loony left, they are planning to cram their unpopular revolution down our throats and are beside themselves that they have not been making much progress with that.
Here’s a song about revolution. I had some fun with the ending, you’ll like it Jay.
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it’s evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
Don’t you know it’s gonna be alright
Alright, alright
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We’re all doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don’t you know it’s gonna be alright
Alright, alright, al…
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You’d better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Donald Trump
your head is pretty damned far up your rump
Roby, I agree removal through Impeachment is highly unlikely. But the continual push for it is a positive encouragement, like cheer chants at a football game:
Come On America!
Show Some Class!
Get that tRUMP!
And Kick His Ass!
IMPEACH! IMPEACH! YAY!
When your team is trapped against the wrong endzone, and has been the entire game, and you are losing 42-6, the cheerleading tends to collapse.
Roby, you are totally missing my point about impeachment ~ actually, I didn’t even mention the word…I simply said that Trump’s enemies are intent on driving him from office by any means, legal or not, ethical or not. There was a time when something like that would have bothered YOU.
As the Russia collusion narrative collapses, we hear more and more about the 25th Amendment, which provides a framework for replacing the president in the case of his incapacitation from illness or injury. Left wing “artists” write songs and make videos and films encouraging and celebrating the idea of Trump’s assassination. All of these liberals howling at the moon over a lost election!
It’s actually pretty pathetic if you ask me, because what it says is that these people cannot evaluate the evidence that indicates that Trump won because Obama moved the country too far left, and Hillary was a terrible candidate who blew the election. And they are apparently unwilling to rally around the idea that in 3 years they can have another chance at nominating someone who can win fairly. Just destroy the duly elected president and all will be well?
Talk about having your head up your rump….
In my lifetime people have been “destroying” presidents since LBJ. Its called politics. As you have nothed several times, its a blood sport. Opposition was virulent against LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, W, and Obama. The first Bush was not destroyed by the left, instead he was destroyed by the Grover Norquist’s on the GOP side because he was too moderate.
I don’t want Bernie Sanders Damned Revolution and I don’t want trumps Damned Revolution and there are majorities with me in both cases.
This is what it looks like when a majority does not want what you want. Opposition, often virulent. Let a Bernie Sanders Lefty become POTUS and conservatives will be every bit as worked up as the trump opposition. I’ll even be with them. Yeah its getting worse as times goes on and trump only solidifies and amplifies the trend by his own actions, among which he took the unprecedented step of telling his supporters that if he lost the election was rigged. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
How many times during the campaign did you state that it seemed clear to you that whether hillary or trump won they were going to be impeached, so we might as well not get too worked up because they could always be removed, or words to that effect? That was then, this is now. Your trump got in and people even talking about removing trump offend you now.
Hell will freeze before I sympathize with the complaint that there is a very high level of opposition to a person like trump being president, as well as a person with his agenda being president.
Assassination is crazy talk, disgusting. I’d feel a WHOLE lot more sorry for your complaint if you had not quietly tolerated your buddy JBs frequent gory death wishes for Obama. Like you tolerated Dave’s scatelogical rants directed towards liberals but using his same words brought me a rebuke. You will tolerate or not be able to see damned near anything at all, as long as its coming from your side, so I feel zero sympathy for you.
I think that it’s entirely possible that Trump could be impeached if Democrats win the House. Impeachment is a political ~ and perfectly constitutional~ way of removing an elected official.
You’re not getting my point, Roby. I don’t want your sympathy…I don’t think that anyone deserves “sympathy” for casting a vote!
Trump is not trying to do anything revolutionary, unless you consider undoing much of Obama’s agenda revolutionary. Obama was the one (“The One”) who said that he would fundamentally transform America, would slow the oceans’ rise and lead us to the promised land. Ok, that last part is not true, but if you would just cool down, stop letting hysterics like Jay influence your outlook and read what I write, you’ll realize that I am not saying anything that’s not true. Hell, Jay has openly fantasized a Trump death as a positive outcome. You want revolution? That’s the mentality that gets you revolution.
Put the shoe on the other foot for one hot minute. What would you have said to me, if I had said that I would applaud with glee if Obama tumbled from the top of Trump Tower in Manhattan to the city street below?? You know damn right well that you would have said that that was evidence of a sick mind. But, Jay says exactly that about Trump and you cheer him on?? Come on.
Priscilla, “I think that it’s entirely possible that Trump could be impeached if Democrats win the House.”
There has to be something illegal that the President has committed before they can be impeached. And think about this. If they started the process it would take them until the summer of 2018 to get something started (as slow as those asses move) and then maybe impeached by 2019, just before the election. If they remove a weak president and replace him in office before the election in 2020, that would put Pence in office and make him the incumbent and a much stronger opponent, one who could take down a Warren/Booker or Ellison.
There is not going to be any effort to impeach prior to Jan, 2019.
I doubt there will be one then.
Frankly this entire hate trump nonsense is incredibly dangerous for the left.
It burns its own people out and energizes opposition.
I would have thought that by now people would have grasped that there is nothing to this Russia Collusion nonsense. But polling suggests the public response has been different from what I expected. Instead of grasping there is no “collusion” the majority of people beleive there was, and do not care.
I will also note dangerously on most of this polling the polpular split is incredibly partisan and polarized.
Polls are coming out where 72% of democrats beleive X and 83% or republicans beleive not X.
A recent poll on McCain had 63% favorable with democrats and 65% unfavorable with republicans.
Democrats could impeach Trump, but removal requires 2/3 of the senate.
Impeachment is also a politically dangerous tactic which is why Pelosi is actively trying to shut democratic discussions of impeachment down.
Priscilla, given all the absurd trump rationalization that goes on at TNM, and the idea popular here among you and Dave that opposition to trump is of the nature of the worst examples and basically verging on illegitimate, Jay for me is a welcome voice of reason. I don’t think he has spent much time wishing trump dead, perhaps it’s a blind spot of mine. Ron brought up the idea of assassination recently, much to my surprise. I am clearly not for wishing for assassination. I have said many times that there are a large number of divisive public figures I would not mourn if they happened to choke on a sandwich. I have a sort of mean streak perhaps.
trump ran such a campaign that this level of opposition was inevitable and natural. It may indeed backfire, especially since the dem party has dissolved into chaos and half of its members want a revolution every bit as unpopular as the trump revolution. I have mentioned my theory here many times that highly divisive unpopular presidents get reelected. When they are brought down, its because they are unpopular with activists from their own side, Bush 41, LBJ.
The chances of the dem party breaking open the 2018 election as the GOP did in 2010 midterms is very, very slim. They might just possibly get a slim majority in one or both chambers. If they get some bigger turnaround, that will be a rejection of trump/GOP rule and be the voice of the people. In that case I guess it is not impossible that the House could impeach him. It would take a considerable number of GOP defections in the Senate to remove trump. He is going to have to be caught awfully red handed at something or completely have a psychological melt down before that would happen. There will be no illegal/unethical removal of trump form office. Its a red herring.
I read the spirit of your commentary here to be that the opposition to trump is some astonishing, unnecessary, unexplainable aberration, an insult to decent workings of democracy. You find trump somewhat heroic; in your own GOP-loyal universe you seem to have truly lost the ability to comprehend how he looks to someone like me (or never trump conservatives, etc.). Pat Riot at least could understand how someone could reasonably loathe trump and said so repeatedly. The opposition to trump is far from consisting only of liberals/democrats, as you make it sound. Democrats make up 28% of the voters. Disapproval of trump is at nearly 60%. You seem to think its some monolithic group under something like organized control. You are in denial about the actual nature of the opposition and its reasons for being. No one can stop it, it’s a natural force of nature. Its worst elements should be disavowed by its better elements and frequently are.
If you had merely voted for trump holding your nose that would be one thing. You go much further, you seem to like the guy personally, deny his worst faults, and very often try to rationalize away stuff like his comments and behaviors towards women and his perpetual lying, which utterly shocks and disappoints me to the bone. You find those of us not in that state to be guilty of bad taste or something. So, for me and Jay, if not for Dave and Ron, (dduck has his/her own category) that is like waving a red cape in front of a bull. And then you are astonished that the bull charges. Can anyone truly be so innocent?
Roby
Get a clue.
What in the world is “Trump rationalization” ?
He was elected – without my vote.
Just the same as Obama.
There are things about him I like and some I done.
Just the same as Obama.
There has been absolutely Zero thus far to justify removing him as president,
The rationalization is on the left – concocting ever more bizzarre justifications for your actions.
Oppose Trump or republicans on specific policies and actions – and some of the time I will join you. Just as some of the time I supported Obama’s policies and actions and others I opposed them.
But you have gone all in on hysterical nonsense.
This whole left meme regarding Trump has been a farce since the begining.
You sought to prove Trump.Russia collusion.
Thus fat we have multiply instances were the Trump campaign was Trolled seeking dirt from Russian on Clinton.
Meanwhile Clinton who previously said she knew nothing is admitting that she and he DNC paid millions for Dirt on Trump that ultimately came from the Kremlin
We also now know why FBI/DHS were not given access to the hacked DNC servers.
The DNC was terrified that the FBI would find that Clinton had bought and paid for the entire DNC.
How many times do we have to refute the DNC hacking story before you are clueful ?
Finally, we have all you lefities going banana’s because some fake Social Media Accounts might have been created by Russians who might be acting for the Kremlin.
So ?
The underlying thesis is still that there is a cause and effect relationship between advertising and peoples votes.
No actually not even that. Because given that the “russian” advocacy seems to have been both tiny and distributed across all candidates. how did it effect anything ?
I think it is twitter that is now claiming that 1.4M people saw these adds
Can you remember a single political add from 2016 ?
Is there any political add that changed your mind as to who you were going to vote for ?
Clinton spent twice what Trump did – why didn’t she win ?
Get a clue somebody – anybody running political adds does not constitute improper influence.
If it did we are going to have to completely shut down the Media, as it is titled ridiculously to the left.
Your freedom rests on allowing others freedom to.
Including the freedom to make up their own minds as to who they are voting for, for their own reasons, It means you are not entitled to control what others see and hear.
Roby;
The left has argued (falsely) that republicans opposed Obama because he was black, and that was wrong(true).
The left is now inherently doing the same thing.
You did not want Trump and did not vote for him.
In most elections a very large portion of us do not get the candidate we wanted.
That is the norm. That is not a justification for a revolt.
That is what we have from the left.
You say Trump’s campaign drove this ? I do not agree, but I also do not care.
That is no different from saying Obama’s campaign drove opposition to him.
I think that character matters. I got my chance to vote on that – and the nation rejected that. the election is over.
You are not required to support Trump. You are free to oppose his actions.
But you are opposed to his very existance.
You claim that his campaign is the problem – if that were True – you are on the wrong side.
Those who elected Trump are entitled to what they voted for – not you or I.
Your argument and the actions of the left since the election are focused on reversing the election, on depriving those who elected Trump of the person they elected.
It is quite weird because while democrats in congress are monolithically opposed to GOP legislation, and the GOP is having legislative difficulties because of fractures in its own members – all that and more with respect to legislation and policy is not really the focus of the anger of the left.
I am not saying there is not opposition to Trump or GOP policies but that is not where the energy is, where the story is, where the media is.
Each day we wake up to hours of nonsense from all sides over the latest Trump tweet.
I Think Trump should have tweeted more carefully regarding the NYC terrorist attack.
I do not think he should be impeached for that.
I do not think we need endless hours of debate over that.
I think there are far more important things than the latest Trump Tweet that offends the left.
The left has also gone after Trump regarding misstatements – and sometimes they score a few points. But the credibility of the left and media has taken a huge hit at the same time, because your accuracy is no better than Trump’s
The DNC is being exposed as completely corrupt in 2016. Even the sex scandals are destroying the left. The latest is a Sorros affilated financier.
There are republicans whose treatment of women is abysmal.
But the left has been attacking the rest of us for mysoginy for decades, and during that time was engaged in covering up sexual harassment, assault and rape
It is called hypocracy.
The left has not succeeded in making Trump look worse.
But they have succeeded in making themselves look disgusting.
Who is “rationalizing Trump ?
Someone here claim he is not a mysoginist ?
Regardless, don’t piss on me. I voted for the candidate who thus far has not been exposed as treating women vilely.
I am not interested in your hypocritical whines of misogyny. When the left is not hiding the systemic harassment, sexual assault and rape then I will listen.
Less evil than Hillary is a poor standard for a president.
Regardless, you are just making the rest of us angrier at you as you keep up this nonsense.
Your argument essentially is that everyone not just shy of encouraging assassination is morally repugnant, because our idea of the lessor of two evils is different from yours.
I did not vote for Trump, and I do not regret that.
But if someone put a gun to my head and said you must vote for Trump or Clinton,
there is no way I could vote for Clinton. For mostly the reasons you are frothing over Trump.
I would also note – had Clinton been elected – we would have much the same investigations. And these investigations are bearing Fruit regarding Clinton.
While they fizzle regarding Trump.
“But you have gone all in on hysterical nonsense.”
Which is?
I don’t think trump will be impeached. I doubt the dems will be big winners in 2018. I think trump could be reelected. I think the dem party is broken. I think the sanders wing of the dems is economically insane. I can’t stand the clintons. I’ve said all these things repeatedly
Where is my hysterical nonsense?
I loathe trump, its not hysterical, its quite common and transcends ideology.
You are unable to have a rational opinion about me or about anything that involves something you can lump together as “the left.” Your obsessiveness blinds you.
If you and I discuss politics it will dissolve into a lengthy useless battle. You and I are not fated to be able to have a constructive conversation, 10 years of evidence shows it. The noise we make when we discuss politics is painful to the ears of anyone listening. It embarrasses me.
You hate my opinions, think that I abuse you, find my posts empty of substance but you still perpetually wish to engage me, starting oh so nicely with “get a clue”. Its obsessive, pathological.
Leave me in peace.
Not just I but everyone here will be happy.
We are not all that far apart on what you think will happen.
Regardless, the relative quality of our future political predictions is not an important issue.
I have said what I think the political future will be and why. I could be wrong.
Any of myriads of possible disruptive events could occur.
I do not care that you loathe trump.
Though I will note that the left accused most of us falsely of loathing Obama,
The hateful, hating haters, are primarily on the left.
What I do care about is how you wish to act, and how you act.
We have been at this for over a year. There is nothing there.
Trump is the same flawed person he was the day he was elected, there is no more evidence of actual misconduct. To the extent we know more about Russia – that is really a fizzle.
And yet you want to invalidate the results of the election.
I do not care that you loathe Trump, but you are pretty much an all access 24×7 loath Trump channel. You are harming yourself. Not Trump, not me.
That something is common and somewhat crosses ideologies does not make it rational.
Though I would note that on myriads of issues including Trump there is not that much crossing ideological lines. What is so dangerous right now is that on issue after issue 90% of republicans beleive X and 90% of democrats beleive not X.
Regardless, most people including the concensus of scientists beleived Galleleo was wrong. Facts are not decided by concensus.
As to us. The fundimental “political” disageement between us is your intention of using force to impose your views on those who disagree.
That is it. Otherwise we agree more than you admit, and I really do not care that much about what we disagree on.
It is not “politics” that is the flashpoint of our conflict, it is your willingness to use force.
Please quit telling me what I think. You are not good at it.
Until you chose to use force to impose them, your ideas are merely interesting points of discussion.
I do not care that you “abuse me”. I note fallacy and ad hominem because it is obviously not argument. I sometimes insult you – more than I should, as part of arguments.
What I care about is the argument, the debate.
I wish you actually had the capacity to argue your opinions well.
Opinions ideas, arguments are tested in the crucible of discussion.
I want your best arguments and I am disappointed that you offer none.
Roby
I very rarely attack you out of the blue.
I respond to your posts.
You are free to say whatever you wish.
You are not free to say whatever you wish and demand silence from everyone else.
I thought we were here to discuss ideas ?
But your back to trying to impose yours by force.
Free speach for thee, but not for me.
“As to us. The fundimental “political” disageement between us is your intention of using force to impose your views on those who disagree.”
There is not a soul here other than you who does not believe in using force (government) to impose their views. You have obsessively focused on me to such an obsessive extent that I believe you are mentally ill.
“I wish you actually had the capacity to argue your opinions well.
Opinions ideas, arguments are tested in the crucible of discussion.
I want your best arguments and I am disappointed that you offer none.”
Ad hominem. Just nonsense.
No one else here in my ten years has made this complaint about me. Its only you who think that. You won’t get a single person here to agree with you on that if you poll them, even those that I am at political odds with.
This is just another one of your extreme opinions, like the opinion that there should be no regulation whatsoever and that regulation by government is immoral, period. You won’t find another soul here who will agree with that extreme position. But, you insanely focus on me because you have insanely lumped me in with Chairman Mao.
Dave, you are interested in have an insult festival with me. I am not interested and no one else here want to suffer through it either.. You are not worth my time.
Leave me in peace.
“There is not a soul here other than you who does not believe in using force (government) to impose their views.”
Oh, ?
Who here beleives that we can enslave people or commit genocide through govenrment ?
Absolutely no one here not even you beleives that we can impose whatever views we please by force on others.
Even I do not beleive that absolutely all uses of force by government are impermissible.
Most of us grasp that some uses of force are permissible and some are not.
Regardless, you are making an idiotic argumentum ad populum.
Another fallacy.
You must justify your use of force to impose a specific view.
It is not something you can assume.
This is a fundimental question of morality.
You can not elide it.
Your consistent efforts to do so leave genocide and slavery moral by your standards.
Most of us have not thought this out that far, but it is inherent to philosopy, as well as to western politics.
When the declaration of independence said that the purpose of government was to secure our rights – was that just flowery rhetoric ?
Or was that a cornerstone to the argument the declaration made that colonists were free to form their own government because that or Britian had failed them ?
We have a constitution of enumerated govenrment powers – why are their any limits to government powers ? If as you say we can impose our views on others as we wish by force ?
For what reason do rights exist, except as an absolute bar to the force of governnent or the will of the majority ?
If imposing ones viewpoint on others by force is inherently moral – then genital mutilation is moral.
How is it that you determine which actions of which governments are moral and which are not ?
You refuse to answer any of these questions – because you can’t.
Each of us here may not in detail agree on when the use of force by government to impose a point of view is moral and when it is not. But I do not know anyone who thinks it is always moral. That government can impose any view it wishes on others by force.
Your entire claim is not merely an argumentum ad populum, it is also a justification for tyranny. For that is what Tryanny is – the use of force against other to impose ones views without any requirement for justification.
“I wish you actually had the capacity to argue your opinions well.
Opinions ideas, arguments are tested in the crucible of discussion.
I want your best arguments and I am disappointed that you offer none.”
Ad hominem. Just nonsense.
Nope, you clearly do not know what ad hominem is.
“No one else here in my ten years has made this complaint about me”
More argumentum ad populum fallacy.
So ?
Each of us is unique. Ron makes different arguments than I do.
“This is just another one of your extreme opinions,”
Extreme because you say so ? It it is extreme demonstrate how ?
My “extreme” opinions are shared by about half the founders, Adam Smith, John Locke, Voltaire, Thoreux, Mill, Kant. Some of the most influential thinkers of history.
“like the opinion that there should be no regulation whatsoever and that regulation by government is immoral, period.”
A priori regulation of conduct is immoral, and impractical – i.e. it does nto work.
As I noted you do not even have the skills necescary to argue your own views.
You do not know why you beleive what you believe, you are just sure you are right.
Please find an example of any regulation ever that made a positive change in a trend.
Absent such and example, at the very least you fail the real world test of practicality.
“You won’t find another soul here who will agree with that extreme position.”
Another argumentum ad populum fallacy
“But, you insanely focus on me because you have insanely lumped me in with Chairman Mao.”
Then you should find it easy to distinguish yourself from Mao on some principled basis.
“Dave, you are interested in have an insult festival with me. ”
Again back to the mind reading.
“I am not interested and no one else here want to suffer through it either..
You are not worth my time.”
You make your own choices about your time.
No one forces you to respond to me.
“Leave me in peace.”
If you speak in a public forum you have to right to the enforced silence of those who disagree.
Dave, you are alone in your beliefs here about government, regulation, and the morality of regulation as a concept. That is not a fallacy, its a fact. You focus insanely on me, but, unlike you, everyone else here and nearly everyone in the larger world accepts that there must be some governmental regulation. People argue about how much, how, when, etc. but you are alone at an extreme in saying that the whole idea of regulation is immoral and destructive. That is a fact, not a fallacy.
You misuse the logical fallacies to shut facts like this out, its how you got to be alone at the extreme libertarian part of the spectrum. You can rage at me all you wish, it will do you no good. The world is not as you want it and never will be.
There are places on TNM where you sound sane, but when you debate me, you sound like a nut.
Only a hypersensitive libertarian nut would take the words “Leave me in peace”, as an attack on their rights. Any normal person can understand and respect the idea that some other person is completely sick of fruitlessly talking to them. Some conversations are fated to be futile and angry. Why do it? Why make others suffer through the noise of our endless pointless pathological debate? If libertarian means not giving a damn about other people’s wishes its not going to get very far, in any form.
Morality is no more fungible than the pythagorean theorum.
It is not an arbitrary creation, The first principle I espouse is the foundational principle of morality throughout time and throughout the world.
We all intuitively know that the use of force against others to get what we want is wrong.
We know that for many reasons, That is also the first principle of the social contract – All government is illegitimate without that principle.
That principle is itself founded on the importance humans place on individual liberty.
You can reject that fundimental value of individual liberty if you wish – but in doing so you open pandora’s box – slavery and genocide become morally acceptable.
You seem to think that all of this is fungible.
Maybe you are correct and you can reject the primacy of individual liberty – but not without consequences.
We can not construct the laws of mathemtics and science willy nilly as we please.
If you choose not to accept the laws of thermodynamics – the universe does not alter its behavior to suit your whim. The same with foundational principles of morality.
BTW this concept that all values and principles are equal – that is post modernism.
You do not have to know what it is to ascribe to it.
And it has consequences to.
You wish to “believe” that we can each beleive as we please, that some fungible majoritarian principle – i.e. we abide by the will of the majority – why you are in the majority, defines, but you are unprepared to take ownership of the consequences that result.
And you wonder why I think you are morally challenged ?
You want to accuse me of anarchism – but you are a proponent of essentially totalitarian chaos. Because that is what you have when you have no principle but power.
“Only a hypersensitive libertarian nut would take the words “Leave me in peace”, as an attack on their rights. Any normal person can understand and respect the idea that some other person is completely sick of fruitlessly talking to them.”
Note hypersensite – not particularly sensitive at all.
Like it or not “leave me in peace” is a demand. It is not something you are entitled to – further it is absolutely not something you give to others when they actually are entitled to it.
Respect is not an entitlement either, It is something that is earned.
Some ideals and values have earned respect and others have proven to be evil.
If you do not wish to speak, you are free to not speak.
I have not tried to take that right away from you.
You are not entitled to the silence of others outside your own private space.
You continue to beleive you are entitled to make the rules for all. Worse still that you can make them based on your own arbitrary and self contradictory feelings.
“Some conversations are fated to be futile and angry. Why do it? Why make others suffer through the noise of our endless pointless pathological debate?”
You are demanding to be left alone – a right you absolutely have within your own private life. But I right I have asked from you and that you deny.
I ask to be left in peace from your interferance – in my home, in my personal relations, in everything that I do that does not involve the use of force or fraud against others.
And you deny that. So why are you entitled to be left in peace to IMPOSE your will on me by force ? Such incredible hypocrisy.
You want for yourself far more than you are willing to give others.
And you wonder why I think you are immoral ?
“If libertarian means not giving a damn about other people’s wishes its not going to get very far, in any form.”
If does not mean not caring about others. It means not being obligated by force to care about others.
Free exchange is inherently about caring about others. If I sell you a hamburger, I must care what you want to get from you what I want.
But your mere existance imposes absolutely no positive duty on another that can be accomplished by force.
I have no problem with positive moral duties – but they are outside the scope of government, they can not be imposed on others by force.
As well as being immoral, that is also impractical. We can not “save the world”.
“You misuse the logical fallacies to shut facts like this out, its how you got to be alone at the extreme libertarian part of the spectrum. You can rage at me all you wish, it will do you no good. The world is not as you want it and never will be.”
If you make an argument that is a logical fallacy that means it is not a valid argument.
If I say “the ocean is full of water because you are stupid”.
That is a fallacious argument – it is obviously invalid – it happens to be true that the ocean is full or water, but the cause is not someones stupidity.
Further the alternative argument “the ocean has no water because you are stupid”, has the same merit – none.
An element of critical thinking is to be able to reason without fallacy.
Fallacious reasoning is not inherently false – but it is also not inherently true.
A fallacious argument is often no argument at all, and sometimes worse.
We endeavor to reason logically – absent fallacies – because conclusions derived from true premises conforming to know rules of logical argument are themselves true.
In mathematics we have a very small number of axioms – things we must assume to be true because they are self evident by unprovable. From those axioms we can prove all the rest of the laws and theorums of mathematics, further we can then use mathematics in the real world and rely on the results.
The purpose of logic and reason – critical thinking is to get us to logical conclusions that we can trust. That are not the whim of one person. that are not “opinions” or beleifs but Truth.
For the most part I have gotten to my “extreme” positions, pragmatically – not theoretically.
Though I alternate between pragmatic and theoretical arguments.
You advocate for regulation. You belittle and berate me because I assert that a priori restrictions on conduct – beyond you may not initiate force or fraud against another are wrong, and do not work. You constantly assert that it is common sense, self evident that a priori restrictions are more often good than bad.
It is entirely possible that there are instances were a priori restrictions are net positive, but that is rare to non-existant.
Just to be clear – an a priori restraint – a regulation would be something like “you must have a plexiglass guard arround a bandsaw because someone might cut off their finger.
Remembering that even absent that regulation torts continues to exist.
The tort rule would be something to the effect of – if someone working for you cuts off their finger on your equipment, then you are obligated to make them whole.
Torts – the fact that you are always responsible for the harms that your actions – and more rarely inaction causes others is a legal principle hundreds of years old.
It requires no regulation, or law.
Anyway I have asked you for an example of an a priori regulation – that is either not already a tort when violated, or results in a demonstrable net benefit.
The assertion “See if there are plexiglass guards people will not cut off their fingers” is not a demonstrable net benefit. A positive change in the trend of cutoff fingers after passing your regulation would be evidence.
A part of what I would note – and why regulation is a bad idea, is that the fact that you are responsible when your actions or (sometimes) inaction causes harm to others inherently means the motivation to protect employees from dangerous band saw blades exists with or without the regulation. Completely absent the regulation many maybe most employers will likely put a plexiglass sheild arround band saw blades – if they determine that is the most effective way to prevent injury – or maybe they will find an entirely different way.
Maybe they will construct a force field ala star trek. Maybe they will use robots to do the cutting. There are systems for power tools that will actually detect when human flesh comes in contact with a cutting blade and stop that blade so quickly that your skin does not get cut. Each of those and myriads of others will meet your duty under torts to do no harm.
But most of those will not comply with regulations.
In the real world regulations do not work – because they nearly always attempt to prevent something that the law already disincentives. But they direct specific ways to solve problems precluding finding better ways.
Workplace safety has not increased because government has passed lots of regulation, but because for myriads of reasons employers do not want to harm their employees.
And those existing motivations on the part of employers grow as their employees become more skilled and therefore more valuable, and as standard of living rises.
After that diatribe, the quesiton is can you find an example of a regulation that has demonstrably altered a prexisting trend ?
That is not an extremist demand. That is not a theoretical demand, that is a highly pragmatic real world demand.
If you can not merely come up with an example – but actually demonstrate that is true nearly all the time, then regulation is self evidently a bad idea. on a purely pragmatic basis.
argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy even if it is a paragraph long, and even if you say it is not.
You do not seem to grasp that something can be both a fact and a fallacy.
It is a fact that many people do not share my views.
It is a fallacy to pretend that fact makes a valid argument.
“Like it or not “leave me in peace” is a demand. ”
If so, then your oft repeated “get a clue” is a demand. Hypocrite.
You constantly use the imperative case on others, by definition that is giving an order. But you will invent some mythological reason why your case is an exception.
If you think I have used force on you, go call the police.
Just nutty.
Leave my in peace is a request. Will it work better if I say, for gods sake, will you kindly leave me in peace? Very doubtful.
Much as the fact that I can get you to type out it 3 or 4 or more humongous posts every time I cough could be sort of intoxicating (and I suppose I could just enjoy it and have a contest with myself to see how few words I can type to send you off in a frenzy), it would be better if we just accepted that we are at odds and left everyone here in peace rather than this inane useless conversation. But I doubt that reasoning with you will work either.
No hypocrisy,.
I am free to make whatever demands I wish of you.
I am not free to use force to compel them.
I have no problem with imperatives.
I have a problem with your beleif that you are entitled to them.
I have no expectation that you will listen when I say “get a clue”
And I claim no power to force you to.
No mythological reason.
My arguments virtually always resolve to the same principles.
You may not use force against others.
The hypocracy remains yours.
If you actually use your force against me – I may well got to the police.
Though self defense is also legitimate.
Our constitution BTW does not have police in it anywhere.
Police were non-existant in colonial times,
and quite rare until the 20th century.
If you attempt to use the force of government against me I will oppose you politically, legally, constitutionally, and if those do not work, then I am free to respond to that force with my own force in self defense – as our founders did.
The latter is highly unlikely, but it is something you should always keep in mind.
The use of force in self defense is always justified.
It is even justified in opposition to a lawless government.
“Leave my in peace is a request. Will it work better if I say, for gods sake, will you kindly leave me in peace? Very doubtful.”
As a request – why are you free to speak your mind on a public forum – without anyone responding ?
Sorry, Roby it is not really a request. It is a demand for an entitlement.
It is a demand for something you do not give to others – not that you are obligated to.
It is the pretense that your remarks are sufficiently important they are entitled to be unrebutted.
It is no different from the snowflakes on campus who demand safe spaces.
Your safe space is your home. It is not a public forum.
This should not be hard. Your flawed world view is leading you to beleive you have a right to something you do not.
You are also trying to cast yourself as a victim. You are not.
You are free to speak or not. You are not free to control whether others do or not.
Nor is their some rule of curtesy or politeness that permits some of us to say what the please and requires others to remain silent.
Your idea of “reasoning” is simply making others do as you wish.
That is why we are at odds.
We will remain at odds as long as you believe that.
“Your idea of “reasoning” is simply making others do as you wish.”
Making implies force. Where is my force? My “Leave me in peace” is exactly equivalent to “your get a clue. ” Neither one of us has any intention of using force to make the other comply.
You are the most pathologically intellectually dishonest person I have ever encountered. Its pathetic, on the most trivial and obvious matter you cannot be wrong. Not being able just to admit to the obvious reality in such a trivial case only makes it clear, as if it wasn’t already that you cannot be intellectually honest in cases that are not trivial. You are a phony intellectual, hiding behind a wall of ridiculous arguments and evasions.
You have the most bizzare idea of pathogical – or honestly the meaning of most words.
Regardless, there is a difference between “get a clue” and “leave me alone”.
i do not expect you to get a clue.
Even if you are not expecting me to “leave you alone”, you actually beleive you are entitled to be. And you likely would use force – atleast that of government if you could.
If something was trivial or obvious – we would not be disagreeing.
Most of these disagreements are rooted in your confusing word meaning laden with false but common assumptions, with actual meanings.
Fine if you are writing fiction of poetry, not acceptable in argument or law or govenrment.
When it involves the possible use of force accuracy and precision and narrow meanings are necescary.
I am being perfectly intellectually honest and that is where the conflict is.
You are not.
“You have the most bizzare idea of pathogical – or honestly the meaning of most words.”
I’ll assume you meant pathological. In any case my understanding of words is not weak. How did I happen to get into grad school to study molecular biology in spite of being a math and physical science and not a biology undergrad major? When I finished my undergrad degree I decided to take the GRE on a whim. I did not prepare. I do have and always have had a talent for taking tests. Still, I was knocked down with my results when I got them. 790 verbal, 730 math 710 logic. The verbal score was well inside the 99th percentile; that started at 760 if I remember. The pool was not simply citizens; it was college grads who intended to get an advanced degree.
I make a nice living rewriting Russian scientific papers in English, I have for more than a decade. That living depends on understanding not only English but Russian.
No one here tells me over and over that I did not understand or misinterpreted what they were saying. Posters here are perpetually telling you that you do not understand english and misinterpret them, its a constant comment on your posts. You have a problem, the test has been done for ten years, the results are long in.
The word pathological applies quite comfortably to your pattern of behavior. You are obsessive and intellectually dishonest. Well, I am obsessive too, or I would not be responding to you. All the same, my output here is dwarfed by yours and I have some rational sense of the futility of it. Further, you are specifically obsessed with me. Although there is nothing exceptional about my particular acceptance of the basic idea of the 20th-21st century level of government and regulation, you have focused obsessively on me. For all the obsessiveness of your attention to me, you have not come close to understanding my politics and ideology and have a wildly distorted view of my opinions. I am hardly one who is authoritarian. nor am I one who never questions regulation. In fact I have given many examples here, even of environmental regulations I find absurd. You are enraged selectively with me because I do not find the entire idea of environmental regulation absurd, destructive, you have even used the word evil. I suspect that your outrage with me is comes from the fact that I have struck a nerve with my criticisms of the master criticizer. Your purpose in life seems to be telling people that they are wrong. Yet, let someone try that on you… furious repetitive denial results in a stream of posts.
Although you have shown plenty of evidence of intellect, its a distorted, dishonest, obsessive intellect.
That is pathological.
My closest friend, as it happens is a coder, he is self employed. He makes a fantastic living, has done projects for organizations that astound me, all quietly and unpretentiously from his living room, and is not the least bit underutilized, as you confessed to being. He is wldly talented at everything he tries, music, art, sport, life. He knows how to focus on constructive things. I am sure that he has no time for making a career of telling people obsessively, uselessly, and repetitively that they are wrong and he is right on internet blogs. I am sure that your pathological habits have interfered greatly with your life and career.
“Although you have shown plenty of evidence of intellect, its a distorted, dishonest, obsessive intellect.”
That concisely sums him up!
Which is why it’s useless to expect he’ll do anything but nitpick and distort everything you address to him obsessively.
But it continues to be fun to use him like a defective robotic punching bag: each time you slug it, it haphazardly spews out long winded obsessive responses from it’s disconnected-from-reason database.
I’ve just finished watching “Manhunt” on Netflix, a series that follows the crimes and investigation and arrest by the FBI of Ted Kaczynski, better know as the Unabomber. It focuses on FBI criminal profiler James “Fitz” Fitzgerald, who traces and finds Kaczynski through his idiosyncratic use of language in the ‘Manifesto he insisted on being published in a major American newspaper to prevent him from blowing up an airliner. Kaczynski’s intellect and thought processes are detailed in the series. A mathematical prodigy who entered Harvard at age 16, he was brilliant at rationalizing his hideous bombings of innocent people as justified anarchy for the greater good.
Watching that unfolding TV I kept thinking: that’s the Dave Mind At Work! Clever obsessive piecing together of erudite bits and pieces of errata into explanations divorced from reality. And no rebuttal no matter how ‘reasonable’ can shake him from rigid adherence to that philosophy (substitute Kaczynski’s Neo-Luddism for Dave’s Libertarianism).
No Dave, I don’t think you’re planting bombs in public places… but hijacked emails? Hummmm…
“Although you have shown plenty of evidence of intellect, its a distorted, dishonest, obsessive intellect.”
That concisely sums him up!
Actually it says nothing.
Distortion and dishonesty are things you can demonstrate.
They are also claims that bet your own integrity against others – with the burden of proof on you.
Kaczynski is nearly certainly a paranoid schizophrenic.
While he is ideologically a sort of left anarchist, ideological consistency in schizophrenics is not common, and you can not draw ideological inferences from schizophrenics.
Regardless, do you think this tendency to attempt to conflate others with infamous mental health problems is meaning argument or reflects well on you ?
One could attempt to diagnose you based on your fascination with identifying others with infamous criminals with serious mental health issues.
Roby;
I have never scored below the top 1/4% in any standardized test of any kind ever.
So I am not impressed by top 1%.
Regardless, there is a difference between mangling the meaning of words – often deliberately and verbal skills.
I know nothing of your ability to translate russian scientific papers into english.
Regardless, that is not a skill that has any bearing on anything we are discussing.
If you are happy and successful – more power to you.
If you did well on GRE’s in logic – I am shocked – you have shown incredibly poor logical skills in your posts here. Worse you have shown repeated that you really do not give a damn about logic. I am not finding an actual GRE in logic.
Nor am I the slightest impressed by degrees.
I judge you based on what you post here – not what you claim.
I do not care what others tell you or do not – here or otherwise.
If you actually were any good at logic at all, you would know that too, is just another stupid fallacious argument. If you want to be beleived regarding your claims, then you should not base an appeal to authority on an argumentum ad populum.
Based on the evidence of your posts here, you have the poorest logical skills of any poster here. Those few arguments you make are pretty much always fallacious.
Your posts are just streaming examples of logical fallacy.
back to the idiocy that you can diagnose someone over the internet.
Do you actually have a degree in psychology ? A license ?
If you did you would know that it is unethical for a psychologist to make a diagnosis without meeting the person.
Regardless, you are lobbing word grenades as if by saying something you make it true.
Pathological: caused by or evidencing a mentally disturbed condition
Sorry, Roby, but I have no mental health issues. I was required to see a psychologist as part of the process of adopting my children – there are all kinds of things you must do to get the permission of the state to be a parent if you do not do so through procreation,
Anyway, I am mentally healthy.
Yes, you and Jay, are constantly spraying ad hominem as a substitute for argument.
Lacing your posts with lots of derogatory adjectives does not make those true or meaningful.
Yes, I quite often respond to the posts other make based on what they said rather than what the likely meant. And that is deliberate.
When you are discussing the use of force against others – you need to say what you mean.
Regardless, a multi paragraph stream of ad hominem is not an argument.
It is not the work of someone who claims to have advanced degrees and is fluent in multiple languages. It is not the work of someone who claims to be to be in the top 1% in intellect.
I beleive I made the mistake of responding to one of your stupid self agrandizing posts by citing some of my own accolades. I regret that.
The measure of our arguments is their merit, Not My IQ, or My degrees, or my Accolades – and not yours.
If you can not make a non-fallacious argument – then whatever degrees you have – you did not earn them.
Based on your arguments (or lack there of) here – I highly doubt you are in the top 1% of pretty much anything. Regardless, you show no evidence of it.
Whether I can trump your creditentials is irelevant, if I can not better your arguments.
Which I have had no trouble doing.
Your nonsense about
extremism
intelectual dishonesty,
obsession,
misrepresentation
unpopularity
are all meaningless. While I have on occasion countered your appeals to authority or popularity with my own authorities or popularity
That is still fallacy.
Adjectives are not argument
Assertions of extremism are not argument, and argument is true or false, whether it is extreme.
I find any claims of my intellectual dishonstey and misrepresentation by you farcical.
Regardless, Prove it.
If I have lied or made false statements my credibility is actually shot.
But remember when you claim someone else has lied – you bet your own credibilty against theirs.
I am not in a popularty contest. I am seeking the truth.
Regardless, my posts to you are pretty close to universally responses to your posts.
If you do not want to be sliced and diced – do not make errors.
Your post is “a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”
Strip the adjectives and adhomimen from your post – and there is nothing left.
Calling me names over and over is not argument.
Combining insults together – does not make an argument.
The remark below is choice – it is a stream of fact free insult compounded on insult.
“The word pathological applies quite comfortably to your pattern of behavior. You are obsessive and intellectually dishonest.”
It says no more than – I do not like your posts – with lots of adjectives.
No roby;
I do not have any particular obsession with you.
I have an obsession with hypocracy, and fallacious argument.
When you rarely avoid those, I usually leave you alone.
Frankly, I find you a disappointment.
If you actually were able to argue your viewpoint you would be far more interesting, and challenging.
Roby,
I am not especially interested in your friend.
If he is as capable as you claim – he would be insulted being called a “coder”.
If he is successful – good for him. I would note that Trump is incredibly successful too.
Regardless, I am not after your life advice, or your diagnosis.
To the extent that I do “obsess” over you it is that your are stupid and arrogant enough to beleive you are free to muddle in other peoples lives.
If I actually was whatever it is you are painting – that still would not be your business.
Nor would it be an argument.
You seem utterly incapable of addressing real issues.
You make every argument about the person.
That is what ad hominem means – arguing the person, not the issues.
You have spewed an assortment of crap about me that you can not know, as if that somehow meaningful.
I do not care what you think about me.
I do not think much of you.
If you want me to think better – make a valid argument.
If you do not want to be called a hypocrit – do not act hypocritically.
If you do not want to be called immoral – do not advocate for immoral acts directly or through proxies.
“Even if you are not expecting me to “leave you alone”, you actually beleive you are entitled to be. And you likely would use force – atleast that of government if you could.”
That is absurd. You claim to be able to read my mind (but you got it wrong) and predict the future (and were wrong again).
The idea that I would use government and force to get you to leave me in peace in a blog conversation is as nutty as nutty can be. Its based on your hysterically fearful and distorted ideas of how a very mildly liberal man thinks.
Of all the weird accusations you have made about my beliefs and opinions this one may win the prize as the most extreme and bizarre.
You are completely uninterested in knowing and understanding what I actually believe. Your conversation isn’t really with me; its you having a conversation with you about your worst fears. I’m just a prop.
No Roby;
After accusing me of reading your mind – when I am only reading your words,
you go on to another riff of reading my mind.
You have made it clear – repeatedly and explicitly that you believe government is free to use force to impose the views of the majority.
No mind reading involved. You have stated that in the last day or two.
Liberal means one who values individual liberty – you do not.
I do not think you know enough about the left or its values, principles and philosophy to know what you are. Atleast you have not shown evidence of that knowledge.
If I have misrepresented your beleifs – you should be able to demonstrate that easily.
I do not think – based on what you post here – that you know that much about what you beleive. I have asked you, begged you for those things.
If I am lucky – and that is rare, I get some prefered politcies, once in blue moon a value.
I have no clue what your principles are – I do not think you have any.
Sometimes you are a prop – you choose to be.
You make a stupid assertion that provides the opportunity to say something I wish to say.
Regardless, I do not control what you post. I just respond to it.
“But it continues to be fun to use him like a defective robotic punching bag: each time you slug it, it haphazardly spews out long winded obsessive responses from it’s disconnected-from-reason database.”
Oh, if I only I thought it was fun. If it was 1/10th as obsessive it might be fun to argue with him, and if he could be a lot less rigid and at all honest.
If you enjoy playing with him, perhaps we can get him to transfer his full attention to you and leave me in relative peace? I was tired of my conversation with dave years ago.
If Dave is not in argument mode half of what he says is even interesting. But once he has locked in on a target he believes is from “the left” forgetabout it, any intellectual honesty goes out the window, interminable booooring and absurd harangues commence and never stop. He will tell you what you “must” believe without any interest in actually understanding what you believe till the cows come home.
If you are not having fun, then you should stop.
“If it was 1/10th as obsessive it might be fun to argue with him, and if he could be a lot less rigid and at all honest.”
In otherwords if only Dave would agree with me I would have more fun.
Your problem.
Rigid: 1+1=2, or is there some flexibility in that ?
honest: Again, if you accuse another of dishonesty, you bet your integrity against theirs with the burden of proof on you.
So what have I been “dishonest” about ?
I think this is just another example of shucking and jiving on your part.
When you can not make an argument – resort of vague insults that you do not think you have to support.
Do you even have a definition of “intellectual honesty” ?
If you want accepted as top 1% that would be about the same IQ as Kazyinski – who was not a very high IQ person by harvard standards, then you have to do better than this.
We can debate beleifs. – but you are free to believe as you wish.
The only imperative is that you can not impose your beliefs on others by force.
I do not need to understand what you beleive to know or assert that.
As to what you beleive – I do not have evidence that you know what you beleive.
Ha, it took you nine posts to tell me that you are not obsessive. I wonder how often you have used the phrase “I am not…” in your life? I wonder how often people fail to roll their eyes when you say it?
Dave, you are obsessive as hell, conceited to the point of being in danger of bursting into a thousand pieces, repetitive as a talking bird, dishonest as a pair of loaded dice…. and an extremist loon to boot. I am just going to have to take Jay’s advice and find a game in getting you going.
The obsessive nutters of the world have found their king in you!
Roby
I am not interested in ad hominem – that is arguments to the person.
Which is what you do with everything.
I do not care and it is irrelevant what you think of me.
I am not interested in debating “me” – which again is what you turn every argument into.
In fact that is what you and Jay do with everything. You talk about obsession, the only things you post about are either what is wrong with me – or personal attacks on Trump.
Pretty much the only thing you do is personal attacks.
And you are so certain you know the motives and thoughts of others.
I have made the mistake of engaging you on that level and it makes me look as bad as you.
I do not care what your background is – it is not a valid arguments.
I do not care what your GRE scores are – it is not a valid arguments.
I do not care what some friend you claim to have makes as a coder – it is not a valid arguments.
I do not care what you think of me – it is not a valid argument.
I do not care what you think I think – it is not a valid argument.
I can go on and on.
Yes, you have successfully managed to get me to engaged in the completely irrelevant nonsense you spout.
You wish to beleive a bunch of nonsense about me – I can not stop you.
“you are obsessive as hell, conceited to the point of being in danger of bursting into a thousand pieces, repetitive as a talking bird, dishonest as a pair of loaded dice…. and an extremist loon to boot. I am just going to have to take Jay’s advice and find a game in getting you going.”
All of the above is stupid and obvious ad hominem.
It is all a vile form of argument designed to distract from any debate of substance and drag the debate to personal. Almost none of it is true, but even that is irrelevant – not a single part of that is relevant to any debate about issues.
I have stupidly engaged in your personal competition
If you all the things you say about yourself and all the things you say about me are all true – it does not change the fact that your argument is fallacious.
If your IQ was actually higher than mine – it does not make your argument valid.
I am highly skilled at many things.
I am also unskilled at many many others – even some I wish I were.
I can not play any instrument, I am not good at any sports, ……
Does not make your argument valid.
I have made a serious mistake following you down your rathole of making everything an argument about the person.
I am going to try to avoid that in the future.
The dark place this argument has gone – each of us hacking away at the other is the direct consequence of your pretense that ad hominem is argument.
Long Robotic Response.
Blip Blip Blop.
New Processor Needed!
“I have made a serious mistake following you down your rathole of making everything an argument about the person.
I am going to try to avoid that in the future.
The dark place this argument has gone – each of us hacking away at the other is the direct consequence of your pretense that ad hominem is argument.”
I asked you quite a few times days ago and many, many times in the past just to let go of arguing with me, its futile we simply irreconcilably disagree about government and regulation, not to mention climate science and trump. If you have finally seen the light and wish to disengage, that is great. Ad hominems have come just as fast and furious from you as they have from me. If you were to cease and desist your sneering and stifle your rage at people who disagree with you then in the future you might get a better reception here. I will try to do likewise. We will see who succeeds most, not in our own eyes, which is hardly an objective standard, but the eyes of other posters.
You are totally clueless.
What I just said is that I am going to try to refrain from following you into your dark rathole of personal attacks.
Not that I am going to leave you alone.
We are irreconcliable because you are blind to reality.
I can not fix that – but I can continue to argue reality – relentlessly, whether you like that or not.
Your conception of government does not work. It is inherently totalitarian in your own expression.
That we may never agree is irrelevant to the fact that your construction of govenrment is inherently evil.
I am not looking to “disengage” – not even a little.
I am going to try to avoid chasing you down into your stupid ad hominem fallacies.
Aside from being fallacy ad hominem is vile specifically because it inherently drives the discussion to further insults and away from anything of substance.
There is no rational response to personal insults.
There is no response to “but I have a phd in molecular biology, or some scores on GRE’s” that does not come off even more arrogant that you.
I do not fixate on puffing my resume.
I do not think that having been blessed with some skills or traits from god, or my DNA is proof of merit.
The merit of an argument rests on facts, logic reason, and I am going to try to stick to those, rather than let you drag me into your spittle spewing contest where my choices are between worshiping your mediocre acheivements or responding in kind and looking even more pompous puffed and arrogant than you.
I am not going to cease calling vile ideas vile.
I am not going to desist in anger that you wish to use force unjustifiably against others.
I am not going to pretend that all opinions are equal and we merely disagree.
I do not give a flying fig how you “receive” me.
Nor do I care what you try. You have almost never managed to make an argument that is not a simple and obvious fallacy and by far your most common is ad hominem.
How magnanimous of you to offer that others will think better of me if I behave as you wish.
Get a clue Roby – this is not about you. It is about my personal regret for stooping to your level.
There is no rational means to deconstruct an ad hominem through argument.
My attempts to do so merely make me as bad as you.
I am going to try not to go there. That is a personal choice – it is about me, it is not about you.
My view of you has not changed in the lightest.
And I certainly do not want the advice of someone whose only means of discussion is ad hominem and fallacy regarding digging out of that dark hole.
I am angry at myself because I read some of my posts here and they sound too much like you.
The last person whose advice on how to not be you I would want – is you.
Appeal to the good opinions of others – is just another idiotic fallacy.
“You are totally clueless.”
Pure Ad hominem. As was the bulk of your post. As usual. Too obsessive to stop?
“You are totally clueless.”
Pure Ad hominem.
It is ad hominem – it is also quite obviously a statement of fact.
As your myriads of responses make crystal clear.
You are not able to discuss issues, everything for you is about people.
As was the bulk of your post. As usual. Too obsessive to stop?
I did not say I was going to stop.
I said I was going to try to not get into shifting to the stupid argument inside the ad hominem.
I will engage you with respect to any actual argument.
Or I will engage you with regard to your own personal conduct.
But I am going to try to avoid explicitly following you into that lose-lose rathole of “mine is bigger than yours”
If you wish to make it personal – then it will be personal about you – me.
“It is ad hominem – it is also quite obviously a statement of fact.”
Well, at least for once you were honest about your ad hominem attack. As I have freely been all along here about my own all along with little attempt to dodge the fact that I use ad hominem arguments on you (often but not always exactly in response to you own sneering insulting statements.
Even if your obsessive bitching about me WAS fact (not much) it would not excuse you according to your standards. If you stop trying to rationalize and excuse your own use of all the same forms of argument that you jump on others for using you may have more luck here. Just try to be consistent and avoid being a hypocrite.
When you have to explain the joke it is not funny.
Clearly you do not understand what a fallacy is.
It is not something false – though it may be.
It is something that is not a valid argument with respect to what is being debated.
It may be a valid argument – for a different topic, and it may be true.
The mistake I am trying to avoid with you is chasing you down the ad hominem rathole – switching the argument to a debate about you and I rather than the topic.
But with you it is worse still, you seem to actually think that a valid argument demonstrating that you are wrong is an insult.
That should not surprise me as the left has incredibly thin skin.
Regardless, I do not care what you think of me. I do care about what I think of me.
I did not offer you some agreement.
I decided unilaterally not to chase when you shifted from the argument to the person.
I do not care whether you think that is honest. I lost respect for your perception of integrity long ago. You spray false attacks on integrity like candy.
I do not care whether you characterize something as an attack. You respond to every argument as if it is personal. If you take having your arguments criticised personally – I can not help that. Frankly I think that much of what you claim to beleive reflects character flaws, but that is your problem not mine.
I am not interested in your advice as to how to argue. What I want to change in my own arguments is to avoid doing the things you do all the time.
I do not want to read what I wrote and think – Roby could have written that.
So the last person I want advice from is you.
But I am going to explain how I read some of your language.
When you say “your rationalizing” – I hear you are making arguments that I can not find flaws in so I will call them “rationalizing”.
What you say “intellectually dishonest” – what I hear is your ideology tells you that can not be true so I must be lying.
There are myriads of other examples, but the point is they are not valid arguments.
If you think something is false – prove it, facts, logic reason, not sprays of fallacies.
And BTW no do not initiate the same form of arguments I criticise others for.
I sometimes respond to you by chasing you into your fallacy.
That is a mistake – it is not a character flaw, it is just a mode of arguing that will not get anywhere.
You really should not be calling anyone a hypocrite.
Regardless, I can not stop you from offering stupid advice, that you should really think about yourself.
Let me give you a clue what turned the light on for me.
Based on your GRE’s, you can look up your IQ online and it should be in the lower 130’s.
About what Ted Kazinsky’s is. Based on exchanges with you I think that is a high value, but presuming you are not misrepresenting your GRE’s it is probably correct.
Most standardized tests are essentially IQ tests.
Well I have an excellent and true rejoinder for that, but I am going to let it go.
I allowed my self to go too far into your “whose hands are bigger” nonsense.
For each of us some things are easier than others.
I find it difficult to grasp that others are not as good at logic, but in my life experience I have found they are not.
I expect you to be as capable with logic, but you are not, and insulting you will not fix that.
Just as I doubt I am near as good with music as you are and nothing will fix that.
To the extent there is a difference – atleast I know I am not any good at music, even though I wish I were.
Regardless, your giving me advice on logic and argument is like my giving you advice on playing musical instruments.
dave I knew you were a logical fake long ago. As only one very clear example reductio ad absurdum does Not lead to the principle that if a lot of something is bad then a little of it is bad (even with your caveat about lacking some other overriding principle). Its just bullshit that I asked you to prove since there is not one word of that anywhere online and I just got a wall of your evasions. I have little doubt you can speak to computers. Computer logic is not the logic of politics. Mostly you take logical principles that do exist, ad hominem for example, and apply them simply as a means of rejecting anything you do not wish to acknowledge.
Why should I care if someone like you believes that I am devoid of substance? You are ready to throw the entire international community of climate scientists into a pile you label morons, or retards, or simply not scientists (in spite of all the high academic degrees). So I am happy to be in their company, its an honor to have my substance insulted by you. If you were not insulting my abilities I would have to ask myself where I have gone wrong to be on your good side.
I have no reason at all to believe you know your ass from a whole in the ground outside of computers. The conclusions you come to using your logic are often completely absurd, regulation is immoral, environmentalists are evil, insults are ad hominems in my hands but permitted in yours, if I say leave me in peace you conclude that I would use force on you if I could to shut you up because I am supposedly of the left. The Bushes are progressives (jeez, must be a LOT of us then). You are an artist. Bullshit is your medium.
So, I laugh at your pompous pride in your logic skills. You abuse logical principles to hide from reality.
You don’t like my style, fine, I don’t like yours. I can admit to being somewhat obsessive and plenty of other faults, you can admit to nothing and resort to abusing logic to hide from ever being wrong here. Its not impressive, at least not in any positive sense.
Well, continue, throw more bullshit at me. I’ll just laugh at you and ask you why I should care what someone like you thinks.
Roby;
Actually, yes, if you can take any argument or position and get unacceptable results by carrying it to the extremes, then you have failed that argument.
You have said you have a phd in molecular biology – then you know this.
The laws of gravity do not only work some of the time – and were that the case, we would be obligated to revise them.
That “limiting principle” is the means by which you fix that – when that is possible.
If you offer an argument that does not work at the extreme without any meaningful definition and explanation for its limits then your argument is false.
You can disagree with me – but you are disagreeing with Einstein, John Stuart Mill, and science.
You do not seem to grasp that most propositions, arguments, opinions are false.
Truth is the rare exception not the rule.
It is easy to falsify things that are false, and takes little effort.
It is much much harder to find things that are true.
And there are some things that are true some of the time, however unless you can define the limits, they are no more useful than if they were false.
The fact that you are trying to challenge this is why I know that your logical skills are poor.
This is not some obscure subtly.
Roby
Yes I think that people who beleive something and offer as science models that are 2.5 std dev’s away from reality should not be calling themselves scientists.
No do not beleive that high academic degrees count for much.
Frankly today, I think that they are proof you are unable to make it is the more difficult real world.
If you are translating Russian scientific papers to english and doing that well enough that someone pays you well for it and continues to employ you – particularly outside of the academic world – that is something I can respect much more than any phd.
You are having a fit because I mentioned my GREs. Why did I mention them? Because you claimed I have little understanding of words. The scores say otherwise. A simple matter, you make it so complicated. The translation work is just another example. I have language skills, not small ones.
“If you are translating Russian scientific papers to english and doing that well enough that someone pays you well for it and continues to employ you – particularly outside of the academic world – that is something I can respect much more than any phd.”
Dave, well its progress. I have complemented your posts (always when you are in the non-argument mode) dozens of times over the years. At times I have thanked you for one. Much as you drive me nuts, my testicles did not fall off to say a good word about something you wrote quite a few times over the years. This is the first time you have ever said a positive word about my abilities (or actually, I am pretty sure, any poster’s).
Are you incapable of making an argument that is anything but emotional.
I am not having a fit. You keep projecting emotions onto me badly.
I do not care that you mentioned your GRE’s.
It is technically still a fallacious appeal to authority.
Your scores were better than I would have expected and better than your posts here evidenced. But they were not impressive.
Regardless, my claims with respect to your use of language is relatively narrow.
It is that you misuse or overly broadly use words.
I do not think any of us wish to be sipped at for grammar or spelling,
And you are capable of writing a readable sentence.
All things that many people – including some of the experts you often cite, sometimes are not.
We are debating rights, government, ideology, philosophy and law.
Those are contexts where using words with clear and narrow meaning is critical.
There is a reason that technical professions have “jargon” – because scientists, doctors, engineers, etc. need to be able to communicate precisely.
We are not debating fiction or poetry, and as is typical of those on the left, you use words in the broadest and mushiest possible way. It is the only means by which your ideology is not rife with self contradiction. And even misusing words in that way – you still end up with lots of contradictions.
If as you say you are a molecular biologist – you would use words with precision in reading and writing on that subject.
If as you say you translate scientific texts from Russian to english – then you should have a great deal of experience trying to preserve the precise meaning particularly were there are not exact equivalent words – though my expectation is that scientific jargon is universally in english.
Force, coercion, power, rights, liberty, freedom, duties, harm, equality, property, individual, society, government, law, justification, these are some of the more critical words when we are dealing with law, government, philosophy.
You can not communicate, you can not even think about those topics, without clear and narrow meanings to those words – or more accurately – precise words to reflect clear and narrow concepts – because if you choose to define force differently than I do, then you must replace force with some other word, that means what I and philosophers, lawyers mean when we use “force”.
You will find that if you assign clear meanings to the critical words used for discussing these topics that your ideology will self evidently fail.
To be clear this is purely about the clear use of words in a specific context.
Just as you use some words with very narrow precise meanings when refering to molecular biology.
I word note that this issue with respect to words and their meaning would also apply to legal and constitutional interpretation and the role of judges.
If you are translating a Russian scientific paper written 200 years ago – the author certainly did not use the russian words in the same way as they are used today.
It would be an error and a misrepresentation of the work to translate those words using todays meaning.
Roby;
You still do not get it.
Nearly all your posts are about people, about emotions, about mostly meaningless things tangential to any of the arguments.
To a very large extent you make your posts about YOU.
That is a fallacy and that is the rathole I am trying to avoid.
You seem to need your ego stroked constantly, you take personal offense easily, and you think everyone else is the same.
To the extent I am angry at the moment – I am angry with myself for getting sucked into that.
Beyond that I am interested in debating the issues – not people.
I am sure that at lunch in a diner discussing many other topics we would get along fine.
But we are not discussing weather, or music, or art, we are discussing topics like law, philosophy, and government.
Would you even conceive of imposing your opinions on art, music, literature, poetry, weather on others by force ? Do we determine the effect a van gogh has on each of us by voting democratically ? We can have passionate differences of opinions on myriads of subjects – because none of those subjects involve the use of force to impose ones opinion on the other.
Law, government, and philosophy as it applies to government are about the use of force.
The more broadly you are prepared to use force to impose your opinions the greater the conflict you are going to have with others, and the more likely that not only it the conversation going to turn violent – but the real world could get violent.
You seem completely oblivious to this.
I also find it extremely odd that you target me/libertarianism the most vigorously.
Libertarianism is the political ideology with the most minimal justifiable use of force.
You become absolutely apoplectic because I will not agree to allow you to broadly use force. Yet, you are relatively pleasant to other posters who would use force broadly and against you. This is again typical of the left, and why libertarians have a less volatile relationship with conservatives, and republicans.
Conservatives and republicans as a whole accept that govenrment is limited.
They are not always clear what the limits are, but there is no disagreement between me and those here not on the left, that government can not do anything it/or we please.
You are absolutely unwilling to cede that there are limits to government.
You take personal offense at that assertion.
You froth and fume because I assert that the use of force without justification is immoral.
Something most of us take as a tautology.
Even using your own self contradictory nonsense that all opinions are somehow equal,
The assertion that those who use force without justification are immoral would in your world be just another opinion – but clearly it is not.
Clearly being “identified” as immoral deeply angers you.
Yet, you have no problems “identifying” others as rascist, fascist, homophobic, mysoginist,
Aparently all opinions are acceptable – including those that are derogatory to others, EXCEPT those opinions where you do not come out angelic.
All opinions are not equal.
Most propositions are FALSE – again if you knew anything of either reality of logic you would know that. Truth is rare.
While we can not determine absolute truth, we can determine relative truth.
And from that we can use those things we are most certain are true to falsify those that are inconsistent with what we know to be true.
We can do that in mathematics, logic and science – starting with axioms, and we can do that in government, law, philosophy, economics, even sociology.
If you are a molecular biologist then you know that you can not just make up some cellular mechanism. That not only does what you conceive have to comply with a raft of constraints from chemistry – all of which derive from axioms. But that it most also integrate with all other known cellular processes.
More simply you do not just get to pull things out of thin air, claim they are opinions and are worthy of equal consideration to every other opinion.
Finally “identifying” such conduct as stupid – is ad hominem. It is also fact.
Roby
It really is all about you for you isn’t it ?
With rare exceptions posting is enjoyable for me.
IF I am actually angry – I will say so.
I do not want to say my posts are emotion free – emotions are an important part of human life. But they have no part in the decision making process involving the use of force.
You seem to be saying that if I stroke your ego periodically – we will get along better ?
I do not need my ego stroked.
If you need more – There are things I am very good at, and those I am not.
You say you translate scientific papers. That implies skills with multiple languages.
My son has that. I do not. My GPA went up a full point in HS, when I dropped german.
But give me a computer language – any computer language and I can program in it in a few hours and be proficient in a few days.
We are each different. Most of our abilities are improved with practice.
But no amount of practice or desire will ever overcome my lack of skills with regard to music and make me a musician.
I do not take it as a moral failing that I am not musically gifted.
Nor do I think my natural abilities in other areas are some reflection of moral superiority.
I do not see intelligence, IQ, logic skills, as any different from athletic or musical ability – except that I was blessed by god or DNA with the former and not the latter.
In fact one of my greatest difficulties, is grasping that everyone does not have the same logic skills. Logic is automatic to me, like breathing. I do not understand why you have trouble breathing.
Very well written and thoughtful. What else to expect from an eloquent moderate?
Thank you, sir. My liberal friends will probably crucify me, but I’m used to taking grief from both sides.
Rick;
You can feel sympathy for whoever you want, for whatever reason you want.
I do not feel sympathy for Trump. He is who he is.
Just as I have no sympathy for the left that assured his election, I have no sympathy for him as so many hate him.
That does not mean I do not cheer him on sometimes when he chews up the press.
My concern about taking him down is that it is done within the rule of law.
That is not being done.
That will have long term consequences.
I think much of the outrage over Trump is stupid – but I do nto care if Trump is the victim of stupid outrage. I do care that a significant portion of the left are prepared to undo a legitimate election over their inability to accept the result.
Put most simply – I have no sympathy for Trump.
But I have a building anger with the left.
As this proceeds it is increasingly obvious that the conduct of the Obama administration was much more corrupt than I had thought.
I care alot about that – because nothing is being done to prevent that in the future.
If we do not do something about political spying, and unmasking, we will see ever more of it in the future.
A significant part of this Trump stole the election meme is out of 1984 – the left ranting that they get to control what people get to hear. What political expression influences them.
I do not think that Russia was a consequential influence in the election.
But I am very scared of efforts to assure that they are not in the future.
Secure voting machines – I am behind you.
But start discussing who can engage in political expression and who can not – and I am seeing 1984.
If you can stop Russia from running political content on Facebook – you can stop anybody the same way.
Twitter has just banned Roger Stone for Life – Stone is an ass, and I support private actors uninfluenced by government doing what they wish – though I will head for the platform where no one is censored, or where the rules are clear and absolute, and uniformly enforced.
I do not want an internet where someone chooses which voices we get to hear, even if real freedom means Russia gets to speak too.
Well said!
A thoughtful response, Dave, and I agree with most of it. I was shocked by the revelation that the DNC, Hillary and even Obama were actively engaged in sabotaging Trump even after the election, and that the Russian “dossier” was their idea. Of course, we don’t see much about it on the mainstream media.
I’m concerned about the serious (and unconstitutional) attempts to take Trump down, but I think it was the trivial nature of the recent media flaps that pushed me over the edge: the call to the gold star widow, the scuffle instigated by the ornery mayor of San Juan, and finally the response to Trump’s lighthearted comment about the girl who didn’t have a weight problem. It just never lets up.
The only issue concerning Clinton’s involvement in the Steele Dossier is the hypocrisy inherent in claiming that Trump’s efforts to secure dirt on Clinton from the Russians were somehow less moral or legal than here own.
The Steele Dossier and the Clinton campaign primarily serves as a firewall denoting activities that Trump can not be found at fault for when Clinton has been exhonerated for the same.
Where things go to hell is when the Obama administration is involved.
What Clinton the candidate or Clinton the private citizen can morally and legally do, is much broader than what can be done using the machinery of government.
That the FBI took interest in political opposition research is disturbing, if they used it as the basis for a wiretap or investigation, without verifying the contents would be worse than watergate.
Nixon formed the plumbers because he could not get the FBI to investigate his political enemies.
The unmasking – which is a euphemism for spying on americans, is equally disturbing.
Then we have the AG Lynch interactions with Bill Clinton and then with James Comey.
Then we have the entire Uranium One mess.
The right makes a big deal about the sale of uranium to the Russians.
Sorry, that is inconsequential,
What matters is the bribery, corruption, and coverup that went along with it.
And that fact that large portions of the Obama administration appear complicit in covering up the bribery and corruption.
The fact that all of this appears to have been an Open Secret in the administration – yet specifically hidden from congress.
And finally that Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and many of Muellers staff were all part of this.
Investigations of Russian have an extremely high probability of touching the same areas and the same people as were part of the U1 deal.
Can these people be trusted with an investigation that is likely to lead them to investigating themselves ?
I am not a big proponent of Special Prosecutors.
But it is self evidently necescary for an investigation into the handling of Russia related issues by the Obama administration, and that investigation must be conducted by Washington outsiders.
That does not require a Special Council. But Sessions should appoint a US attorney – probably from some state AG office with no ties to washington, and task them with an investigation into the entire Obama administration Russia corruption mess.
At the very least those currently in DOJ, FBI and other agencies who were turning a blind eye to bribery, corruption, or even just the coverup, should lose their jobs.
You will not “drain the swamp” until there are consequences for mistakes – much less corruption and coverup.
I do not especially trust Trump in that regard. He has kept the same IRS commissioner that should have been impeached, because he is a personal friend.
For me his Social awkwardness is not of the sympathetic composition of Frankenstein, but more like the obnoxious repulsiveness of Jabba the Hut, or the nasty petty evil of the Wicked Witch of the West.
And I’m certain I’d dance with pleasure like the Munchkins did when she dissolved in a puddle of despair if tRUMP suffered a similar public demise. Or applaud with ironic glee if he tumbled from the top of Trump Tower in Manhattan to the city street below, my comment to fellow Americans watching paraphrasing the last line in the King Kong movie:
“Oh no, it wasn’t the airplanes. It was narcissism killed the beast.”
I know, I know. What can I say? I’m the kind of guy who felt sorry for King Kong. Trump is no innocent savage, and yes he’s a multi-headed monster, but on some level he’s just a raving 8-year-old boy. Someone should have given him a good spanking (maybe those Russian prostitutes?).
Jay;
If you take Trump down within the rule of law – few will care much.
Almost everything that has gone on for the past several years has been the rule of man, not the rule of law.
The rule of law is not merely following the letter of the law – but it is applying it narrowly and the same for everyone.
Sessions properly recused himself for smaller conflicts that it is now apparent that Mueller and Rosenstein have. We are 6 months into this and there has not yet been an actual crime alleged that has anything to do with Mueller’s brief.
Further Mueller was not tasked with investigating a crime, he was given esentially a counter intelligence brief. We do not need and can not lawfully appoint a special council to investigate “russia” or even Russian election interferance.
The SC statute as well as the constitutional constraints on criminal investigations – require the investigation of a crime.
This is the kind of crap I am concerned about.
Was our federal government manipulated by political actors outside of government to turn the investigative powers of the federal government on Russian and Trump ?
And worse still was it done with fabricated evidence.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/russia-perkins-coie-clinton-dossier-meet-the-democratic-law-firm-behind-the-russian-collusion-narrative/
Why are moderate voices like Rick’s so hidden in society today?
Good question, and I think that there are several main reasons, but I’ll note one in particular:
In our poisonous political climate, any sympathy or defense of Trump or his agenda ,no matter how moderate or reasonable, is met by a level of hate and vitriol that is so extreme that it gives the sympathizer/defender pause.
And it doesn’t even have to be an affirmative declaration of sympathy/defense for Trump. In this morning’s National Review, former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy writes about the Manafort indictment, which, on Monday, he called much ado about nothing, explaining that the charges listed had nothing to do with Trump or Russia:
“Some commentators took this to mean that, being in the tank for Trump, I am pooh-poohing Mueller’s opening gambit. Not so. Readers who follow these columns know that I am not knee-jerk pro- or anti-Trump. I’ve opined that “Paul Manafort is a sleazeball.” And, while I concededly have strong political views, I try to be coldly clinical about legal questions and prosecution theories. That is my professional training, and the skill of being a prosecutor involves recognizing weaknesses in the case — you never want the defense lawyers to spot them first.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453305/paul-manafort-indictment-mystifying-enigmatic
McCarthy may not be a knee-jerk pro or anti Trumper, but many of the comments that met his reasoned opinion that Mueller’s indictment was not a condemnation of Trump were knee-jerk expressions of blind hate (or blind support) of the president…so much so, that McCarthy felt it necessary to re-assert that his first column was his professional legal analysis of the indictment, nothing more, nothing less.
I think that we have reached a point at which Newton’s Law “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction,” can be applied to Trump ~ “For every statement of support/opposition to Trump there is an equal and opposite statement of opposition/support.
EX: Dave has been commenting here for almost as long as I have. He was and is a libertarian, who ~ I think ~ has voted for the Libertarian candidate in every election since this blog began. He is not a Trump supporter, never was. But, almost daily he is accused, by some here, of “enabling” Trump or “defending” Trump, simply because he points out weaknesses or contradictions in the accusations against Trump. And those accusations are often over-the-top or personal in nature. (I would add that I get the same treatment, but at least I “deserve” it, having voted for the man).
We have left the political age in which national politicians looked to appeal to the center, and entered an age in which all national politics is focused on “turning out the base.” Obama won twice this way, Trump once, and we moderates (sorry Roby and Jay, but I AM a moderate) are, for the moment, cast into the exterior darkness.
Great column, Rick. Really terrific.
Priscilla, there are some people who believe one could vote for Trump and still be moderate. Those individuals are the ones that know the choices suck, but vote for political ideology and not the person. I had a hard time not voting for Trump due to SCOTUS seat, but I finally did vote for the best person with the ideology I support. Most people think that was a wasted vote. I dont a feel good today about my choice. I know had the Libertarian won, we would be much better off than we are now.
Reasonable citizens of good will have the right and, indeed, the obligation to cast their own vote, according to their own conscience.
All of us made reasoned decisions on how we would vote in the recent election. And, for many of us, the decision was not an easy one, but it’s hard for me to understand how people can blame their fellow countrymen (and women 😉 ) for anything that goes wrong under a particular president, simply because they voted for him. It never occurred to me, ever, to blame anyone who voted for Obama for many of the problems that I think were a direct result of Obama’s presidency. I actually find that a ridiculously illogical and needlessly divisive thing to do. When the South couldn’t accept the election of Lincoln, they seceded from the union….that didn’t turn out well for anyone (And, I’m not comparing Trump to Lincoln, just the idea that “resisting” the result of our democratic election process is counterproductive).
You and Dave voted for Johnson, Jay and Roby voted for Clinton, and I voted for Trump (as did Pat…even though he’s gone for now, he did talk about his reasons at the time.) We are all here to discuss politics, so we are all open about our reasons for voting as we did. And, honestly, I think we all had pretty good reasoning, despite our disagreements.
“but it’s hard for me to understand how people can blame their fellow countrymen (and women 😉 ) for anything that goes wrong under a particular president, simply because they voted for him. ”
Blantent cop out.
I agree. tRUMP voters can’t be blamed (or the ding dong president) for things that go wrong independent of his judgements or actions. But you tRUMP voters sure as hell can be blamed for the overall disastrous tenor of his actions, for his divisiveness, his buffoonish unpresidential behavior- all that was evident during the primaries. You knew that. You remarked on those defeciencies yourself, but rationalized voting for him anyway because he wasn’t Clinton. How bad could he be, you further rationalized. But now that you know how bad he is, you’re still shunning responsibility for your support of him, past and present. Unlike other Conservatives who supported him during the election but objectively realized they were wrong afterward (Scarborough for instance) and now are responsibly confronting him.
You don’t get absolution for voting for tRUMP any more than those who voted for George Wallace or Joe McCarthy, even less, as you knew what a divisive retard he was BEFORE you voted for him.
Jay, there is no doubt in my mind that Trump, for all of his faults, is a more decent human being and a better president than Hillary could have ever been. No. doubt. at. all.
I can’t do anything about your sneering hatred toward Trump voters or your emotional tantrums over the fact that Trump won the election fair and square.
But I can take satisfaction in the certainty that it’s people like you who will increase the likelihood of his re-election.
Priscilla, “there is no doubt in my mind that Trump, for all of his faults, is a more decent human being and a better president than Hillary could have ever been”
Everyone here knows I am not a Trump fan. But I agree with this 100%. You know what Trump thinks. He tells you every morning on twitter. The bitch is anything but open and will silence anyone that may be a threat in anyway in her political life. Just ask Vince Foster.
Mr. Foster was unavailable for comment.
Rick, where do you get your facts on police killings of black american ; they are way off count. In 2015 307 blacks were shot by police according to the guardian UK; 259 blacks were shot by police according to Wash.Post . 94 were unarmed by Wash. Post . Try get your facts right before you sermonize your message .
My source was Newsweek, 1/4/17 — and their stats came from the Washington Post. Apparently there was a big drop in the fatal shootings of unarmed blacks by police from 2015 to 2016.
I am not specifically aware of 2015-2016 changes but all violence Trends except RECENT trends in major cities have been down for decades.
The US had a spike in the 60’s, but over the longer term all forms of violence have been trending down for centuries.
I’ve no sympathy for trump or his supporters. At some point one has to choose sides. I am on the other side but not the loony left side either. At this point in my life I am probably more like a never trump moderate republican than anything else. I can agree with the dwindling number of honest conservatives on one thing, the need to control debt and not pile it on our children. Any conservative who’s greatest political interest is a balanced budget who does not support trump is a hero in my book. Otherwise the right itself is the frankenstein monster and trump is just a hideous practical joke they have played on us. Its hard to find sympathetic players in this drama, the never trump conservatives and moderates are my one set of heros here.
It is a well written piece and your comments on the media are on target.
I don’t know that trump will come down. It will take an extraordinary series of events to impeach him one that would involve his base GOP voters leaving him. If they don’t he is safe. If he does not somehow rise to the presidency and do some good then it is history that will savage him and his enthusiastic supporters.
Its an epic war between trump and the media. I can’t remember which one declared total scorched earth war on the other first and at this point it does not matter any more but at the end of the day they will both likely be bloodied but standing, its just America itself that has been lowered and degraded and weakened.
9/11 was the match that lit the fuse of growing left-right alienation. Its destructive cancer has weakened us more than bin laden could have dreamed it would. Huge impersonal forces are also at work, as always, that no person can control but demagogues can provoke. We remember the destructive historical figures who provoked them. trump is provoking them. I am scared.
Patients do at times recover from serious cancers. I can hope America does.
Excellent piece Rick, and I get it with the sympathy/whatever part. King Kong was a victim in my eyes. You want to bring a wild animal into your sphere, you reap the consequences.
Frankenstein should have stayed in his grave and all would have been well, but hey science needs experimentation and people (drug trial folks) who advance our understanding of things. I know guys like Qaddafi did horrible things but seeing someone beaten or tortured to death still bothers me.
Trump is what you said, and he is the curse that keeps giving to himself and all those around him that wind up contaminated. I can not at this time sympathize with him as he is real and screwing us all, but I get what you are saying in a philosophical way. Too many don’t see nuances.
A different permutation of my “there can be no collusion” argument.
http://theweek.com/articles/734070/mueller-running-amok
A dose of reality for most of us
If you want something to become more affordable, reduce regulation
https://fee.org/articles/why-large-screen-tvs-are-affordable-and-health-care-is-not/
Note the further left you are the more free you are to speak your mind.
That would also mean that those on the right are more tolerant of those on the left than visa-versa
That so many people do not understand how terribly dangerous this is.
Anyone in govenrment threatening to force others to censor people, if they do not do so themselves has violated their oath to uphold the constitution.
Wow, The DNC/Clinton campaign pay Perkins – Coie something like 10M for the Steele dossier.
P-C pays FusionGPS 1M for it.
FushionGPS pays Steele 168K for it.
Steele got ripped off.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/01/heres-how-much-the-clinton-campaign-and-dnc-paid-for-the-trump-dossier/
So here we have actual collusion to influence the election
Twitter censoring pro-trump and anti-clinton content
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-01/twitter-admits-it-buried-leaked-clinton-email-tweets-last-two-months-campaign
Rick, great column. dhili, enjoyed your banter and input. All I can say is Mr Smith will never go back to Washington again.
Thanks (belatedly), Bill. I appreciate the appreciation.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/another-stunning-liberal-lie-exposed-facebook-says-russian-ads-comprised-004-newsfeed-election/
http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/01/behold-the-work-of-russias-evil-advertis
Dershowitz on Scalia
For those of you strongly advocating for regulation – it is rare that out laws and regulations are truly enacted for good purposes.
Minimum wage laws were intended to deprive blacks of jobs – and they continue to do so through today.
Here is another example.
https://fee.org/articles/dancing-is-finally-legalized-in-new-york-city/
Liar Liar pants on fire!!!! Middle class family of four making $50,000 to about $100,000 will have increased taxes under reform. Standard deduction now $12,500. Personal exemptions $4,050 each. Total for four $16,200. Total exempted income $28,700. Reform, standard deduction $24,000, no personal exemptions. Increased taxable income $4,700. Both years rate = 25%. Total tax increase $1,175. But remember, the middle class can still deduct mortgage interest expenses of $500,000 per year!!!rr
Ron,
The Dems have been pushing this.
But even WaPo eventually gave this claim 4 pinochios.
WaPo found that the think tank analysis that most everyone under 87K/year will see a tax cut was correct.
I have not done the math. I do not really care to, what we see now and what we get will not be the same. And I am not interested in debating this – until I know what it really si going to look like.
Further – honestly if they are dramatically simpler – I do not care if my taxes go up.
Radically simplifying taxes would be a huge economic boost – forget cuts.
The simpler taxes are – the easier it is to hire people.
Last, we know from the Bush cuts that middle class cuts do not pay for themselves economically.
But we do know that corporate tax cuts and upper marging tax cuts are stimulative.
The degree depends on how high the current taxes are, how big the cut is, and what the tax rates are elsewhere in the world
Dave, I will say that probably 20% of the people will buy that this is an increase. I will say that probably 20% will buy this as a decrease hook, line and sinker. Then 60% will sit back uninterested and be surprised when they file their first return and find out what thebtrue results are. I did mis represent the % tax. The filers in the range I quoted now are in the 10% and 15% range. Part is 15 and part is 10. The nes rate is 12%.
What people need to do is take their basic info and compare last year using new rules. Its nkt that hard and then they could voice their thoughts to their reps BEFORE any legislation is final. What good does it do to complain after it is signed by the president.
This is very long. There are many interesting points, but they are spread throughout much of the video.
Laci’s remarks effected me in one way regarding our interchanges here.
I am particularly hard on Roby, Jay, Mooggie and the left as a whole.
Roby in particular keeps making the point that much is a difference of opinions.
That point is absolutely valid in every context except where we are discussing the use of force to conform another to your opinions.
Hillary Clinton has argued that “women should be beleived in their claims of sexual assault” – unless it is by her husband.
And she is absolutely correct – except when it comes to sanctioning the person they claim assaulted them.
Roby and Jay and anyone else is free to have whatever opinions they wish – even if those opinions are demonstrably false. They can run their own lives on the basis of feelings of opinions or whatever they want. The entire realm of their human action that does not infringe by force on the equal rights of others is entirely outside my right or power to do anything about.
I have stated before that you can form and join a voluntary commune if you wish.
Government must be limited – because government is the sphere in which we impose our will on others by force.
It is only when we are prepared to use force against others that we are precluded from making choices based on emotion, religion, or opinions that can not withstand logical criticism.
My fight with Roby, Jay and the left – is not really about emotional decisions or illogical opinions, it is about their belief that the sphere of government action is large. The bigger govenrment is the more it is going to interfere with the rights of others driven by the emotion or illogical opinions of others.
I would note that the left for the moment is railing that Trump controls many of the reigns of power. I do not want anyone to have that kind of power over others. Not Trump, not Clinton, not obama. I want people to have power over their own lives – including the power to completely ignore anything I say – inside their own lives.
I hope this comment breaks through the fatberger:
AMAZING. Hey Dems, please tell me this Politico article by Donna Brazile is fake. It is a very disturbing portrait of any U.S campaign, let alone Hillary’s campaign. Her people are truly deplorable if it is true. Please tell me it is not true:
https://www.politico.com/ma…
Link isn’t operative,I’m getting error message..
here it is again: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
dduck, is this really a surprising action by the Entitled Bitch?
It’s true, if Donna Brazile is telling the truth in her new book. She is saying that Obama bankrupted the DNC, Hillary bailed it out and, in the contract she made it sign, basically took control of it, laundering money through the Party apparatus, cheating Bernie out of money and delegates, and insisting that all DNC communications be approved by her campaign.
It’s less surprising now that the DNC refused to let the FBI gain access to its server, after it was “hacked by the Russians.” The investigation was done by a company called Crowdstrike, which was paid by the same law firm that Hillary used to pay for the Steele Dossier.
Makes the claim that the hack was an inside job by Bernie supporters within the DNC sound a lot more plausible…
President Foot In His Mouth keeps shoving Foot & Head up his Butt.
The ignoramus doesn’t understand the legal gravity of his words:
“President Donald Trump called for the execution of the suspect in the New York City terrorist attack Wednesday after learning that he had asked to hang an ISIS flag in his hospital room.
“NYC terrorist was happy as he asked to hang ISIS flag in his hospital room. He killed 8 people, badly injured 12. SHOULD GET DEATH PENALTY!” Trump tweeted.
Trump’s bold prescription could actually hurt prosecutors’ efforts. Presidents typically don’t weigh in on ongoing criminal cases because defense attorneys can then argue that their client has lost his right to a fair trial.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16597552/trump-death-penalty-new-york-terror-attack-saipov
You are correct that Trump should not be commenting on ongoing criminal investigations.
But that shipped sailed long ago.
Obama declared Clinton innocent when the email investigation had barely gotten started.
I’m sorry to say, I wish the cop was a better shot.
This a_______ will cost hundreds of thousands over his lifetime, not counting his trial, and serve as a martyr example for future martyrs.
Agreed, dd12.
This is what Russia is doing to sow discord in the US.
President ShitForBrains doesn’t get it.
He refuses to address the Russian interference.
He refuses to sign the Russia sanctions approved by Congress.
Discord in America benefits him and his buddy Vladdie.
How HUGE a Fortune will Donald RUMP reap from his proposed tax cuts?
Millions?
Billions?
How is keeping what is already your “reaping a fortune” ?
” When given two hypothetical policies—lower taxes on the rich resulting in more revenue to help the poor versus higher taxes on the rich but less money for the poor—one in six people preferred the second, more spiteful option. This willingness to hurt the poor to pull down the rich was predicted only by the individual’s proneness to envy.
http://humanprogress.org/blog/support-for-redistribution-shaped-by-compassion-self-interest–envy?utm_content=buffer73d97&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
How is doubling or tripling or quadrupling your ‘fortune’ not ‘reaping’ (raping) the system?
How is it ?
First your argument was that keeping your own money was “reaping massive profits”,
That is logic and fact free nonsense.
Now you are arguing that increasing your fortune is rape. Do you have any idea how people actually increase their fortunates ?
It is not magic. It is simple – by creating more value for others.
Try learning some basic economics.
“First your argument was that keeping your own money was “reaping massive profits””
Where did I argue that?
You don’t understand multiplication?
My argument is massively increasing your own money as President as a result of being President IS reaping/raping.
I understand multiplication perfectly.
I also grasp that the absence of subtraction at gunpoint is not multiplication.
Regardless, there is no black box, and no mathematical function that takes wealth and multiplies it.
Increases in wealth are the consequences of actions that deliver greater value to others.
The argument you are now making, is not the tax based argument you started with.
Regardless, the argument requires proof, and as you made it, it requires proof that mysterious money multiplier actually exists.
Increases in wealth as a consequence of delivering value is not consistent with the argument you are making. and certainly not anything I care about.
Idiot
Not an argument.
So ?
free speech is a right – and even Russians and Russia have it
Should I care that protestors and counter protestors show up at the same place ?
So long as everyone refrains from violence – why should I care ?
I do not have a problem with competing ideas being publicly debated.
We – as protestors and counter protestors are responsible for our own actions – not Russians who succeeded in persuading us to be at the same place at the same time.
I am far more worried at the demands of left and congress that Social Media censor itself.
The right of private actors to self censor ends when govenrment demands it.
Government may not do by proxy, what it may not do directly.
I am far more concerned about the growing concept in this country that some are entitled to choose who and what others get to hear, than I am about what Russia might do on Facebook.
Regardless, is facebook some US sovereign domain ? Are only americans permitted to use facebooks ? Is the internet a Russia Free zone ?
Are you capable of thinking what the bad consequences of what you want are ?
Impeach President Menace
Great ~ PPP polling claimed that Hillary would win in a historic electoral landslide, with Trump winning only 5 states, lol!!
Priscilla, so now jay wants to impeach trump based on polling data. That’s worse than the snowflakes not knowing what is required for impeachment, but I doubt even they would think polls could be a basis for impeachment.
Impeachment is political. Polling is sufficient justification for impeachment if democrats wish to go there. I would not advise it. The price for impeachment is also political.
The polling is a reflection of the dissatisfaction of the electorate with the current Menace in Office.
“Impeaching President Trump is more popular now than impeaching President Richard Nixon was at the start of the Watergate scandal, according to a Monmouth University poll.
The poll, released Monday, found 41 percent of Americans support impeachment for Trump. In comparison, 26 percent supported Nixon’s impeachment six months into his second term, as the Watergate scandal was breaking.”
41% was back in July. Now up to 49%.
Maybe (hopefully) Mueller will turn up impeachable evidence.
Stay tuned.
More of that “hopey” stuff – how well did that work the past 8 years ?
narcissistic nincompoop is at it again:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/358573-trump-on-lack-of-nominees-i-am-the-only-one-that-matters
Typical left wing nut – cutting govenrment is somehow inherently evil.
I have no problems with the reduced staffing at State or elsewhere.
I have a problem that Obama holdorvers are not being replaced.
I beleive that Tillerson early on, on his own decided that he was severely cutting back at State. I think many other Trump cabinet members are trying to do the same.
This is precisely the approach Romney was pummeled for in 2012.
Like it or note cleaning bloat out of organizations often makes them more effective not less.
But again a typical lefty – throw money and people at problems and pretend that solves them.
Douchebag Donald didn’t say he was REDUCING surplus employers, stupid; he said he was the only one who mattered. You too dense to understand the difference between genuine reduction of bloat, and “I Am The State!” ?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2W-GUxZiOsM
Donald Trump is not the state.
However ALL executive power in the US is constitutionally vested in the president.
So he is correct.
Some critiques of Facebook censorship.
Do we wish to join countries like Iran ?
https://www.popehat.com/2017/11/02/sorry-facebook-blasphemy-is-not-apolitical/
sigh. Two out of three of my last comments have vanished.
President Undignified Turd is Again at his most presidential self:
So you do not like the language Trump uses to state the Truth ?
Dave “So you do not like the language Trump uses to state the Truth ?”
Message for snowflakes today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA
My post was specific to Jay’s Trump quote.
I am not giving anyone a blanket endorsement that there statements are true.
Dave How do you do it? Miss the point so many times all together.”So you do not like the language Trump uses to state the Truth ?”
“You can’t handle the truth” was directed toward all those snowflakes that buy the liberal crap hook line and sinker and then when Trump makes his points in common daily language anyone can understand, they throw a hissy fit.
Now if jay considers himself one who will not accept what Trump says and how he says it, then everyone can make up their own mind as to where he falls on the snowflake scale.
I do find it very interesting that Trump calls Hillary “crooked Hillary” and now the truth begins to really come out as to how crooked she really is (buying the nomination) and not more than a peep from the liberal media concerning Donna B’s book.
Yes, we have even more evidence of Hillaries corruption today than during the election, but when was there any doubt ?
Kenneth Starr has noted that he was constantly frustrated as Independent council – because each crime he investigated lead to Hillary. He considered indicting her, but as first lady she is not a government employee and not really in the scope of his investigation, and he did not think he could get a DC jury to convict.
What has surprised me as this has progressed is not additional Hillary malfeasance – with few exceptions there is no new Hillary misconduct since the election, there is just more evidence to support previously known misconduct.
What has come out is the misconduct of the Obama administration – myriads of people, including Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein.
That has surprised me.
We have a very very serious problem in Washington, even more serious than was beleived before the election.
Jay wants to rant that it is somehow wrong for Trump to seek to open investigations into all this misconduct. If so – how are the investigations into Trump or others during the Obama administration proper ?
Oh yeah, the You Can’t Handle The Truth meme.
Uttered by Conservative Commander Jessup to those snowflake military officers at the trial.
But Ron, you remember how that ended, right?
Jessup is arrested, for murder.
Turns out he was a liar and a scam artist and a PERJURER.
Notice any similarities to the current liar scammer in the White House?
Jay well I think I will put you in the same political group as Joy B (The View) along with most everyone at MSNBC. It is one thing to dislike Trump and comment on his actions that have to do with legislation. It is something else to be pathologically impacted that the only thing someone can concentrate on is Trump, period.
I dont like Trump, but like him much more than the bitch. I would not vote for Trump. At the same time, I do not trust Mueller to prosecute anything he finds about Clinton in his drag net, but I believe he will prosecute a Trump supporter if they were the cause off a protected squirrels death on federal property.
Why do some people believe some politicians should be protected and hands off and others no limit to the amount of money and time to find something illegal?
Because some people are hypocrits, or beleive that the ends justify the means or have no actual moral compass.
Again what part of the statement is false ?
As to your “narcisisum claim”.
I would suggest reading the constitution.
All executive power is vested in the president.
While free to delegate, the president is not obligated to do so, and is personally responsible regardless.
Correct, I don’t like an undignified Buffoon President speaking like Trump does. But you’re OK with it, right?
Therefore you don’t have a problem with members of Congress Tweeting that tRUMP is a sexual deviant who inappropriately fondled his teenaged daughter (photographic evidence says that’s true too) and should be investigated for it. Or a problem with others in the media as well constantly referring to him as Deviant Donald, correct? Or for future Dems referring to Republican competitors with snide or vile nicknames in the future, like Cunnilingual Carley? Peckerwood Pence? Crudhead Cruz?
Oh right, Libertarians have no problem with reducing the national political debate to the level of the lowest World Wrestling Federation vulgar shouting match. Dickhead Donald has lowered the standards; Republicans agree it’s ok; let’s all join in with joyous namecalling
“Correct, I don’t like an undignified Buffoon President speaking like Trump does. But you’re OK with it, right?”
No, I just do not think Trump’s style or remarks warrant frothing at the mouth.
“Therefore ..”
Given that your premise is false your conclusion has no meaning.
This is what happens when you decide what someone else thinks and then construct castle in the sky arguments arround it.
“you don’t have a problem with members of Congress Tweeting that tRUMP is a sexual deviant who inappropriately fondled his teenaged daughter (photographic evidence says that’s true too) and should be investigated for it. Or a problem with others in the media as well constantly referring to him as Deviant Donald, correct? Or for future Dems referring to Republican competitors with snide or vile nicknames in the future, like Cunnilingual Carley? Peckerwood Pence? Crudhead Cruz?”
Again you seem to think all of this is binary.
If members of congress are tweeting offensively, you can call them out if you wish, but the available remedy if their actions are not criminal is to vote them out of office in Nov. 2018.
“Oh right, Libertarians have no problem with reducing the national political debate to the level of the lowest World Wrestling Federation vulgar shouting match. Dickhead Donald has lowered the standards; Republicans agree it’s ok; let’s all join in with joyous namecalling”
The national political debate will occur at the level that the american people chose.
Given that you have chosen a very low standard, Criticising others for the same low standard is hypocritical.
Regardless, there are lots of things I would prefer that I do not get.
I do not go frothing at the mouth because I can not force others to live as I wish.
Ron in addition to the other links I cited before, here is another peep from liberal central, The View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2Hd7KCj8vE
I am impressed with them all except Joy since their comments were on systems and not specific to one person or party for the most part. Joy was trying to redirect attention onto Trump. Have the other big three news outlets started to over this yet?
I would like to hear something of substance on the senate investigation into Russia. I find the silence from Burr and Warner disturbing as they have had long enough to determine what the devil was going on. Mueller is just trying to hang someones ass on the cross to warrant his existance.
And we wonder why only 25% to 55% of eligible voters actually vote.
“Mueller is just trying to hang someones ass on the cross to warrant his existance”
Where did you come up with this subjective denigration of Mueller’s motives?
Coming into the investigation he had strong bipartisan approval for honesty and integrity.
What has changed your mind?
The House is in the process of drafting a bill to ask Mueller to resign.
The release of the information regarding Mueller, Comey and Rosensteins involvement in the U1 investigation and coverup requires anyone with actual integrity to resign.
There are numerous observations that the Indictments were rushed because Mueller and company’s involvement in the U1 investigation and coverup came out.
The Manafort indictment gets weaker as we get some distance and analysis of it.
The money laundering claim is by far the most egregious sounding, but as many – including Manafort’s council have noted, there is and can be no money laundering – there is no precedent crime whose profits are being laundered.
If this is anything it is tax evasion. There are no tax evasions charges – likely because Manafort resolved those with the IRS in 2014.
That leaves the FARA claim. Manafort was not engaged in direct lobbying for foreign countries. He essentially brokered the actual lobbying to the Podesta Group and another firm. It is highly unlikely the FARA claim will survive appeal.
I would note that Manafort’s lawyer noted that none of this had to do with the Trump Campaign. That was a not so subtle message to Mueller and Trump that no one was Rolling.
Mueller is playing hardball with a weak hand to try to seriously restrict Manafort’s freedom prior to trial. If he loses that, he is in serious trouble. Manafort has the resources to fight this for the rest of his life and he will likely win.
Manafort is not somebody I would want to be associated with, but the indictment looks much weaker today than it did monday.
Alot of people who have at one time had strong bipartisan respect for their integrity and honesty have fallen substantially over the past few years.
Lorretta Lynch was supposed to be a lawyer of incredibly integrity.
James Comey was supposed to be the epitome of integrity.
You can add Mueller and Rosenstein to that list.
The more we learn about the Comey ambush of Ashcroft in the hospital, which appears to have been quite different from the myth sold by Comey and Mueller, as well as their involvement in the U1 Coverup, calling them men of high integrity today is dubious.
It Mueller had integrity – he would resign, as would Mueller and anyone involved in the U1 coverup.
I would note that we have Trump being investigated even though we still do not have an actual crime, by Mueller – who clearly was involved in the actual crime of hiding the russian corruption and bribery involved in the U1 deal from congress.
Sorry Jay – there is more reason for Mueller to go, than for the SC to exist.
Jay r”What has changed your mind?”
Did I ever say I approved of an Independent investigator to start with?
The majority of these things lead no where and only capture people doing things that have little to do with the real reason for their existence. Iran contra resulted in little. What did Whitewater deliver? Did Reagan or Clinton (either of them) get prosecuted or impeached?
Manafort, Pop,…….., Flynn and maybe a few more will get tried for lying to the investigators or some other crap, but removing Trump will nt happen, no matter how many prayers you say.
Getting Trump is not happening – because there is no there there. There can not be.
The think the left is trying to find not only does not exist – it can not exist.
If Trump got opo research on Clinton from Russia:
He would have used it
He would at worst no better than Clinton.
If Trump conspired with Russia to hack the DNC in April of 2016 then why was he still trying to establishing some contact with Russia in July of 2016 ?
Why would Trump go to enormous trouble to get Russia to post 6500 in Social Media adds when he was spending about 600M himself ? Just trying to get opo on Clinton likely cost him more than 100K
Whoever is the next Democratic Presidential Candidate to publically call tTRUMP Douchebag Donald gets my vote!
President Shit Head works too!
Groper In Chief as followup as well.
Hopefully Keith Olbermann will run – and addresses him as he has online as PRESIDENT MOTHERXXXXXXX TRAITOR!
So you will vote for the next democrat that is a worse potty mouth than Trump ?
What’s good for the Goosehead GOP is good for the Gander
Everybody’s doing it doing it..
Destroying records and loving loving it..
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120.html
The records of the activities of our government and public servants belong to the public.
Private records do not, and are protected by the 4th amendment.
We grant far to much latitude to courts and government to demand private records, without warrants.
As to lawsuit tactics – if they are legal, there is no issue, if they are not prosecute.
I have been involved in requests for business documents. In a legal proceding were documents may be lawfully demanded, when they are not produced the jury and the court are free to decide that what they contained was damaging.
I am not going to judge a bunch of spitballed allegations about Trump without knowing more about each allegation.
What I know about Clinton – is the documents were govenrment workproduct – therefore not hers to destroy, and were the subject of FOIA requests, subpeona’s and the order of courts to preserve, and that records that belonged to the public were destroyed by Clinton without permission, or authority.
Those “pro trump” FB adds
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/russia-facebook-dumb-think-we-are/
Russia SYSTEMATICALLY hacked the Dems
https://apnews.com/dea73efc01594839957c3c9a6c962b8a
“An Associated Press investigation into the digital break-ins that disrupted the U.S. presidential contest has sketched out an anatomy of the hack that led to months of damaging disclosures about the Democratic Party’s nominee. It wasn’t just a few aides that the hackers went after; it was an all-out blitz across the Democratic Party. They tried to compromise Clinton’s inner circle and more than 130 party employees, supporters and contractors.
While U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia was behind the email thefts, the AP drew on forensic data to report Thursday that the hackers known as Fancy Bear were closely aligned with the interests of the Russian government.
The AP’s reconstruction— based on a database of 19,000 malicious links recently shared by cybersecurity firm Secureworks — shows how the hackers worked their way around the Clinton campaign’s top-of-the-line digital security to steal chairman John Podesta’s emails in March 2016.
It also helps explain how a Russian-linked intermediary could boast to a Trump policy adviser, a month later, that the Kremlin had “thousands of emails” worth of dirt on Clinton.”
All you and the AP are doing is echoing very old crap that has long ago been refuted.
CrowdStrike has claimed FancyBear (their name) otherwise known as APT28 came from Russia many times.
It has been used in several exploits.
It is typically installed using a zero day exploit – this was Guicifer2.0’s claim,
and not Phishing.
The attribution to Russia is now deeply suspect, and the APT28 attacks are no longer credibly attributed to Russia – not the DNC, Not the TV5 not the BundesPost not ….
You are selling rehashed old crap.
The left seems to think that recycling only nonsense that has been discredited is somehow meaningful.
Separately the US Intelligence community did not do any independent assessment.
They merely echoed CrowdStrike.
Most of CrowdStrikes modern claims – not just the DNC attacks, but other attacks they have attributed to Russia or China are now discredited or seriously disputed,
It is now generally accepted in the security community that determining the source of an exploit is no longer possible. That there has been widespread availability of the tools and toolkits of major hacking groups, that each borrows from the others and deliberately uses the code of others to mask attribution.
Put more simply everyone has access to the source for FancyBear and the ability to construct a permutation of it, and it is therefore not possible to tell where a FancyBear penetration actually came from.
Most are familiar with StuxNet – which the US created to interfere with the Iranian centrifuges. The US deliberately used code to make StuxNet appear to be of Israeli origen.
Of course all of this ignores the fact that we now know the DNC emails were leaked not hacked.
Read the article:
“An Associated Press investigation into the digital break-ins”
The AP did not investigate. It interviewed people.
Only Crowdstrike actually got access to the servers, though other forensic services have been able to refute the Crowdstrike claims based on the data provided by CrowsStrike or Guiciffer II or Wikipedia.
I would note that the DNC called Perkins Coie – and THEY brought in CrowdStrike.
Further that PC was pushing the meme’s the AP is citing before there was evidence.
Regardless the AP is on the wrong side of the forensics.
The claim that this was the result of Phishing has been refuted – even CrowsStrike beleives the DNC was first penetrated in mid 2015, mot March 2016.
Further there is evidence of atleast 3 distinct efforts – two exploits – that are not the result of Phishing, and atleast 1 leak.
The exploits, have now been fairly well established did NOT come from Russia.
And the leak was in the US.
I am sure that the DNC received myriads of phishing attempts – I get several everyday.
The receipt of “29” phishing emails just proves the DNC is connected to the internet.
One questions how incredibly guilible you and these reporters are ?
Here is Nate Silver’s composite of the polling data on trumps popularity. This is not Nate Silver’s polling, this is a composite of everybody’s polling. Nate Silver’s polling called the election popular vote within a percent or two and predicted that trump was gaining and had a significant chance. So, bashing polling as a thing or Nate Silver as a pollster is going to be futiile.
As of Jan 25 trump was in positive territory, about 48 approval to 42.5 disapproval. So, In spite of the nastiness of the campaign and people being well aware of who candidate trump is America as a whole was willing to give him a shot at being president.
His fortunes changed in three discrete fairly brief periods. By mid-May it had fallen into a range that has been pretty much stable ever since, more or less 56 disapproval to 38 approval according to Silver. More like 60 to 35 according to Gallup. If every registered democrat was against trump that would be 28% disapproval. That is only half of the disapproval. Since Jan 25 he has lost 10 points of approval and gained 14 points of disapproval a 24 point swing, that has remained stable for 6 months. No president since polling began has achieved (ha) anything like this level of sustained disapproval at this period of their presidency.
This was not the media’s doing, the media had already thrown the kitchen sink at trump by Jan 25 and he was still to the good side by 5 points. This is purely and simply the nature of trump and his administration. It is not due to liberal democrats they are disliking trump only at slightly higher levels than they would dislike any conservative president. The record setting disapproval is due to moderates, independents, and even conservatives.
The country as a whole can tell shit from shinola even is 80% of GOP voters believe he is doing great, while 70% of them believe that he is unifying the country.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
Roby
Nate does not do polling.
He uses polls by others to do complex analysis.
Nate has on occasion been incredibly good – he nailed 2012 better than anyone else.
But sorry Nate entirely blew 2016. He was predicting a 92% chance of a Clinton victory on Election day and still a 70% chance of a win at the time Clinton conceded.
I like Nate, but pretending he is infallible is nonsense – even Nate would not make the claims you are making for him.
BTW we get this “no XXX ever” nonsense all the time.
It is common in CAGW. Offering it is a pretty clear misunderstanding of statistics.
the data that we have today dwarfs what we had 10 years ago, which dwarfs that of 10 years before that.
For many many things we have not had the ability to do the kind of Data analysis we do today in the past
Beyond that neither Today, not Trump are the same as the past.
Trump was the product of an electorate that was divided in ways we probably have not been divided since the civil war. That division was not caused by Trump – it started in 2008 and grew under Obama.
It might be the consequence of Obama and his policies.
It might be the consequence of the end of “the great sorting”.
Regardless, in myraids of ways the country is different than in the past.
More importantly – why do I care about Trump’s popularity ?
Goldberg on the hypocracy of the right and left.
For the record, I think Trump’s threats to use the power of Federal government to persecute his enemies – such as to revoke licenses are wrong.
If I actually belived he was attempting them I would be outraged.
There is no difference between Trump stalling the FCC license of CNN and Obama stalling the 501c3 approval of a right leaning group.
The fundimental difference is Trump is all hat no cattle on these issues,
While Obama actually did them.
Worse those on the left here only recognize such acts as wrong when they target the left.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452671/harvey-weinstein-donald-trump-hypocrisy-mitt-romneys-binders-full-women
Who is responsible for the destruction of the DNC
https://www.google.com/search?q=libertarian+party+cartoon&safe=off&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS692US692&hl=en-US&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO7pKNp6PXAhUR-GMKHaPtBa0Q_AUIEigB&biw=1024&bih=653#imgrc=YC3WQRjGcIPfKM:
A bit more complex.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/lpn/pages/1/features/original/issues-nevada-libertarian-party-of_nevada_5.jpg?1448440586
This is an incredibly bizzare claim:
First, there is actual evidence of a crime and more than enough for probable cause, and the targets are not political opponents.
As President Trump can order DOJ to investigate anything for which there is sufficient cause for an investigation.
There is plenty of cause for everything Trump has asked to be investigated.
Second, why would you be going after Trump for doing something he is actually allowed to do – because there is sufficient cause, when Obama did the same WITHOUT sufficient cause.
Trump is asking for an actual crime to be investigated – one in which there is ample evidence that the crime has occured.
Obama went Fishing for a crime – after almost 2 years there is still no actual crime, but there was and remains an investigation.
Put more simply, If Trump is actually guilty of something, then Obama is unbeleivably egregiously guilty.
BTW given the election is over, Clinton is not a political opponent. She is merely a political enemy.
All of us, myself included as well as Trump were prepared to let all of this go after the election. The only reason anyone is calling for an investigation of Clinton or political and criminal misconduct prior to 2017 is because the left is continuing to attempt to dig where there is nothing.
Regardless, this entire claim is the most ludicrous bit of political hypocrisy I have ever heard.
At least NPR has a pair and has a follow up to the Brazile/DNC story:
http://www.npr.org/sections…
NYT: Crickets
The Clinton/DNC stuff as I understand it is internecine warfare among democrats.
It stinks to heaven but I do not think it is criminal.
I don’t know about that, Dave. Campaign finance laws restrict the amount of money one can donate to a single candidate, but that person can still donate to the party. If all, or most, of the money being raised for the DNC was effectively being funneled to the Hillary campaign, I think there may be legal issues with that….
” If all, or most, of the money being raised for the DNC was effectively being funneled to the Hillary campaign, I think there may be legal issues with that….”
And who do you think s going to investigate? Trump has not turned loose the DOJ on anything else she supposedly did. And Mueller will not look at anything that would tie his investigation to the DNC takeover, unlike anything a Trump supporter may have done.
So this will just be news on Fox for the next 6 months and then it will fade away like everything else the Clintons have done in the past.
You seem to think campaign finance laws are constitutional.
ABC, NBC, CBS: Crickets
FOX: Pounced like it was loose in a chicken coop: http://www.foxnews.com/ente…
Tulsi Gabbard: https://www.realclearpoliti…
WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost….
WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/article…
DD – NONE of your links are working for me
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/03/561768006/book-reveals-clinton-campaign-effectively-controlled-dnc-as-early-as-2015
I read what Donna had to say about Hillary.
this sums it up:
“The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”
And almost all the money she’s talking about being ‘unethically’ misdirected to Clinton’s campaign, was RAISED by the Clinton campaign. And that money, Donna says, kept the DNC from going under. It was deep in debt. Clinton’s money rescued it.
Hard ball politics? Yes. Big deal? Not really.
Jay ” Hard ball politics? Yes. Big deal? Not really. ”
Would this REALLY be your comment id the name was Trump and the party the RNC? Please be honest!
But it is a big deal when you think about all the younger leople that supported Sanders and now see how manipulated our political systems are and how one can buy a nomination. How many of those younger people will say ” to hell with voting, they will nominate who they want anyway” so why vote?
We need more people voting, not fewer! Even if they are Sander liberals, we need them particilating in the process, not being turned off by millionaires buying elections.
If you’re a registered a Democrat (I’m not) the question you should be asking is how did the DNC finances (under Schultz) get so screwed up the Clinton campaign had to step in with loans and other cash infusions to keep it from going BK?
And I’m happy Bernie didn’t get the nomination.
He would have been slaughtered in the election.
And if tRUMP had that kind of a mandate, fascism would rule, the MSM would be silenced, and the fires of revolution and Insurrection would match the natural wildfires we’re seeing now.
Jay, no, the question is not how screwed up the DNC has become. The issue is the impact on people who thought they were making a difference and now they find out that anything they did, from hours of volunteering to a few minutes that they normally would not have spent voting, was all pre-planned as a waste of time.
Thats the problem with everything in this country today. There is no thinking about the future. It is all about the past or the present. The future is what is important. And you, as a hysterical anti-Trumper should know this better than anyone due to the thoughts you have about Trump and his impact on the future of this country.
I don’t care one bit why the DNC was bankrupt. The Democrats should not care that much because they can’t do anything about that. But what they can do is put into place internal controls (like any common sense run business would do) to insure that this could not happen again, that multiple signatures would be required for all legal documents which would require collusion to recreate this issue and to have yearly audits of finances so everyone knows where the money is coming from, where its going and how much is in the bank that has been confirmed by the banks themselves.
People, especially younger people with attention spans of a gnat, need to know what they do is making a difference or they will drop out like so many moderates have done in this country because their positions have been totally ignored or abandoned. Do we really want 25% of the people voting and electing the government?
It is extremely common for a party to be deeply in debt after a major campaign.
The amounts being discussed are tiny compared to the $1B plus Obama spent on 2012 or something like 1.6B Clinton spent in 2016
How would “fascism” rule ?
What would be different if Trump had more political power ?
tax reform would be easier.
ObamaCare would be dead.
The wall would be being built.
Immigration restrictions might be worse.
I do not agree with all of those – but they are not fascist.
Real fascism would require more govenrment interferance in out individuals lives.
Like laws limiting the size of the sodas we could buy
or restricting our ownership of guns,
or requiring us to pay for free college for others.
or reducing the number of deodorants of sneakers in the delusion that would aleviate poverty.
Trump is not some perfect libertarian.
But he is LESS fascist than any democrat.
I oppose Trump rhetoric of censorship.
And it bothers me.
At the same time, it is still just rhetoric.
The real force of censorship in the US today is on the left.
It is those who think they know what hate speach is, and that it can be prohibited.
It is those in congress threatening media companies if they do not reign in unwanted political expression within social media.
Trump just says stupid “fascist” things.
Those on the left do them.
Is there anyone who doubts that if this were about Trump not Clinton that the left would be frothing and Mueller broadening his investigation ?
No we need less people voting because out govenrment is boring and limited and it does not matter whether it is run by republicans or democrats because the limits prohibit either
from screwing us.
Neither govenrment nor elections should be our lives.
In the US and throughout the world all the gains of the past 400 years are the consequence of greater individual liberty – particularly economic liberty.
To the extent govenrment has mattered that would be that those govenrments fostering greater liberty have served us better, and improved standard of living the fastest.
A severely limited monarchy would be superior to a big government democracy.
“The issue is the impact on people who thought they were making a difference and now they find out that anything they did, from hours of volunteering to a few minutes that they normally would not have spent voting, was all pre-planned as a waste of time.”
Its a very strong comment. In fact your entire comment is very strong. I particularly like this part too:
“I don’t care one bit why the DNC was bankrupt. The Democrats should not care that much because they can’t do anything about that. But what they can do is put into place internal controls (like any common sense run business would do) to insure that this could not happen again, ”
But there is another side (this is not a defence of the clintons or the DNC). Bernie was a progressive pirate and not a democrat. Every election many people put their efforts in and do not get the POTUS they worked for. If Bernie’s supporters had seen their hard work pay off and won, well it would have been justice, perhaps. How happy would you be right now with a Sanders presidency? I suspect you would be miserable and me too.
Things seem to have hit a high point of rottenness. That may be an illusion, things may have always been this rotten, but there is at least a perception that they are even more rotten today than previously in my lifetime. For the moment our system is creaking and groaning but still functioning. It does not seem to me to be impossible that if things continue as they are going at some time in my lifetime the system may fail. If it does, people are going to miss what we had under the old imperfect situation, it will be clear to all but a handful of extremists that we needed a functioning 21st century government.
The second of your paragraphs that I quoted is a blueprint for a sane way out of part of this mess. I hope that at some point enough people will recognize that the consequences of putting political warfare first are truly the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.
It won’t, unfortunately, change the fact that the bases of both major parties are incredibly naive and are pulling for things that will never happen and would be catastrophic if they did happen. Maybe from the standpoint it of history it will all pass somehow, like William Jennings Bryan and free silver.
I have some problems about the fact that both the democratic and republican parties are government protected monopolies.
But beyond that the DNC is just a bunch of people coming together voluntarily for a common purpose, no different from the catholic church, the AFL-CIO, or Amazon.
Many of the suggestions are probably good ones.
Regardless, the DNC and its members can run their organization as they see fit.
They can make their own rules.
What I do not want is the government stepping in and deciding to make conduct that is not already criminal, criminal.
There is not a need for government so step in and regulate the DNC.
Whether Sanders has a place in the democratic party or whether he is a pirate – is up to the DNC.
Outside those legitimate functions of government The DNC and Amazon should all be allowed to conduct their affairs as they see fit.
This applies exactly the same regarding the RNC and republicans.
Freedom is often messy and does not usually produce perfect outcomes – though it comes closer than all other alternatives.
You and I are free to make sugestions regarding the DNC or Amazon, we are not free to impose them by force.
Dave, “There is not a need for government so step in and regulate the DNC.”
Libertarian or not, we are a country with laws. Laws should be applied equally. Suspected illegal activities should be investigated equally.
If there are suspected activities that broke campaign finance laws, they should be investigated regardless of your name being Joe Blow or Hillary Clinton.
“What I do not want is the government stepping in and deciding to make conduct that is not already criminal, criminal.” …,,……………..But I WANT government investigating conduct that appears to be criminal and so far our DOJ looks as if ” Clinton” is a buzz word for “hands off” like “Clinton that investigation”.
We are a country of laws – and those laws should be as few and clear as possible.
Every possible human action is not the realm of the law.
The democratic party can organize itself as it pleases.
It can go bankrupt, borrow money or strike deals with private actors in return for bailouts.
As best as I can tell Brazille is correct – nothing done here was illegal. But alot of it was unethical.
Every reprehensible act that humans can do, is not within the scope of government.
Only those involving the initiation of force or fraud.
People are free to acts stupidly and to their own harm.
Sander’s has no right to a DNC free of Clinton control and influence.
He could have run on a socialist ticket.
Given that I do not beleive campaign finances laws are constitutional, I am not going to be bent out of shape over them.
Anyone who wishes should be free to give whatever amount they please to whoever they please for whatever reasons they wish – political or otherwise. And they should be free to do so secretly if they wish.
The only legal issue is that those within government – elected or appointed can not trade their influence for money.
Though I want to make clear it is the government actor that commits the crime.
Roby “How happy would you be right now with a Sanders presidency? I suspect you would be miserable and me too.”
I suspect I would be in the same frame of mind as I am with Trump, but still less miserable than with Obama. I suspect nothing would be different other than a more moderate SCOTUS appointment. I say that because a true liberal would never get through the senate and I am not so sure we would not be better off with another Kennedy in place of Gorsuch. And I say the other stuff would ge the same. Congress has passed nothing of substance so far and that would have been the same under Sanders.
Oh, also the psychotic tantrums on TV would be on Fox News and not MSNBC. The other change would be Jay drinking in celebration of Sanders instead of drowning his sorrows.
It is a bit early to say with certainty, but Gorsuch may prove to be the most important contribution of Trump’s presidency.
While broadly sharing the originalist approach fo Scalia, Gorsuch less democratic about it, more committed and more means than ends driven than Scalia.
I think Scalia was a great justice – but he is also responsible for a number of bad decisions
Kennedy is an absolute disaster. He is the epitome of what is wrong with what many here consider “moderate”.
The right answer to most questions is NOT the middle way.
Quite often the “middle way” is worse than the wrong way.
The hardest errors to fix are “compromises”
I think Kennedy is a nice guy, but he has presided over more than a decade of decisions that are completely absent any underlying principles – not even bad ones.
That is precisely what we do NOT want out of SCOTUS.
Right or wrong SCOTUS’s job is to draw BRIGHT Lines.
Nuance, subjectivity and discretion should be as distant from Government and law as humanly possible. while on occasion not entirely avoidable they need to be as minimal as possible.
O’Conner was similar when she was on the court and has wisely expressed regret over exactly that.
SCOTUS decisions should provide answers, not more questions.
This is equally true for the left, and one of the problems with the left. Those on the left rarely provide bright line answers to anything.
Third try
Dave , “That is precisely what we do NOT want out of SCOTUS.”
Please use the proper noun when making a comment such as this. Please use “I” and not “we” as I want a complete court made up of justices that base decisions on the constitution and not political leanings. I am tired of decisions made based on some liberal or conservative position that the court “interprets” the constitution supports. I am tired of decisions made by the court based on how the court will be viewed in the future by historians or what negative impact it may have on some perceived “right”.
Freedom to bear arms is just that. No state or local government should infringe on that right.
Freedom of speech is just that. Twitter and Facebook is yesterdays town square where your right to say most anything was not infringed on.
The right to privacy is just that. No company should be required to give the government “keys- to evryones “locked” data just because they need to look at one persons specific data.
Based on the current members and a one judge switch in political positions, each of these issues could find a different decision since they no longer make decisions based on the constitution.
Kennedy may not be perfect, but he is better than the rest.
You have a point regarding we. That said – “we’ really do. Bur “we” may not all understand that.
“we” – you and I – agree that SCOTUS decisions should be made based on the constitution. But that is an insufficiently precise definition to meet the requirements of “rule of law” those who buy a “living constitution” – it.e the meaning is what the words mean now, can have both constitutional conforming decisions and ideology.
Gorsuch is a textualist.
First comes the plain meaning of the words.
If necescary as understood at the time they were ratified,
by those who ratified them,
if that is insufficient, the appropriate application of natural law.
If at any step along the process things are unclear the answer is no the government does nto have that power, or yes the individual does have that right.
Sorry Ron, I like Kennedy, but he is the worst not the best.
He does not root decisions in the constitution.
He seeks to compromise competing views – maybe with a slight right tilt, but still his value is compromise, not the constitution.
Supreme court compromise decisions are the most common examples of where compromise is bad.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
Ron, you hit the nail on the head:
If right now, the news story was Reince Priebus writing a book about how Trump essentially bought the RNC, forced all party communications and contributions to go through the Trump campaign, and essentially spent RNC money, as if it were his to campaign with, evading campaign finance laws and spending it as only she saw fit? Hoo, boy! Jay would be spewing every foul epithet he could come up with, and claiming that Trump was debasing the system. But, of course, if Hillary does it? Oh….no big deal.
And how about Biden? He would have had the best chance of beating Trump, but Hillary likely boxed him out too, because it was Obama’s debt that she was paying, and Obama decided to back her. Biden’s son’s death surely was a factor, but he now says that he regrets not getting in. My guess is that it’s not only Bernie supporters who are pissed….
Donna Brazile may think that the whole arrangement was unethical, but there are plenty of lawyers who think that the arrangement was criminal. Funny, how everything that the Clinton’s touch is corrupted…….
It was MOSTLY the Clinton Campaign money, filtered into the DNC bank accounts TO KEEP IT SOLVENT. The Clinton Campaign was greedy. They took over the flow of money (almost all of it flowing in after they made the DNC solvent, a RESULT of continuing donations through the Clinton Candidacy.
Did Bernie supporters donate money to the DNC? Or as Donna suggested, send donations directly to him? If so, they weren’t acting as Party Democrats, but exclusively as Bernie supporters.
Bottom line — what’s illegal about any of it?
What is there for Mueller to investigate?
What’s it have to do with Russian interfearance in the election?
It’s a BS story to divert attention from tRUMP.
First, Mueller should not be investigating no matter what.
The only things an SC should be involved in are those where there is a clear conflict with the DOJ/FBI.
That would be something like investigating the president, the AG, or the FBI director.
Almost any other conflict can be resolved by shifting people arround, or hiring people from outside washington into DOJ or FBI.
Next, I agree with you there is nothing in the DNC mess that I have seen that is a crime.
Unethical ? Sure. Despicable ? Absolutely.
But this is business for the democratic party to sort our on its own.
Priscilla seems campaign finance law violations – those just prove the error in our campaign finance laws.
It is not a “BS” story though.
It is an excellent story that an unbiased media would chase down.
There is not and never has been any consequential story regarding Trump and Russia.
You just keep flogging a dead horse – and implicating the Obama administration ever deeper in misconduct.
“Priscilla seems campaign finance law violations – those just prove the error in our campaign finance laws.”
I agree that there are problems with our campaign finance laws ~ but,on the other hand, they are LAWS.
The Clinton’s have always considered themselves above the law.
Using party funds to circumvent the laws that restrict political donations, if that is what she did, is illegal. Obama’s DOJ prosecuted ~and JAILED ~Dinesh D’Souza for campaign finance fraud for donating too much money to a NY Senatorial candidate (He asked friends to donate in their names and reimbursed the money). Of course, the real reason they went after him was because he made an anti-Obama film… but it was lying about political donations that gave the US Attorney in NY an opening to prosecute him
You may be right, and everything that Clinton did was on the legal up and up, but I would be surprised if Hillary’s unethical power play didn’t involve some laws being broken. I wonder if the Clinton Foundation gave some of its “charity” to purchase the DNC? Excellent use of Russian money….
Also, Jay, are you saying that Hillary saved the DNC with her personal money, not with money from her campaign donations or from Clinton Foundation cash?
Because I don’t think that we know that, and I think it’s relevant. There are FEC guidelines, meant to keep the election process fair, and if Hillary was using the DNC apparatus, and money donated tp the DNC ~not to her ~ to rig the primaries, so that Bernie couldn’t gain any traction, then she was in flagrant violation of those guidelines.
Not to mention that the DNC leadership, which was apparently made up of Debbie W-S and Hillary’s campaign was required by federal election law to remain neutral in the nomination process.
I do not think the FEC is constitutional, or that any restrictions on political contributions are constitutional.
Government can “regulate” the conduct of elected and unelected officials. Not the private people who contribute to them.
We have our entire concept of bribery and corruption upside down.
It is government and those in it that we must constrain and punish.
Jay, it is a serious story, I’m sorry if it detracts from Trump thrashing, he deserves even more, but try this one on:
I ask you, what would have happened if Biden had decided to run when Hillary controlled the DNC. Would he have been screwed by the DNC as Sanders was. Of course it was OK to shut Sanders, a crazy old coot, out, but many say Biden could have beaten Trump.
I held my nose to vote for Hillary, but I would have enjoyed voting for Biden.
My thoughts like yours – in fact I was pushing for Biden online. But HE said he wasn’t running, too close to his son’s death. Clinton was definitely the WAY LESSER of two evils.
Tho I didn’t hold my nose as tight as you did.
I remember her as NY Senator (were you in NYC then?) – she was a decent Senator I thought, Middle-Left-Moderate, and willing to compromise across the aisle with Republicans. I gave her a C+ rating. I thought she’d be C+ President, compared to Douchebag Donnie, who I had at Z-.
dd12, I thought it was awfully odd that Obama endorsed Hillary so early on in the process, before his own VP had decided whether or not to run.
Looking at it now, from the perspective of Brazile’s book, it’s obvious that Hillary made a deal to pay off his debt to the DNC, but he would have to back her. $28M is a lot of money. And, of course, since she was “guaranteed” to be president, she had no concerns about getting the money back..the money was going to flow freely.
Biden has said that he regrets not getting in the race. My guess is that, had he had Obama’s strong support, he would have done it.
If Hillary was even the slightest bit competent or charismatic as a candidate she could have beaten Bernie fair and square, not to mention that the DNC’s system of super-delegates, which was set up so that the party could block any future McGoverns from getting the nomination, would have ensured that Bernie lost.
But the VP, running with the blessing of Obama? She could have never overcome that.
Oh, I think it is a big deal – but it is a big deal for democrats.
Ethics criticisms from Brazille are a bit hollow though.
But then again it is hard to find anyone ethical on the left,
of course not all that easy to find anyone ethical in politics
Yet you think that we should give these ethically challenged people vast power and control of our lives ?
Republicans continue to try to screw the Middle Class.
From AP:
“A day after the GOP unveiled its plan promising middle-class relief, the House’s top tax-writer, Rep. Kevin Brady, released a revised version of the bill that would impose a new, lower-inflation “chained CPI” adjustment for tax brackets immediately instead of in 2023. That means more income would be taxed at higher rates over time — and less generous tax cuts for individuals and families.
The change, posted on the website of the Ways and Means Committee, reduces the value of the tax cuts for ordinary Americans by $89 billion over 10 years compared with the legislation released with fanfare Thursday.
As wages rise, middle-class taxpayers would have more of their income taxed at the 25 percent rate instead of at 12 percent, for instance.
“The bill’s like a dead fish: The more it hangs out in the sunlight, the stinkier it gets,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer pronounced after word of Brady’s change. “The more people learn about this bill, the less they’re going to like it.””
Schumer would not be my go to person.
Further the entire debate is fundimentally flawed.
There are two important and related purposes to tax reform:
Cleaning up a disasterously messy and expensive tax code.
There will inherently be winners and losers to that.
But the results will be net positive.
The less government decides which choices people make should be favored and which should be discouraged, the more free we are to make the choices best for us without regard for taxes.
This also has a small net economically stimulative effect, as greater economic efficiency results in higher standards of living.
The 2nd objective is purely economic.
Tax cuts for the middle class, are not economically stimulative.
I wish that were not so, but it is the facts.
The primary stimulative effect of the proposed cuts will be reductions in corporate, business, and upper margin income taxes.
These are also the only tax cuts that stand a chance of paying for themselves with higher tax revenues. Middle class tax cuts do not stimulate the economy much, and do not pay for themselves,
If you want middle class tax cuts you must cut government spending.
I am not all that sure of the Republican plan. I think it is too heavily stacked towards popular appeal rather than real benefits.
But Tax reform is like health insurance reform. What you start with and what you end up with are quite different.
Given a choice between a personal tax cut and an increase in economic growth of 1% – I will pick the latter.
tRump A Bump On The Rump Of Incompetence
Given that I believe it was Jefferson demanded that his AG prosecute Burr for Treason and very nearly prosecuted the case himself, I think that Trump’s conduct is well inside presidential norms.
Corker does not seem to grasp that the constitution vests ALL executive powers in the president. There is no inappropriately pressuring the DOJ.
If the prosecution itself is legitimate then Trump’s pressure is legitimate.
I do not think you can get bent out of shape as Trump’s actions are tame compared with those of Jefferson.
http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2017/03/06/belligerent-president-accusations-treason-stolen-supreme-court-seat/ideas/nexus/
Regardless all federal executive power vests with the president.
It is only improper for the president to order an investigation if that investigation is improper.
I keep pointing out to you that the Mueller investigation is improper and lawless.
That is because – there is no specific crime being investigated.
But even that is not sufficient – there also must be sufficient evidence that the specific crime has actually been committed, and that the person being investigated actually did it.
Mere allegations and wishful thinking do not reach these standards.
The U1 Allegations reach the level sufficient to be a legitimate investigation.
I am confused about something, Dave…maybe you know the answer.
So, if U1 allegations merit an investigation, even a Special Prosecutor (and I agree that they do), why can’t the president order the DOJ to begin that investigation?
I understand that, if Jeff Sessions considers himself recused from all matters involving Hillary, the next person to open the investigation would be Rod Rosenstein, who is compromised by his own involvement in the U1 scandal, so that’s a problem. But there are ways around that ~ insist that Rosenstein recuse, and let him resign, if he won’t. Or ask Congress to appoint a Special Counsel…maybe that’s where this is going?
Priscilla, let me try to answer your question. I believe Trump can appoint a SI. But if he did it would set precedent so when he leaves office, he is fair game or his cabinet is fair game in future investigations, along with any future administrations. Right now there are unwritten agreements between parties. “You cover my ass, I’ll coover yours”
A “special prosecutor” Is only different from an ordinary prosecutor in that:
They are not typically someone currently in the DOJ.
They are answerable typically to the AG.
They are supposed to be narrorwly bound to the investigation of a specific crime, typically one where there is a conflict that precludes the normal US Attorney’s and FBI agents from prosecuting.
They are supposed to be used only when the target of the investigation is a person normally inside the normal chain of command of the DOJ/FBI.
Unlike an Independent council – which we no longer have, they are still answerable to the AG and ultimately the President.
There is absolutely no reason for an SC to investigate Clinton or even the former administration.
There is HOWEVER good reason for DOJ to take an investigation of Clinton or the former administration OUTSIDE the hands of washington insiders in DOJ and FBI.
But that can be accomplished without a Special Prosecutor.
The AG can just hire a US Attorney from outside the federal government – some State AG or former AG.
As President Trump can direct DOJ or the FBI or nearly all other agencies to do as he pleases.
There are several constraints on that:
Some entities – the FCC, the Federal Reserve are purportedly actually independent.
The President still appoints their boards, but he very little control beyond that.
The FBI is NOT independent – it just has a tradition of independence which has no legal merit.
The next constraint is that the upper tier of government administrators must be approved by the Senate, and those below that are very hard to fire.
The next constraint is impeachment. There is really no binding definition of what Congress can impeach and remove a president for. Therefore it can remove the president for doing his job as he sees it.
The next is that if he directs someone to do something they believe is illegal or unconstitutional – they are supposed to object and if forced resign. But we have had a spate of people who just ignored the presidents direction daring him to fire them.
This is a part of why I beleive that Trump needs to fire alot of people. He should probably stay away from those such as Mueller for now where that could trigger congress to act stupidly.
But he needs to establish that he will fire people.
At the same time he really should quit making stupid statement about things like pulling peoples FCC licenses.
If he wants to get people to do as he orders even when they do not like it, he needs to distance himself from clearly unconstitutional and stupid threats.
Sessions BTW has only recused himself from all matters involving Russia and the Election campaign. Sessions can go after Hillary.
Rosenstein needs to resign – he is tied into the U1 coverup. If there is an investigation he will atleast be a witness and probably a target. I think we are past recuse with Rosenstein.
I would finally note that DOJ/FBI can not investigate willy nilly – neither can the SC.
Rosensteins mandate for the SC was unconstitutional.
If you want a wide ranging investigation unconstrained by the constraints of criminal investigations, you need to conduct it from congress.
But you also need to note that Congress can not prosecute, it can only investigate.
Congress does not appoint Special Counsels.
Using the older Independent prosecutor law – which has expired, Congress could appoint the special prosecutor. But the IC law had constitutional issues – as I noted before congress can investigate, it can not prosecute.
But we elide the constitution all the time – The executive can not legislate or regulate, but it does all the time. That is done through unconstitutional delegation,
But it is not likely you are going to get SCOTUS to reverse on that.
Roby,
Each of us is “alone” in our views – no one has exactly your views either,
To the extent that these things are common – I am far from alone, and I have hundreds of years of history, philosophy and most of the great thinkers of the west and many of those of other cultures.
But morality and truth (and science) are not decided by consensus.
The roots of classical liberalism emerged in Germany following Martin Luther.
New religions appeared all over and barons and kings each adopted different ones.
As is common even today, within each political entity tolerance of minorities was low often resulting in persecution and violence. But where a group was a minority in one division it was often the majority in a neighboring one, with the result that neighboring rules felt the need to go to war to support their co-religionists in the adjactent state.
Decades of wars like this exhausted states. Victory was impossible, and constant war little better.
Eventually toleration of religious minorities evolved as a government principle.
Not because people believed in it. Not because there was some strong value placed on religious pluralism, but because the alternative was violent and impracticle.
This was the birth of classical liberalism. It has never been the majority perspective.
The desire of the majority – people like you, to use force to impose their wills on the lives of others has always been two high.
In fact meddling in the lives of other is WORSE in democracies that in more autocratic states. It is easier for a single ruler to grasp that conflict with a minority of their people is not worth the trouble than it is for a political majority. Both democratic and republican parties seem to beleive that the impramatur of 51% of the people allows them to do as they please. Obama’s assertion that “Elections have consequences” – taken to mean we won, we get to impose our rules on you is quite vile.
Today the tables are turned – the left seems completely unable to accept that same dictate applies to them and Trump, despite the fact that most of Trump’s actions are to undo the crap Obama imposed.
Look arround you. Our world has changed radically in the past 50 years.
Many of those changes are reflected in our politics and government.
But the successful changes are driven by the people as a whole – not government.
We have changed radically with regard to issues of sexual orientation, and we have done so in a short time. We have done so for the most part without laws, and to the extent the law has been successfully involved that law has been libertarian law, not progressive law.
The remaining battle grounds are those involving the respect for other minorities, the understanding that the rights of people to their own choices regarding sexual orientation end at the rights of people to their own choices regarding religion.
The bars against Force and fraud are the line that prevents one set of rights from conflict with another.
It is irrelevant whether the details of my views are shared by all or one.
My principles, values and morality are the only ones that work. Further all other arrangements work ever worse the more pluralistic society is.
Ultimately you have two choices – continue this nonsense of trying to get your own way by force, with the resulting constant ebb and flow of power between possibly shifting groups.
Trump and “trumpism” are the consequence of the success of the left. That is your future. Defeat Trump, regain power return to your efforts to transform society by force, and the growing minoriities you alienate – because the use of force always alienates people, will eventually be large enough to toss you out of power – and they will make the same mistakes as you and in their turn be displaced.
So long as most people beleive they can impose their will on others by force – this dance will continue forever. Further you should feel lucky. Historically the past failures of the left tend to result in much more totalitarian regimes than Trump.
Two popular conservative Twitter personalities were just outed as Russian trolls:
(And #ShitForBrainsTrump still won’t sign off on the Russia sanctions. Why not?)
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/russia-fake-twitter-facebook-posts-accounts-trump-election-jenna-abrams-20171103.html
Be careful Jay!!! Until you put a muzzle on Twitter and Facebook, there are going to be people manipulating information, posting lies, hiding their real identity and trying to make you believe things that may not be true, Make sure you check out the information that you see on these social sites so you are not blindsided by information like you were by Philly.com.
Please know that just because it is on the internet does not make it true.
You’re right, Ron. It’s a tricky tightrope between censorship and 1st Amendment rights. But we don’t want organized interfearance in our lives by foreign entities, like those Russian Bots, right?
So how do we find fictitiohs accounts on Twitter and Facebook? How do we know Jim Smith is in Iowa and not Boris Spetokov in NYC represnting Russia on Facebook. How does Facebook know if Ron in NC post some meme that is anti candidate B or if it is the Russian in NYC.
Its tough and the decisions made will have lasting impacts for 100 years or more. Just like gun control, the first control on social sites will allow a crack in the Bill of Rights the government will drive a Mack truck through. That is why I am so much a defender of the words in the constitution and so against interpretations based on political positions. That and the fact I have a very low olinion of any politician who is a member of the two party system.
“So how do we find fictitiohs accounts on Twitter and Facebook? How do we know Jim Smith is in Iowa and not Boris Spetokov in NYC represnting Russia on Facebook. ”
I’m guessing the technology is available to social media to verify nation of origin.
I don’t have a problem with Facebook or Twitter or WordPress listing my nation/Homeland or even home State alongside my membership. I don’t see that as intrusive. Do you?
I have a problem with most any form of government censorship. If the companies want to do that, it is fine with me. Someone else can start another site that does not allow that public information and people can determine which ones they will use. However, I did say Boris Spetocov was Russian in NYC, not a foreign country, just like the women you linked to.
So, how do we filter out political interference without the monitoring of all comments for “key” words.
You can’t – because the public expression of a POV – even by a real russian in russia working for the FSB and and pretending to be a 13 yr old from Iowa is not actually interferance.
Why cant someone start a site that does not censor comments and content if Twitter and Facebook do?
There is no reason one can’t.
There is a replacement for youtube called dtube that is monetized using bitcoin.
But it is not very popular yet.
There is a replacement for twitter called gab I beleive.
I think Der Sturmer and many who got banned from Twitter moved there.
I do not know about facebook.
Social media as a whole has been taking hits for handling conservative posts and news quite different from others.
I do nto think we are there, but there is a risk to them of a significant exodous.
It would not take but a few percent to change their politcies.
If the technology exists – PLEASE DO NOT USE IT!!!
This entire line of reasoning is ridiculously dangerous and stupid.
You would have silence Franklin, Madison, Jay, Hamilton and most of our founders.
It is possible to interfere with the speach of others. It is not possible to prevent the speach fo those you do not want, without also preventing that of lots of others.
It is also not your right to do.
We already have far too much biased stupid censorship in social media.
And yes, I do think that Twitter/FB/…. listing anything that I do not choose to allow them to list about me is an intrusion – and invasion of privacy.
Why must I allow people online to know who I am, where I live, or other facts about me ?
Why can;’t you grasp how horribly badly this will go ?
If you did not think Trump was somehow the benefiticary you would be arguing exactly the opposite of what you are now.
Your values and principles are about outcome only.
Dave you know they share info. You can choose to use them or not. It is their system and as long as they let peolle know they do it, then fine.
A request to not go somewhere is not the same as a command.
Regardless, there is a very very serious problem with congress saying – censor yourself or we will censor you.
That is a very improper form of prior restraint.
Dear Dummy.. Facebook and Twitter are non government businesses and have zero obligation to keep info you provide them to use their services private.
If their rules for allowing you access to their services include stipulations that they can publish that info – make it available to whomever they want — that’s up to them.
Same here. If Rick decided You had to use real names to comment, not aliases, and provide accurate zip codes as well, YOU would have the choice of complying or finding another place to funnel your skewed gushes of inconsequential nonsense.
How is any of that unconstitutional? Or abridging your rights?
“Dear Dummy” learn to read.
The problem distinguishing between private and government action is YOURS not mine.
Government may not bar speach a priori, it may not censor speach. It may not threaten to do so.
All of the above is unconstitutional prior restraint.
When congressmen say to social media – censor yourself or we will – that is unconstitutional, immoral and unethical.
With respect to private actors.
What they are free to do and what they are wise to do, are quite different.
Lets assume for the purposes of argument that social media splits.
And we have two competing systems – “free social media”, where anyone can post anything even using a pseudonym, and “stalinist social media” where all must use there real names and provide their locations. and …..
Can you live in a world that is that way ?
Can you live with the possibility on on “free social media” Russia might be able to make posts comparing Clinton to satan ?
Can you live with the fact that people might not be able to tell if some people are russian government trolls ?
If you were given your own sandbox, with safe spaces and crying blankets and all the censorship and rules you want – would you be willing to leave the rest of us alone with whatever freedoms we wanted ?
I would note, that if you are prepared to accept that there can be social media where russian trolls as free to post under pseudonyms, then you have lost the entire Russia social media argument – because in 2016 that was how social media was.
If however you are claiming that a “free social media” can not be permitted, then all you are doing is unconstitutionally bypassing constraints on the federal government by holding a gun to the head of private actors.
Government may not accomplish through threats or manipulation of private actors, what it can not do directly itself.
Why do we care about “fictitious” accounts ?
I have posted here as asmith, jbsay, and dhlii – none of these are my real name – though the last is my initials.
I had FB cancel my account in my real name, claiming I was not who I said I was, even though I provided my drivers license to them – probably because my read name is the same as someone who is famous.
Franklin wrote letters to the editor to his own papers using a wide variety of pseudonyms,
The federalist and antifederalist papers were written using pseudonyms.
We have an incredibly long tradition of political speach using pseudonyms.
The supreme court has upheld the right to speak anonymously.
Not only is it difficult to cull accounts – we should not be doing so.
Finally why do we care who says something ?
This entire argument is a bizarre twist on an appeal to authority.
The left seems to think that arguments are valid because the right persona made them,
they are now arguing they are invalid because the wrong person made them.
Why do I care whether something is posted by John Smith, Boris Spetokov, or Vladimir Putin personally ?
why do I care if Boris lives in Iowa, NYC, or Moscow ?
Why do I care if he is employed by ADM or the FSB ?
Why do I care if what he writes is true or false ?
I am a voter, I can read myself, I can checkout what I read or not as I wish. I can make my decisions on whatever basis I want.
This entire left Russia meme ultimately devolves into a demand to control what people can see, read, and hear prior to an election.
If those on the left do not wish to be compared to communists, they should not channel communist policies.
Dave, you need to ask Jay those questions. My comment was in response to his being upset that some woman in ( forget the state, he shared link) was posting comments under a fake name and she apparently worked for the Russians.
I do not want the government controlling speech, religion, guns, press, social media or having keys to unlock yiur ohone that will also unlock mine. I think the liberals would take all guns and the conservatives would monitor all phones under the name of safety and security if they could.
Like I said, if Twitter or Facebook censors conversations and that is in their user agreement, thhen fine, people can choose to use them or find anotherr site that doesnt because they are private and own the site. The government dies not.
Your correct, my response should have been to Jay.
The rest I agree with.
It is not a tricky tight rope.
The government may not censor speach based on content – at all ever.
It may not do so by proxy.
Prior restraint which is what you are after here had the absolute highest constitutional burden of everything – you just plain can not engage in prior restraint.
This is fundimentally the same argument I make regarding regulation – for the same reason.
A priori constraints on human activity are not only far more damaging than punishment for actual harms, but the actual extent of a priori harms is completely unknown.
You will never know what would have been – had people be able to say or do something that the law prohibited.
Someone else’s speach does nto interfere with your life – not even the speach of Russian Bots.
You are free to not listen.
Why does this matter ?
We have been through this over and over.
Aren’t Russians allowed on the internet ?
Aren’t they allowed to express themselves politically ?
Aren’t people allowed to speak anonymously ?
If you equate “influence” with speak – the argument is over, and you lose.
Russia may have “spoken” in our election. Who cares ? Can’t be stopped.
Wise people would not want to.
Your argument still boils down to:
I did nto get the outcome I wanted
Whatever might have caused that must be evil.
I do not care if you “out” some twitter or facebook account as belonging to hitler.
What I really want is for you to grasp how stupid and harmful this is.
You are arguing for 1984.
It does not matter what Russians may have said – unless you beleive that magic incantations changes peoples votes.
You are ultimately arguing for the power to control not just who speaks but what they say – because ultimately they are inseparable.
What if your “russian trolls” were not russians – they were just ordinary conservatives ?
Would you bar that – even if it was somehow magically their words that tipped the election ?
I don’t know what you’re babbling about.
Do you?
The words are all ordinary english and quite clear.
My argument is not only consistent, but consistent with natural rights, and the US constitution. They are also consistent with what is possible.
If there are actually pseudonymous russians acting as agents for the Kremlin posting about US elections on social media – then we must allow that,
There is no way to prevent it without also infringing all over the place on a plethora of our rights.
Further your argument is rooted in the idiocy that who says something matters more than what is said.
You do not like the results – the outcome of the election. So you are trying to change the conditions of the election to acheive a different result.
Voters are entitled to listen to (or ignore) any expression they wish – including Russia.
I honestly do not understand how you are unable to grasp how bad an outcome you are going to get if you start down this road.
Billionaire Robert Mercer did Trump a huge favor. Will he get a payback?
McClatchy Washington Bureau
MAY 01, 2017 6:00 AM
WASHINGTON
The Internal Revenue Service is demanding a whopping $7 billion or more in back taxes from the world’s most profitable hedge fund, whose boss’s wealth and cyber savvy helped Donald Trump pole-vault into the White House.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147454324.html
Jay, would you be surprised if he did get a payback? What president has not “paid back” political supporters in the past?
What kind of payback are you content with him getting from the tRUMP Administration?
If you find an actual quid pro quo – then you can bring it to the house and ask for impeachment.
If you wish to reign in even the possibility of quid pro quo’s.
Disempower the federal government. That is the only thing that will work.
I would love to see our politicians caught in corruption – including Trump.
While you can not get at Trumps tax return – you can get at all records of his actions as president. File FOIA requests until you find whatever Quid Pro Quo you are looking for.
“Trump attorney threatens formal challenges to Mueller/DOJ if Russia probe gets into old real-estate deals. politi.co/2iu2xSr @politico “
What’s DouchieDon afraid they’ll find?
Jay, what is Muellers directive? To find what happened with Russian influence into our elections or to find something to impeach the president?
If it is Russian influence, then he should allow the investigation to continue.
If it is prior real estate dealings, then lets reopen Whitewater along with every Trump deal since 1980. What good for the goose is good for the gander.
What if it’s about previous tRUMP dealings with Russian money laundering?
Wouldn’t that be relevant to an investigation of Russian meddling in the election, as it would make Donnie vulnurable to Russian influence in our politics?
The standard for a criminal investigation is not
“What if there was a crime committed”.
BTW Mueller is going to lose on the Money laundering charges.
Money laundering requires that the money is the result of criminal activities.
What Manafort was engaged in was tax evasion, and I would guess that Mueller did nto charge that because in 2014 Manafort was investigated by the IRS and my guess is that he paid fines and settled. So the tax evasion claims are dead.
That leave only the FARA claim – which is very weak.
Manafort does not appear to be a very reputable person.
He has clearly been playing at the dark grey edges of the law.
But Mueller is making his own mistakes and seriously overcharging.
Much of this may not get to a jury, and what little does will not survive appeal.
That does not mean I think Manafort is a good guy. Only that we should follow the law, not make it up.
Building a fake money laundering charge is what we do not want – an out of control and lawless Prosecutor
The U1 deal and his role highlights the contrast.
I can trivially make much the same money laundering charge against the clintons as is being made against manafort – CF received monies, and then paid for food, lodging and travel for the Clintons – that is “money laundering” by Mueller’s definition.
It is also tax evasion.
The Clinton investigation was done through the independent council act – which many agree was unconstitutional.
Regardless the IC had more power than the SC has. Further the IC was structurally an adjunct of Congress not DOJ – that changes many things. Starr had to go to Congress for approval everytime he sought to broaden his investigation.
The SC act requires Mueller to go to Rosenstein.
Rosenstein should resign or be fired he is horribly conflicted, and if Mueller wishes to go beyond the scope he was given – which should be narrowed, then he should have to make a case to the Deputy AG that he has found evidence of a crime as a result of his investigations into what he is supposed to be investigating.
Regardless, everyone seems to entirely get this wrong – the government can not go looking for a crime. If they do not have evidence of a crime to START, they may not investigate.
I can not just say I think Jay and Roby are engaged in sketchy real estate deals I want government to investigate them.
it does not matter.
Nothing Mueller charged re manafort is inside even his broad brief.
You seem to be happy with fishing expeditions. Should we set a US attonery to tear your life apart ? I have no doubt they can find that you have committed a felony – probably without knowing it.
Wishing to keep your private life private is not an admission of guilt.
tRump:
When he ran for office he promised AMERICA TRANSPARENCY TO HIS TAXES!
What happened to that promise? Too much to hide? Russian connections? Mafia connections? Sexual assaults payoffs? Shakey finances? All of the above?
liar liar toupee on fire!
Is there a law on the books requiring presidents to release their taxes. If so, then he needs to release them or face a legal challenge.
If not, then it is his choice to release them or not. Just because he said he would and now he won’t, I guess he lied.
I bet I could find something somewhere in the past where the president lied to the people.
Ron, stop it.
Show me an example where a previous candidate lied about doing something he promised he would, in relation to his business transparency, to prevent egregious conflicts of interest.
If there was a question about the legality of his marriage, and he had a legal way to keep from showing the marriage license after promising to do so, wouldn’t that make his varicity suspect?
He’s hiding something important enough to lie about. Don’t you think you, as a citizen, should know what it is?
I am not prepared to make my Tax return public – are you ?
Of course he is hiding something.
He is hiding his financial affairs – something all of us are entitled to.
I agree with you he lied. Find me a politician that hasn’t.
Regardless, all voters knew on election day he had not made his tax return available, and was unlikely to afterwards.
That was you opportunity to express your concern.
Beyond that you do not have a right to other peoples tax returns.
Not even the presidents.
I know that you beleive you are entitled to know everything that you want about anyone you wish – but your not.
“I am not prepared to make my Tax return public – are you ?”
Don’t you understand how stupid this question is?
It is not a stupid question.
Just saw this, good for a laugh…
Politicians lie – get over it.
Regardless, you did not vote for him.
He made no binding agreement with you.
“He made no binding agreement with you.”
You mean he made no LEGAL binding promise with me or the nation.But he broke a binding of trust, by promising to release his taxes, and failing to do that.
He promised that BEFORE his election, Dumb-Dumb. First he said he would release them BEFORE voting day, and reneged on that. Then he said he would release them if he won. He failed to follow through on both. A DOUBLE LIE. Did that slip your mind? What the hell is wrong with your brain? Why would you rationalize deception as blatant as that?
You really are a sorry sack of Silly-Putty slipshod moral stances. You’re insinuating Lying is ok if it isn’t notorized, and that tRUMP isn’t obligated to tell the truth to those who didn’t vote for him like me. Shylock should be your alias here.
We are not disagreeing with respect to the facts – even though you keep pounding the facts as if there is a disagreement.
Yup, he lied. So what ? It was not a very big lie. It changed no votes.
On election day if getting Trump’s tax return was critical to you – you were free to vote accordingly
With respect to an agreement binding in any form.
You did not vote for him – he had no agreement of any kind with you.
He merely made an offer and then changed his mind.
Regardless, we see the same things. I am just not frothing at the mouth over them.
I thought it was a mistake for Trump to promise his tax return, I did not expect him to provide it. I did not rely on his offer. I have suffered no harm in not gaining what I never had a right to in the first place.
Trump made alot of commitments.
Those commitments were essentially of the form – vote for me and I will do X.
If you did not vote for him, you have no standing to demand that he does X.
Those who voted for Trump appear to be satisfied.
No one cares that you are not.
If Trump does provide his tax return are you voting for him in 2020 ?
If not, then no one cares what you want.
All this crap about Clinton misusing DNC resources is turning out to be just that – CRAP!
“Howard Dean: Clinton-DNC agreement was ‘standard operating procedure’”
“Turns out the memo [former DNC chair] Donna [Brazile] spoke about applied only to the general election,” Dean said. “If so then this memo is standard operating procedure for 15 years.”
The agreement was not necessarily exclusive to the Clinton campaign and allowed the DNC to remain open to signing agreements with other candidates for advising on fundraising, research and staffing.
It was intended only to be used in the general election, although the agreement contains clauses related to other primary candidates, including an allowance for Clinton’s campaign to review mass communications “that features a particular Democratic primary candidate.”
The DNC noted in the memo that communication related to primary debates “will be exclusively controlled by the DNC.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/358748-howard-dean-clinton-dnc-agreement-was-standard-operating
MORE SANDERS UNWILLINGNESS TO CHIP IN TO HELP DNC
“The same offer was made to all candidates, Clinton allies have argued in countering Brazile, but only Clinton took advantage of it.
And an email obtained by NBC News, first published by the Washington Post, shows the DNC’s lawyers told the Sanders campaign they could have some influence over how money would be spent to prepare for the general election if they raised enough cash for the party.
“[I]f you’re raising significantly more than the amount to cover the voter file for the DNC, DNC staff would be happy to chat with the Sanders team and come to an understanding about the best way to use those funds to prepare for the general election at the DNC,” Graham Wilson of the firm Perkins Coie wrote.
“The DNC has had discussions like this with the Clinton campaign and is of course willing to do so with all.”
However, Sanders’ joint fundraising agreement with the DNC, signed in November, 2015, which was also obtained by NBC News, does not appear to include a supplemental deal.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/bernie-sanders-camp-fix-was-against-clinton-n817501
Hillary didn’t go out of her way to help Bernie, big surprise!
Did Disingenuous Donnie go out of his way to help any of the other Republicans running for president? Or did he do everything he could to demean and disgrace them? Some like Cruz (beat me whip me insult me and my family) ended up licking his shoes in obeisance. The Republican Anal Party is now in perpetual bend over, spreading its collective cheeks to Trumpty Dumpty’s rule.
Jay;
I disagree that all of this is crap. I think it looks pretty bad, and I think that it is clearly unethical.
But it is not or should not be illegal.
Those of you on the left do not seem to be able to grasp that every bad deed is not a crime. That everything that people can be outraged over is not something government must fix.
You complain because Trump promised to release his taxes.
He did promise.
He did not release them.
That is lying.
It is not a crime.
Voters knew at the time of the election he had not produced his taxes and chose accordingly.
You can be outraged – I doubt Trumpo cares – neither you nor I voted for him anyway.
I think it is unlikely the media will let go of this DNC mess – because the left needs someone to blame for losing and the Russia meme is falling apart.
Ultimately the left will blame Hillary.
When two ex president from your own party knock you this badly, you know you’re at the bottom of the barrel.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/358745-george-w-bush-im-worried-that-i-will-be-the-last-republican
Given that the Bush’s are both progressives like Obama why would I care about their concept of what constitutes a republicans.
The Bushes are not hated, but they are not representative of Republicans.
The new Representative Republican:
It would be news to both Bush 41 and Bush 43 that they’re progressives. They’re simply mainstream Republicans from the era before the Tea Party drove the GOP to the far right.
Rick, I might take issue with your comment about the Tea Party taking over the GOP. I, and a number of friends, supported the TP when it first showed up. Fiscal conservatives wanting attention on spending and taxes. Then the social conservatives took over the TP and our support went elsewhere. So now the GOP is led by social conservatives with liberal tax and spend positions. If they were fiscal conservatives, they would not be supporting tax reform that add 1.5 trillion in debt.
Medicare D, Sarbox, NCLB
The Bush’s do reflect a particular strain of Republicanism – you can probably add Romney to that list.
I think they are decent people, but they still start from the premise that government is the answer regardless of the problem.
They are outside the past traditions of Taft or Eisenhower.
They are closer to the tradition of Nixon.
Both parties are currently engaged in internecine warfare.
The GOP is further along as its disruption started with the vaccuum created as Social conservatives diminished in power.
Neo-conns appear to be moving to the democratic party.
I am not sure what will happen to the Bush wing – but if they remain they will be marginalized.
Democrats are having a similar problem but, Democrats have fewer factions and the far left has taken ownership of the party.
The Tea Party did not actually drive the Party right, they were a LEFT shift.
It is just harder to perceive that as they represent the most extreme parts of the GOP moving away from the religious right and social conservatism.
It would be like antifa rejecting left anarchy and adopting democratic socialism.
They would still be pretty far left, but it would be a move right.
Regardless, the demise of social conservatives concurrently disempowered the left wing of the GOP – the people you are calling moderates.
Trump won the last election – not by appealing to people who would have voted for Romney, but by appealing to blue collar democrats.
That worked because neo-conns and Bush republicans do not have much political power today and do not make up a significant portion of republicans.
As with everything there are complexities to this – though the “great sorting” is nearly complete – which is what is making it easier for more “extreme” republicans (and democrats) to get elected – there are still a number of purple states.
If you are going to find Bush republicans – you will find them there – or more rarely as republican governors or senators in blue states.
“So now the GOP is led by social conservatives with liberal tax and spend positions. If they were fiscal conservatives, they would not be supporting tax reform that add 1.5 trillion in debt.”
Dead on!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brazile-i-considered-replacing-clinton-with-biden-as-2016-democratic-nominee/2017/11/04/f0b75418-bf4c-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.3dc15b3a831c
“Brazile alleges that Clinton’s top aides routinely disrespected her…”
Oh, now I get the petulant foot stomping.
My newest WordPress problem:
Images won’t post.
The image uploads ok, but doesn’t appear.
Sigh.
Anyone else commenting via iPad?
Yup, real foot stomping: “Brazile writes that she inherited a national party in disarray, in part because President Obama, Clinton and Wasserman Schultz were “three titanic egos” who had “stripped the party to a shell for their own purposes.”
Donna is not the first to say this: “Brazile writes that Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and his lieutenants were so obsessed with voter data and predictive analytics that they “missed the big picture.”
Yup, may have cost the three wing states.
Reminder:
https://townhall.com/columnists/clarkneily/2017/10/30/if-the-law-is-this-complicated-why-shouldnt-ignorance-be-an-excuse-n2401290?utm_content=buffer87e9e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
I guess I am an extremist – I do not agree with any of these.
Roger Stone got banned from twitter for using obsenities.
This is what your individual freedom to post and post ad nauseum adds up to, and no, we are not free to skip, ignore, they are like locusts). You clog the discourse just as you probably do at the buffet table and public toilets and highways. Yes, this is a personal insult to you not a wimpy ad hominem:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/high-angle-view-of-cow-dung-in-the-grass-royalty-free-image/56659950
What? dave’s barrage of posts and images haven’t made you just want to run out and convert to his brand of extreme libertarianism yet?
He has 10 000 more such sure-fire one-liner propaganda messages in the pipeline, submit now and you can avoid the further brainwashing sessions!
Thing is, I used to sorta like the idea of libertarianisim. I have heard some libertarians that made a lot of sense on some points. Now I don’t know.
dduck ” I have heard some libertarians that made a lot of sense on some points. Now I don’t know.”
Just like you can not judge all Democrats by using Pelosi as an example or all Republicans by using Cruz as an example, one must realize you can not use Dave as an example of all Libertarians. While Pelosi is almost falling off the scale on the left and Cruz off the scale on the right, Dave is falling off the Libertarian scale from his extreme views of being a Libertarian. Not all Libertarians hold the extreme views that Dave holds on anti government, anti compromise, anti regulation anti etc……
Maybe Libertarians tend to be pains in the ass who invite unneighborly response …
So it is acceptable to you to run onto another’s property tackle them off of a lawn mower and break their ribs because you do not like their views ?
I guess that should not surprise me, you are prepared to use force without justification all the time.
I have no idea what you think “unneighborly” is, but it is never a justification for the use of force.
In fact that is the core of libertarianism – the fact that my views, or anyone else’s offend you, does not permit you to use force against me, or anyone else.
Chill out. It was tounge in cheek facetious.
(I guess obsessives have trouble with nuance)
This is the internet – sarcasm, irony, facetiousness do not communicate well.
You do not judge ideas by the people who hold them.
Much of the darkness in the recent spat with Roby was my following him into that mistake.
ad hominem is a logical fallacy – meaning it says nothing about the truth or falsity of the initial argument. But it is a vile fallacy because it sidetracks the argument from debate over issues to debate over people, and inherently turns into an insult contest.
In the end it leaves everyone covered in shit, and whatever issue was debated is long lost.
Extreme is just an adjective.
John Locke, Ben Franklin, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,
these are amount the myriads of people who hold views very similar to mine.
If they are “extreme” then I am proud to be among them.
Regardless,
“Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free speech but object to their being “pushed to an extreme”, not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case”
— John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
If your ideas, my ideas, Roby’s ideas, do not work when “pushed to the extreme ” then at worst they are false and at best they are improperly defined.
I am a minarchist, not an anarchist. I am not anti-government
Our govenrment should be far smaller than today.
but I will support most any movement towards less government.
I do not oppose compromise, I oppose the idiocy that compromise is a principle rather than a tool. This should be trivially self evident. Should we have compromised with Hitler and permitted him to kill half the jews ?
When we choose to use force to limit freedom to accomplish some good purpose, we have a positive obligation to demonstrate that:
We will accomplish that good purpose
We have chosen the means that least constrains liberty to do so.
Demonstrate to me any a priori constraint aka regulation, that meets those criteria and we can have a more serious discussion concerning regulation.
Worse still one of our core principles – “ignorance of the law is no excuse” has several critical premises:
That the concepts of right and wrong are so universal that we all know that something is wrong, whether we know it is illegal.
That we do not make illegal what is not universally accepted as wrong.
That the breadth of law can not exceed what we can easily know.
If those premises are not met, then barring ignorance of the law as a defence is itself immoral.
Even if I am wrong and some regulation is necescary or atleast good, the more extreme position is that of defending the status quo.
No regulation is far closer to any possible optimum than what we have.
The extreme position is supporting the status quo.
Labeling an argument extreme is just a technique for dismissing it without considering its merits.
In any given set of choices, the best outcome falls wherever it falls.
If that is in the middle – so be it. But no law of man or nature says that all our best solutions must fall in the center. Should they fall at some extreme – that is not a reason to shrink from them.
We should seek our answers where they are.
“A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “this is where the light is””
When I am not getting sucked into Roby’s dark work of ad hominem,
The core of libertarianism is
“the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”.
John Stuart Mill.
There are myriads of other expressions of this principle, which is often call the non-aggression principle.
It is Kant’s catagorical imperative
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
If is sometimes called the law of equal freedom
This is Alaxander Hamilton’s expression of that.
“All men have one common original, they participate in one common nature, and consequently have one common right. No reason can be assigned why one man should exercise any power over his fellow creatures more than another, unless they voluntarily vest him with it.”
Every argument I have made regarding one humans ability to impose their will on another by force or through government is consistent with the above.
That is the social contract. That is the basis for government.
That is the organizing principle of libertarianism, of classical liberalism.
If that does not make sense to you – then libertarianism will not.
So the mere fact of my posting anything – even someone else’s words, even pictures annoys you ?
Regardless, still ad hominem, not a valid argument.
“Just like you can not judge all Democrats by using Pelosi as an example or all Republicans by using Cruz as an example, one must realize you can not use Dave as an example of all Libertarians. While Pelosi is almost falling off the scale on the left and Cruz off the scale on the right, Dave is falling off the Libertarian scale from his extreme views of being a Libertarian. Not all Libertarians hold the extreme views that Dave holds on anti government, anti compromise, anti regulation anti etc……”
Ron, you are the one who provides that balance, the one who puts some kind of sensible fiscally conservative socially liberal un-extreme libertarian philosophy in a good light. A sane balanced budget, socially liberal party would have a chance if it does not take those ideas to far left and right.
We all know perfectly well that Dave is a far outlier. He certainly is not doing any positive promotion of Libertarian ideas. But, you are.
“Much of the darkness in the recent spat with Roby was my following him into that mistake.
ad hominem is a logical fallacy – meaning it says nothing about the truth or falsity of the initial argument. But it is a vile fallacy because it sidetracks the argument from debate over issues to debate over people, and inherently turns into an insult contest.
In the end it leaves everyone covered in shit, and whatever issue was debated is long lost.”
With this I absolutely agree. Lets see if both of us can act on this idea.
Both false and ad hominem.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/woman-flips-off-donald-trump-fired_us_59fe0ab4e4b0c9652fffa484
https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/59fff0541d00003b007f44cb.jpeg?ops=crop_0_737_1133_628,scalefit_630_noupscale
So ?
Has anyone deprived her of the right to flip off the president ?
Your job is not a right, your freedom of expression is.
Wise people often limit their expression, to preserve things they do not hold by right.
Another of your choice stupid moronic statements.
She’s being PUNISHED for a gesture of political protest, you idiot.
Only a nitwit would see a picayune difference between the government fining her $$$ or her employer FIRING her.
“Another of your choice stupid moronic statements.
She’s being PUNISHED for a gesture of political protest, you idiot.
Only a nitwit would see a picayune difference between the government fining her $$$ or her employer FIRING her.”
Yes, this is about political protest.
No one including government may not use force against you for political expression.
The loss of your job is not force, and it is not the action of government.
Can I bar you from my home because you gave the finger to Trump ? Obama ?
I would hope you understand that I can.
Can I refuse to buy from Chick-a-filet because they contribute to homophobic casuses ?
I would hope that you understand that I can.
Your loss of something you did not have a right to in the first place is not an actual harm.
Her employer owes her for the work she performed, but absent a contract to the contrary they owe her nothing more.
I think it is stupid to fire someone for flipping the bird to the president.
I might protest her employer.
But it is still a legitimate legal consequence.
You do not seem to grasp that all conduct you do not like is not illegal.
That’s it – add more stupidity to your dumbness.
Not an argument
The actual topic of Rick’s post was trump and his detractors. As always, its quickly morphed into a debate about libertarian philosophy. How many of us want TNM to be a perpetual discussion of extreme libertarian thinking to the near exclusion of all else?
No, I am not trying to use force to stop that but I am asking a question that is perfectly valid, and certainly as valid as the perpetual libertarian sales job.
Roby
You are free to take the discussion wherever you want.
It is unusal for any post here to remain narrowly constrained to some topic for long.
Often many topics are addressed.
I am comfortable with that.
Regardless, this blog is not a democracy, and absent Rick intervening,
each of us is free to steer discussions wherever we want.
Anything involving government will inherently provide a platform for expounding on any political ideology.
You can expect that when you propound yours, you will get my “extreme libertarian” efforts to take over the world and leave you the hell alone – in your own life, expecting foolishly the same from you.
while you are asking a valid question.
You are not asking one where the results have consequence.
Jay can ask “home many people want Trump impeached?”
No matter what the results that will not change whether Trump is impeached or whether those who differ are free to express their difference.
You are now offering the fallacy that everything is a democracy.
Get over it. Any involuntary democracy is inherently totalitarian.
Even a blog.
If as a hypothetical example, Rick should agree to the will of the majority here on some point, and impose that by force – that would prove my point that democracy is inherently totalitarian.
“You are now offering the fallacy that everything is a democracy.”
What is the name of the fallacy where someone tries the same thing over and over at high volume for ten years to convince people of an idea and instead of that approach working it drives people away who might otherwise have some interest? What is the name of the fallacy where they simply double down and increase the intensity of the campaign?
If an argument is correct it does not become incorrect by repetition.
If an argument is correct it does not become incorrect if all save one reject it.
This is a blog, there is no “volume”
The truth or falsity of an argument is independent of the effectiveness of the means used to persuade.
In short again you have made no argument
Your response is “I do not like your style”.
I do not care.
SECOND TRY!
Dave,yes extreme is just an adjective. Where I use this concerning your form of Libertarianism comes from your positions on government regulation in areas where corporate misconduct can cause harm to others. Where you seem to believe corporations will do the right thing and if they dont there are legal means for those harmed to right a wrong, I hold the belief that some government regulation is required to significantly reduce actions causing harm before it happens. There are other differences in our beliefs and those can be debated when the time is right.
The important issue is convincing others that the current two party system is not representing the majority of Americans today. And those that have enough support to challenge the two party system need to put America first and stop worrying about the fallout if they dont win and someone else does.
But one thing I have come to accept after 8 months of Trump administration is anyone in business that have run a successful company and become a 1%er is nuts to put themselves in politics. Your reputation will be destroyed by innuendo alone when the press manipulates information to make legal things look shady.
Ron
There is no special reason to distinguish between the acts of individuals and those of individuals in voluntary groups, such as corporations.
Misconduct, is still misconduct.
If some malfeasance on the part of an individual or corporation causes harm to others, at the very least there is a valid tort – and has been for 3-4 centuries.
When Ford did not repair a flaw in their pickup gas tanks because the repairs would have cost more than they expected to lose in wrongful death lawsuits, the Jury awarded several Billion to the victims.
That is one of many legitimate ways we “regulate” misconduct that harms others.
We do not need special laws or regulations.
It is simple, your acts cause actual harm to another, you are responsible.
Further the incentives are right. If you have a problem, you work to reduce the harm you cause, not to comply with some rule. Because the critical rule is cause no harm.
Identify a regulation that is not redundant with torts ?
Whether in torts or elsewhere we have gone insane making things illegal many times over.
We now have “hate crimes” – wasn’t it illegal to kill people before ?
Is it twice as illegal to assault a black person ?
Regardless, show me a regulation that is demonstrably necescary and benefitical and is not already a valid tort ?
No I do not beleive people or corporations always do the right thing.
I have never said anything even close to that.
I do beleive that facts demonstrate that the behavior of people in free exchange is far more rarely corrupt or harmful than in government – it is not even close.
But I am not pretending that all interchange between people is always without harm.
Completely absent regulation we already have many ways to address the harmful conduct that occurs.
I also fully accept that Government is sometimes necescary to reduce harms.
Torts require government and courts.
They are quite similar to regulation.
But they have two important distinctions.
They are after the fact – they only punish actual harms.
They are anti-legalistic, The “bright line” of torts, is “do not harm others’
With regulation it is do not assemble the widget in this way.
Torts only addresses bad outcomes. Everyone knows the rule, and there is only one rule
Do not harm others.
Regulation does not address outcomes – it can’t. It addresses means.
Regulation is do not do X in this way.
Like I said, your Libertarianism is much more Libertarian than mine. I dont want my daughter as one of the plaintiffs in a class action suit against a large corporation that produced a product that caused my grand daughters death and that death could have been avoided with government regulating that product. You keep posting that liability suits are the recourse available for these actions. I am not comfortable with a court settlement in place if a family members life.
I would agree with your hypothetical.
But it is not reality.
As i have noted repeatedly no regulation has ever bent the trend on anything.
Further your hypothetical has a flaw.
If The potential loss of billions of dollars was not enough to motivate Ford to fix a problem in their pickups – why would a regulation do so ?
Would some big corporation who could be bankrupted by a poor choice, and makes it anyway, be dissuaded because that choice might violate some regulation ?
Regulations do not avoid anything – atleast not without avoiding an incredible amount of good along with the bad.
BTW torts is not the ONLY means of addressing any of this.
It is typically the last resort.
McD’s altered the way its rules for suppliers raising chickens for chicken mcnuggests – because of a threatened peta boycott.
J&J completely transformed the way medicines are packaged as a result of the Tylenol poisoning scare.
Changes are made to improve our products and safety all the time that have nothing at all to do with govenrment regulation.
The statistical evidence is that few if any government regulations are actually effective.
For the most part regulations FOLLOW market changes.
Air and water polution peaked during WWII when government did nto give a damn and told industry to do whatever it took to produce more tanks, airplanes, ships.
Pollution had been trending down from that peak for decades before the EPA was formed, and the rate of improvement actually slowed afterwords.
There is no doubt that regulation is incredibly expensive – the low estimates of direct costs are hundreds of billions a year, the high ones are 4 Trillion.
And the indirect costs – the things that never happen as a consequence of regulation are immeasuable.
The most obviously simple example is medicine.
It now costs $3T to get a drug through FDA approval.
That means no one will even try to develop a medicine that does nto have the potential to make $3T in profits.
We have passed laws on two occasions to try to get the FDA to relax standards for rare and orphan diseases. With zero effect.
You do not grasp that there is an actual cost in being too safe – and that cost is not just in dollars – but in lives.
For everyone who dies because of a corporate mistake there are likely many who die because what would have saved them does not come into being, or does so years later.
Ultimately you can not have both.
Ron
I am not wed to democracy or the party system.
As to your observation regarding business and politics.
I would agree – and that is our loss.
While business is not government and those going from business to government need grasp there are important differences.
I would still more trust a self made billionaire to run the county than any politician.
Dave “I would still more trust a self made billionaire to run the county than any politician.”
Me too, but there are too many people like Jay that will jump on any deals over a million dollars and look for anything possiblke to bring them down. Just look at the issue with Wilbur Ross now. They will begin an investigation and he will have to spend huge amounts on legal services to defend against unsustantiated charges and still his reputation is severely damaged.
Roby, this is the point, which you make here: “What is the name of the fallacy where someone tries the same thing over and over at high volume for ten years to convince people of an idea and instead of that approach working it drives people away who might otherwise have some interest? What is the name of the fallacy where they simply double down and increase the intensity of the campaign?” that I should have made instead of being too clever with fatbergers and such. The excessive volume can crowd out others in verbal and written discussions and leads to ad hominems in an attemp to “get through”.
Ha, see dave’s (predictable and repetitious, not mention obtuse) reply above.
So, to ask another question, what is the name of the fallacy that occurs when some person believes that their point of view is so important that it needs to be stated repetitively for years on end in the middle of every conversation about any topic while having no interest in understanding or respect for the contrary opinions of the people he wishes to persuade?
“So, to ask another question, what is the name of the fallacy that occurs when some person believes that their point of view is so important that it needs to be stated repetitively for years on end in the middle of every conversation about any topic while having no interest in understanding or respect for the contrary opinions of the people he wishes to persuade?”
There is no such fallacy.
Belief – on the part of eithr party is irrelevant to the merits of an argument.
Repetition is irrelevant to the merits of an argument.
No opinion is entitled to respect, the merit of an argument is established by facts, logic, reason. Nothing else.
Persuasion is irrelevant to the merit of an argument.
My question was sarcastic. I do not believe there is such a fallacy. My point is that for all your endless sales pitch, you have no idea how to persuade people, but you have considerable expertise in irritating and alienating them. Computers you can program. People in a forum such as this have to be persuaded. That involves understanding them.
“you have no idea how to persuade people”
Have I claimed otherwise ?
I am not interested in sacrificing facts, logic, reason to avoid ruffling your feathers.
I do not have to persuade people not to use force without justification.
That is immoral. It is also one of those actions that actually does justify the use of force in response.
We are not debating how to run our own homes, or our businesses, or who to fall in love with.
We are discussing the use of force by government against others, or atleast I am.
You are the one who thinks that is scope free. You are the one who thinks that if you persuade 3 of 5 you are free to use force against the rest.
I am not seeking to persuade you. If you can not follow facts, logic, reason, I can not reach you. But I am here to oppose you when you seek to use force. Which it pretty much your permanent condition.
One of the reasons the country is so divided today is that you were unable to persuade an awful lot of people – and they said no – screw you. You are the victim’s of your own success.
Regardless, you confuse the rules of public life – those things involving govenrment, and private life – everything else.
Roby: notice I address the party I am responding to, that cuts down on confusion that is caused by egotistical commenters who merely want a megaphone- to address your question. To spout endlessly, I call it volume, to drown out/bury in in plain sight, lengthy remarks that take the tone of condescension, is rude. To not be able to realize that or even slightly realize that rudeness is beyond my ability to understand as I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist. I just know it is silly, or worse, when instead of convincing or even swaying people with your arguments, you alienate them. No one loves a loud drunk or a garrulous politician, except his mother-possibly.
Commenting should be a positive experience when pertinent and accurate information is exchanged to enlighten us on a subject, not the opposite.
dd:
You can call an orange and apple all you want. It does not make it an apple.
If telling you what you do not want to hear is rude – I am extremely rude.
“To not be able to realize that or even slightly realize that rudeness is beyond my ability to understand as I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist. ”
Does this sentence mean anything ?
“I just know it is silly, or worse, when instead of convincing or even swaying people with your arguments, you alienate them. No one loves a loud drunk or a garrulous politician, except his mother-possibly.”
How an argument makes you feel – is your problem.
I do not care who you love.
Are you saying that if a valid argument will alienate people, you should lie ?
“Commenting should be a positive experience when pertinent and accurate information is exchanged to enlighten us on a subject, not the opposite.”
Yes, I know, your feelings and experience are more important than the facts.
Get over yourself. You are not obligated to read anything you do not like.
You are not entitled to a positive experience from others.
IF pertinent and accurate information was all that was needed to “persuade” everyone would be libertarian.
Its Ricks site for a few hours each month, then it becomes dave’s site for the remainder.
Well dduck, no matter how sensible your words may be they will never reach dave. He will return some logical error code to your attempts to reach him as though he were a computer. dave is not interested in what you think or care about. dave is interested exclusively in dave and his crusade and protecting his mind from any ideas that are inconvenient to his beliefs using phony logic error rejection of any idea or data that does not match his beliefs.
You’ve been here perhaps a year (i’ve enjoyed that). I’ve been here for ten and he has been obsessed with correcting my every cough for many years, often rudely. (By now, I’ll admit to succumbing to the obsession of our argument myself.) I have taken Jay’s advice and have decided that I should keep my cool and try to have fun with this.
But its a crappy situation.
The concept of “volume” as you use it is meaningless in the context of blog comments.
As is the concept of “drown out”.
There is no in an attempt to get through justification for ad hominem.
That is like saying I murdered him, because he would not listen to me.
Actually, Roby, I have been here since 2009, but chose to lay low until this last year.
If this was a salad bar buffet, pigs would be thrown out if it was detrimental to the business, and no singing Danny Boy at high volume over and over would not be tolerated at the bar nor would dominating the bartender’s time with endless drivel. I have a right to order my drink without interference, it’s in the Constitution. 🙂
On the internet
THIS IS WHAT SHOUTING LOOKS LIKE!!!
“dh: ob·tuse
əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/
adjective
adjective: obtuse
1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.”
These don’t fit too well. I would say rudely, egotistically obtuse, uncaring of others opinion, without a sense of humor or correctness. But most of all an ineffective communicator.
Ad Hominem: A common logical fallacy used by people who conflate insult with argument.
Conservative Religious Idiots Proliferate:
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/conservative-writer-god-was-answering-prayers-of-texas-victims-by-letting-them-get-shot/
Talk about egregious restriction of speech —
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/358960-cnn-fox-cancels-trump-impeachment-ads
Fox is a lrivate company and should be allowed to sell time to whoever they want. That goes with my belief that a baker in Portland should be able to refuse decorating cakes for alternative life styles. And CNN should be able to refuse ads from conservative groups promoting indicting Clinton for Uranium deals if any conservative group had those available.
It is a restriction of speech. it is not a violation of the first amendment or an infringement on rights. That requires the use of force.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358906-russian-support-for-trump-on-twitter-started-shortly-after-he-announced-bid
So I have roby arguing that I need to learn how to persuade people, and you are claiming that only some people are allowed to try to persuade people ?
You do not seem to understand. Do not really care how early some Russian company floated memes with Satanic Clinton in a WWC contest with Jesus.
The most potent effect Russia has had on US politics is that marxists have brainwashed our children for several generations.
If we are to be concerned because of Russian influence in our elections, what about our schools ?
If you are going to go Joe MacCarthy – take this to its logical conclusions.
tRUMP the SCHLUMP gets another LUMP.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/358931-legal-scholars-trump-acting-like-a-dictator-by-blocking-twitter
You are floundering in a deep area of law.
Trump can block whoever he wants from his social media accounts – so long as those accounts do not represent official communications channels of the federal government.
This is a new area, and has been addressed once by the courts.
It is not clear what they would find if the issue went to court – which it likely will.
But Trump can solve the problem, by making certain that his social media accounts are not official communications.
He might well pass that test – as he has announced things on social media, that have been ignored by the government.
You can’t help but admire moderate, balanced Conservatives like Jonah.
http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/453418/john-kelly-civil-war-compromise-mistake
Sorry for being AWOL, folks. The comments have been piling up faster than I can keep up with them. Where do I plunge in?
Before I address any individual comments, I’d like to see if I can subdue the personal animosities that have been springing up here. I can understand Roby’s exasperation with Dave’s voluminous and unyielding commentary. Does Roby’s right to be left alone trump (excuse the unfortunate verb) Dave’s right to keep haranguing him? Tough question.
I suppose Roby (and Jay, for that matter) could simply resist the temptation to reply to Dave’s remarks. I know the temptation is strong; think of Trump and his insatiable need to out-tweet his detractors. But at some point you have to consider whether the satisfaction of outdueling your opponent in an argument is worth the stress of banging your head against a brick wall. Ignore the provocation and it will go away.
Look, we’re living in polarized times. Even The New Moderate is polarized. (I suppose that makes sense; unlike the amen corners on the right and left, there’s no groupthink here.) So let’s get used to the idea that we’re going to disagree on issues without making it personal. Disagreement is the start of dialogue, after all.
Of course, it’s not exactly dialogue when some of us (cough, cough) are inclined to post seven consecutive posts of 200 words each. In fact, I’m already running too long here, so excuse me while I try to respond to some of the individual comments above.
Rick thanks for your efforts.
Mozart is beautiful. But if your Mozart LP skips and gets stuck on one phrase while you are unable to get to it for some reason a Mozart 2 second phrase repeated thousands of times turns first into an irritating noise and then into an abomination, and then into a monty python shriek of For Gods sakes shut it off!
In this case the skipping record pursues me around TNM, believes it can show me using some binary computer logic that it is correct and I am incorrect and that if it repeats the phrase 100000000 times I will succumb, all the while telling me that I have no substance, am a moron, have evil morals, on and on. Moreover, it has invented its own rules by which it is free to skip at me but I am committing some sin if I yell back at it. Its a sort of fanatical skipping record. With an overhead cam.
I can either leave TNM (hypothetically, if I weren’t obsessive) or I can fight back. The one subject the skipping record is interested in bored me to tears already years ago but to turn off the dreadful skipping record I have to struggle. I am trying to do it with humor. At times I get pretty sore. Sorry for the noise, I understand its not a pleasant sound.
Roby “I can either leave TNM (hypothetically, if I weren’t obsessive) or I can fight back”
There is a third way. It is the dreaded “C” word. You can compromise and stick around and not fight back. Make a comment, Dave comments, you ignore if it is not something new to add to the debate. In most cases, if what I have to say in response to a comment does not add something new to the discussion, I really try not to comment again. Since i am stuck between Dave and Jay, that’s a hard position to be in and stay silent.
“You can compromise and stick around and not fight back. Make a comment, Dave comments, you ignore if it is not something new to add to the debate. ”
I appreciate the thought. I have had nothing that was new to the debate that dave wants to have since 2009. I believe that his extreme libertarian philosophy (his own description) is terminally naive. That is it, my entire opinion of extreme libertarian philosophy.
He pursues my every cough here and he can always make a comment that is either so absurd or so disgusting that I cannot help myself. I doubt I am going to be able to resist the urge to scratch. I’m a bit obsessive. Maybe more than a bit.
Besides, dave’s routine does not just get under my skin, ask dduck. He has chased a lot of decent thoughtful moderates out of here over the years. There are a lot of lurkers here as well. Why should they join teh conversation in while they know they will become an object for dave to harangue if they do?
dave in the overdrive mode he has been in this year is a killer of any chance TNM will get something bigger going.
What bigger thing do you expect TNM to get going ?
I could post my columns more often; that might curtail the verbose, run-on nature of the comments section here. But my problem is that I don’t want to LIVE politics every day. I write my columns as a kind of cultural imperative — somebody needs to speak up loudly from the middle. (And also because I enjoy the act of writing — but again, not something I want to do every day.)
How to control the volume of posts here? I just remembered that I have censorship rights, but I’m reluctant to use them. I used to have everyone’s comments e-mailed to me, but the sheer volume was flooding my in-box, so I stopped. Life is too short to spend it policing a message board.
I’m open to suggestions, though, because I’d like to see Dave restrain his hyperverbal propensities and leave more openings for others to comment here. As you know, I pretty much give up after a few days, returning only occasionally afterward to see if everyone’s happy.
Yup” “There are a lot of lurkers here as well. Why should they join teh conversation in while they know they will become an object for dave to harangue if they do?
dave in the overdrive mode he has been in this year is a killer of any chance TNM will get something bigger going.
Bigger: I know a few moderates, that I would recommend to this blog if like a good restaurant had a good selection of tasty food, and in the case of TNM a good selection of tasty opinions.. This ain’t it now.
Oh for god’s sake.
I’m pretty sure that there are lurkers who have chosen not to comment here because of of the rude and moronic insults that are hurled around here, mostly directed at Dave.
As Ron says, no one is forced to read anyone else’s posts. And no one is forced to respond to anyone else’s arguments.
Priscilla, Go read the entire conversation Priscilla before you step in it again. If you read the entire exchange between dave and myself and still believe that Dave is the offended party then we can have a Long talk with examples. This is just another example of your very partial vision.
I’ve been called a moron, retarded, evil, lacking any substance, and on and on. That is OK with you? Figures.
I don’t want to have a long talk about who are offended parties, Roby, and it’s not because it’s ok with me that you feel offended, nor is it because of my “partial vision,”…although, I do wear reading glasses these days. It’s because it’s a waste of time. We are all guilty of being occasionally offensive, and we have all taken offense. It’s gone on for years, and there will, no doubt, be continued instances in which it happens. Just like we’ll continue to argue over what the meaning of “moderate” is….
I was actually coming back to clarify that “rude and moronic”was meant to refer specifically to the insults, not the people hurling them. But, alas, I did not clarify quickly enough.
Roby;
“I’ve been called a moron, retarded, evil, lacking any substance, and on and on. That is OK with you? Figures.”
If I have called you any of those – I apologize. But I am pretty damn sure I have not.
I have called ideas that you hold dear retarded, moronic, evil.
I have called actions that you are prepared to take evil.
What I have done – is exactly what you do all the time.
And that is what I am angry with myself about.
I am not angry because I have said things that are wrong.
I am angry that I am becoming too much like you.
Which should clue you in that I have absolute zero interest in your thoughts on how to fix that.
And yes I would suggest you go back and read through posts – particularly your own.
I do not care that much how bad you make yourself look.
But I do care when I start seeing you when I look in the mirror.
“I’ve been called a moron, retarded, evil, lacking any substance, and on and on. That is OK with you? Figures.”
“If I have called you any of those – I apologize. But I am pretty damn sure I have not.
I have called ideas that you hold dear retarded, moronic, evil.
I have called actions that you are prepared to take evil.”
Here was a charming thought: “Equally important, I really do think that your world view is destructive and immoral…” Environmentalists you flat out call evil. Mostly you pussy foot around your insults, e.g. “If you believe in CAGW you are a moron.” (another time you used retarded.) I and others here believe its a serious issue, as you well know. So, just be a man and call someone a moron if that is what you think and stop trying be cute and clever. It ain’t working.
Ha, for a lark I tried using your if–> then argument formula you use to escape blame to give your insults back to you. So, nope, you insisted that I was still guilty of using ad hominems, while you were somehow not. Same formula, different results. It just cute bullshit. Again, Be a man, not a lawyer.
Then there was your gleeful fit of shitting and pissing in the liberal temple.
This is what you appointed yourself to do here at TNM, lo these many years, come and tell us in a Godlike omnipotent voice how wrong we are about everything, how incapable, how left wing (even the Bushes are progressives in your world!). You are begging to get it back. But let someone criticize you and they are not playing by some computer logic rules you have imposed. Its humbug.
“I am not angry because I have said things that are wrong.
I am angry that I am becoming too much like you.”
Well, for someone else that would be a truly pathetic effort at admitting to some part of the fault of harsh rhetoric here. But for you its actually an astonishing leap forward, you are actually looking at your own behavior. Some day a miracle may occur and you will admit that you might have said one thing that was actually wrong and hell will freeze.
You say you have liberal friends (I’ll bet you have some lefty family members too!) and you are much more low key and relaxed with them in real life. Why not here? Lack of consequences?
Think!
Roby;
It is not “pussy footing arround”.
I try to characterize ideas and actions – not individuals.
If you take personal insult because you strongly identify with those ideas and actions – that is perfectly fine by me.
If I said “If you beleive in genocide you are evil” – would you take offence ?
Is that “pussy footing” ?
Nor do I have a problem with targeting groups.
We had a big national melt down because the president refused to say “nazis are evil”.
I have absolutely no problem saying those who think in CAGW is science are stupid.
You are free to “beleive” in it, just as you can beleive in transubstantiation, or reincarnation.
Belief is for religions.
Yes, I incorrectly inverted my attack on CAGW by including “beleif” atleast once.
Sloppy language, typing to fast and ignoring Orwell’s admonition to drop words like “think” “beleive” except where one is litterally refering to thought and religion.
The only scientific theory that I can think of that has broad acceptance where reality deviates by 2.5 std dev from the theoretical predictions is CAGW.
Roby
If you really have these GRE’s then something is seriously wrong here – because I am not being that obtuse.
If you made a real argument followed by a logical fallacy, I would likely be so happy I would ignore the fallacy.
I point out your fallacies – because there is nothing else to your posts.
Further something can be both fallacy and true.
A fallacy is an invalid form of argument, not a false argument.
It could be true that if you take CAGW as science you are stupid.
But it is not valid argument – unless the topic is “are you stupid”.
Roby;
Still not getting it.
There is nothing wrong with harsh rhetoric – again as typical of the left,
You make up crimes, and offending lefties is always a crime – though somehow offending others is not.
The left correctly identifies racism as evil – while incorrectly finding everyone not on the hard left a raving racist.
Everything that offends you is not false.
Everything that insults you is not false.
A liberal is sometone who prizes individual liberty highly.
Roby, you are not a liberal.
I explained many reasons why things are different outside of Blog comments.
Again you can not read.
One of the reasons that things are different is that because when confronted in person left wing nuts back down, because they do not have a moral leg to stand on. ‘
Another is because outside the internet everyone else tends to self censor to avoid confrontation with delusional and obnoxious left wing nuts.
You are used to living in a world where people are too polite to challenge your world view.
That is not going to happen on the web. Get over it.
“I have absolutely no problem saying those who think in CAGW is science are stupid.”
You have stated your low opinion, at times even verging on contempt, for academics, scientists in certain fields, and Ph.Ds. Why should I want to be an exception?
In fact, I’m nothing exceptional, its true. But all the same I have published papers in high quality journals in both genetics and biophysics. I do have inside knowledge of the workings and results of science. My career as a grad student and post doc was decent but unremarkable. I added a few little facts to the study of a few different questions, the workings of developmental regulatory proteins, the structural changes of myosin as it interacts with actin. I did not have the level of fanaticism it takes to live and breath nothing but science. I have many other interests. So, I left the publish or perish world and found a nice niche where I can contribute and still have a life. I am a tiny dust speck in the huge mountain that science is.
The international field of climate science that you have such disrespect for is simply one facet of the mountain of science. It uses the same math, physics, chemistry, and technology as the sciences that put a man on the moon, satellites to the furthest reaches of the solar system, cures cancer, measures the movements of the continents accurately in centimeters, etc. It has taken millions of person years of work by people ranging from talented to brilliant to elevate science to where it is today from the rather pitiful knowledge we had even 100 let alone 200 years ago. To sneer at climate science is comical, it indicates delusions of grandeur. Yes, it pisses me off. It also amuses me. I am a dust speck who at least contributes something to the mountain of science and at least am in the mountain. You are a dust speck who, as far as I know, is outside of the mountain of science and likes to scoff at it and call it stupid, a religion. Climate science is no more a religion than molecular biology or geology. If an intelligent and educated person who should know better believes that they can dismiss any established field of science with a wave of their contemptuous hand then they are a loony. Science is science. Its a system, a culture, a history, and one of the greatest achievements of the human race.
History is not going to go your way on this issue, it will not be many generations before the the denialist culture will get the same treatment as the flat earthers.
Roby;
In the field in which you practiced – and pretty much the rest of reasonable science a 2.5 std dev between a model and reality requires revising your hypothesis.
In 2016 after nearly two decades of claiming otehrwise, we have finally seen two papers published by leading warmists that essentially state “oops” the “hiatus” is real.
Those papers do not really offer an explanation – though they make some of the guesses that skeptics have been arguing for decades – that TCI values are too high and that hypothesized strong positive feedbacks are weak or non-existent.
I say guesses – because there is no buy in to any explanation and no actual recomendation to modify the models, just the naked assertion that strong warming either already has or will resume real soon.
That is your idea of science ?
With regard to the acollades you heap on the rest of science.
I do not doubt that there are very many intelligent people in fields of science.
But scientists – even those doing better than Climate science are not owed “biblical respect” – that should be particularly obvious to anyone familiar with the past several decades of science.
FDA and CDC have both been tied to scandals where key figures at the top of the scientific pyramids actively supressed research and publication of anything that contradicted their pet theories – theories that have subsequently been falsified.
I beleive we are in the midst of the 3rd recent rewrite of the human family tree – much of which is occuring because of Leakey’s fall from prominence. I beleive their is a Lucy like homind that has been found in europe 3.5M years prior to Lucy, which is not supposed to be possible, either in time or location. Nor is that the only example.
Recently a nobel was awarding in Physics for a “new” theory regarding crystallography.
One that has absolutely critical bearing on semiconductors.
I say “new” because the theory is 5 decades old, and has been supressed by the leading lights in that area of physics for that long.
There has been a recent university level effort to validate published scientific papers.
Of thousands that were tested 1/3 of published papers were actually falsified by validation. 1/3 did not produce statistically significant results. Only 1/3 validated.
More than a decade ago a computer program was written to write scientific papers using jargon and grammar rules. About 100 papers were produced and several managed to get through peer review and get published. Subsequently the program escaped into the wild and it is not known how many computer generated meaningless papers have been published after peer review.
The Climategate Emails exposed two major scientific frauds – first that the high priests of warmendom were using their political influence to supress consideration and publication of any paper that deviated from dogma – this even included warmist papers that died without comment if they deviated even slightly from climate dogma.
It was that revelation that slowly drove Dr. Judith Curry into the skeptic camp.
Separately it was also revealed that the peer review process had been corrupted, that submitters were selecting their own reviewers guaranteeing sympathetic reviews, or worse were providing false identities for reviewers and actually reviewing their own papers.
Other studies estimate the current half life of scientific knowledge at about 15 years.
That means of everything that you think you know to be true with respect to science, half of it will be falsified in the next 15 years.
I have many many more examples if you wish.
The bottom line is there is a difference between respect for science, scientists and the scientific process, and religious belief in the results.
Real science is inherently about learning from failure. When science becomes dogmatic and political it is even more prone than other fields such as engineering to bad results.
Some of the most successfull attacks on Warmism have come from engineers, economists and statisticians. Though there are some scientific errors in modern climate science, the worst and most obvious errors are that climate scientists are completely clueless about math – particularly statistics.
If we talk about climate models – the best solar models are correlating to temperature with a statistical significance of about .9 that is incredibly high, and several orders of magnitude better than the statistical significance of CO2 models.
There are several problems with the solar models – the largest of which is that delta TSI is not sufficient to explain the temperature changes – which strongly implies there is another energy transfer mechanism between the Sun and Earth.
Conversely CO2 correlation is extremely poor.
This is compounded because there are several other excellent theories explaining modern warming that are independent of CO2 – cosmic rays and land use being large among these. CERN has verified major aspects of the Cosmic ray Cloud formation thesis and it likely accounts for 15-25% of all warming from 1975-1998. Rodger Pieleke Sr. proposed the land use these decades ago, and its correlation is excellent.
But land use changes are self limiting which eliminates the political impetus to regulate the world.
Presumably as a scientist you have some grasp of mathematics and either remember, or have been refreshed with regard to Stephan-Boltzman, Plank’s law and the Arrhenius equations – all of which are almost certainly interrelated.
All of which have temperature as the log of energy.
Absent positive feedbacks linear increases in CO2 will produce logrithmic increases in temperate – i.e. controlling for everything but CO2, will result in a parabola on its side.
Which is pretty close to what we see from modern historical temperatures.
Warmist claims of exponentially increasing temperature require positive feedbacks on a scale that does nto occur often if at all in nature, because the results would be highly unstable and the planet would have burnt to a crisp or frozen to an iceball, long ago if present. Or they require exponential increases in CO2 – which are not occuring.
Yes I am highly skepitcal of science that both has no good answers to many such questions and where the models do not conform to reality.
I am not the slightest anti-science. I am anti the conversion of science into religion, which has been occuring to varying degrees through science – particularly in the field of climate.
I do not expect perfection from science. I expect lots of failure, mistakes and slow progress towards answers. I expect that scientists will be humble, grasping that failure is the norm.
Yes, millions of man hours have been put in to create the progress we have had in the past century. And the vast majority of that has lead to FAILURE – we learn from failure too, sometimes more. That time is not wasted – except when hubris drives us to hide the failure. And that is an extremely common problem not limited to climate science, though highly exemplified there.
It is possible to respect science and understand that scientific progress involves more failure than success. It is not possible to respect those in science that practice religion, and self worship rather than science. That problem pervades science – and has for as long as science has existed. It is a problem of human nature not science. But it is more common in some areas than others – Climate science being the top of the list.
The consequence is the loss of public faith in science. That is the fault of scientists.
And yes, Climate science is a religion. We are likely on the verge of resolving the problem permanently. It has taken decades but we are beginging to have space based instruments with sufficient precision to establish the energy flows of the planet.
The Climate models attempt to do the impossible – modal a chaos system.
There is no sane reason to believe their results. Further even if that were possible the computing power – something I know alot about, does not and will never exist to model climate at much faster than real time, to the detail needed – if that kind of model is even possible.
But treating the earth as a black box and resolving the energy flows into and out of the black box is possible. The preliminary results of this are what has had Dr. Trendberth running arround like a chicken with his head cut off ranting about “missing heat”
Trendberth hypothesized the missing heat was in the shallow ocean, then the mid ocean. Now it must be int he deep ocean – because it is not elsewhere.
But Trendberth’s ocean hypothesis has a disasterous problem.
We can derive the changes in heat content of the ocean from sea level changes.
Basically the more heat Ocean water contains the greater its volume.
This is the core of the warmist claim that the oceans will rise – because all land ice melting will not significantly raise sea levels. The primary cause of SLR is heat gain in the ocean.
SLR has been near linear for much of the past century.
That means that energy capture has been near linear for much of the past century
Back to Arrenhius and company – linear increases in energy result in logrithmatic increases in temperature. Again falsifying CAGW.
The bottom line is that pretty close to all the observable facts run against the conclusions of the climate models.
I do not know the relative weight of various drivers of climate – land use CO2, Solar energy, cosmic rays, …..
I do know that the earth’s energy gains appear to be close to linear,
which if that trend continues will result in much smaller temperature gains by 2100 than predicted.
An essential element of science is math. Another is logic, and critical thinking
CAGW runs afoul of all.
Roby
Let me try one other argument regarding CAGW.
The entire CAGW thesis is rooted in models.
Climate is unbelievably complex and how the fundimetal science – such as Arenhius plays out as part of a complex system can not be addressed any other way but models.
We have another area of science that humans have much more knowledge of, and much simpler and better developed models that we can not predict – an that is the economy.
Why do you beleive that climate scientists can do better modelling a far more complex system than economosts have in a much longer time frame ?
“History is not going to go your way on this issue, it will not be many generations before the the denialist culture will get the same treatment as the flat earthers”
Actually it has been going pretty strongly my way for about 20 years.
Regardless, I have bet my reputation and integrity on this, and I know it.
I have alot of crow to eat if I am wrong.
I am betting against you and thousands of other scientists.
So far I am winning that bet.
But just to be clear, there are almost no skeptics who claim the earth is not warming. There are almost none that claim CO2 is not a factor.
The fundimental claim of skeptics is that the CAGW predictions of the GCM’s are likely off by a factor of about 4.
That and that we do not currently have the knowledge necescary to accurately predict global temperatures for a century.
So if the “hiatus” continues with weak to no warming over the next several decades – are you going to eat crow ?
I have skin – my reputation, in the game – what about you ?
Are you prepared to bet your reputation on the IPCC projections ?
If not, you tell me what future projection are you prepared to bet your reputation on ?
Dave I do not know why you do not get one simple fact: I am not interested in philosophy, at all. I’d rather listen to gangster rap than philosophy. Its your interest, its not mine. My biggest interest at present outside of music lies in geology, its history, the history of the great extinctions and their hypothetical causes, and the rocks and geological history of Vermont, which I am pleasantly surrounded by where I live.
Philosophy, Bleh!
I am not interested in avoiding logical fallacies, especially because, as you noted just because something is a logical fallacy does not mean its not true. You expect me to enter, for some reason, your world of interests. You have utterly different intellectual tastes and hobbies than I do. Lets see, I can practice my viola, violin or guitar and immerse myself in Bach, the Beatles, or Django Reinhardt or I can torture myself with Kant and Shoeppenflagel. I think I’ll choose the Bach, you can enjoy the Shoeppenflagel.
No one here but you writes their posts obsessing about the rules of logical fallacies. I am no better and no worse than the other posters here about avoiding them. They have no attraction to me. I have my opinions, that is all, nothing more grandiose. I am trying to prove nothing to anyone. And….I am no more trying to force my opinions on you than any other poster here.
If you would understand that I would lose all interest to you and everyone here would draw a sigh of relief.
Roby,
It is irrelevant whether you are interested in philosophy.
Just as it is irrelevant whether I am interested in molecular biology.
I can not pretend that organisms and cells behave however I want them to, merely because I am uninterested.
Philosophy is not merely whimsy. It is the foundations of free will, the rules of human conduct, what is right and wrong, morality, and ultimately government.
Expounding on government ignorant of philosophy is like expounding on human life ignorant of biology.
A logical fallacy is not inherently false.
It is inherently not an argument.
It is worse than claiming that some observation about hair growth has something to do with some observation about urine production. You likely know more about both and maybe there is a link. But my argument presumes there isn’t.
Both statements can be true, or on or the other false or both false.
The fact is they are independent.
The truth of a premise is independent of whether the person offering it is an ass.
The truth of a premise is independent of whether 1000 smart people believe it to be true.
When the premise and your argument are independent of each other – the argument is fallacious.
A logical argument requires dependence – that the conclusion is dependent on the premesis.
You can be uninterested in philosophy, you can be uninterested in logic.
That is fine, but you can not offer meaningful propositions on government without them.
I have already used the musc analogy and it is perfect.
If you are prepared to say I can have my choice in my own life with respect to philosophy and logic – and you can have yours, and we will confine those purely to our own lives – you are free to make whatever mistakes you wish.
But government is about the use of force against others.
Using your music analogy government my saying you are not free to choose Bach,
If you are going to use force to impose your will against others, it is incumbent on you to get many many things right.
That would include facts, logic, reason.
In your own life or in the fully voluntary arrangements you make with others not involved in imposing force on anyone – you can do as you wish.
Be as illogical as you want.
Before you can impose your will by force on others – you are obligated to prove you know what you are doing.
You are demanding that I lose interest in your desire to impose your will on others by force while admittedly not knowing what you are doing.
Do you actually think that is reasonable.
My writing was in error. I wrote: You are a dust speck who, as far as I know, is outside of the mountain of science and likes to scoff at it and call it stupid, a religion.
My point is more accurately: You are a dust speck who, as far as I know, is outside of the mountain of science and likes to scoff at Part of It and call it stupid, a religion.
Not an argument.
“But just to be clear, there are almost no skeptics who claim the earth is not warming. There are almost none that claim CO2 is not a factor.”
That is a more reasonable position than I expected.
“The fundimental claim of skeptics is that the CAGW predictions of the GCM’s are likely off by a factor of about 4.”
That is beyond my competence to judge.
“That and that we do not currently have the knowledge necescary to accurately predict global temperatures for a century.”
That statement is not unreasonable. Predicting climate is a wildly complex problem.
I have always couched my position in probabilities, not certainties. My opinion is that the consensus opinion is more likely to be correct or at least closer to the truth than the skeptic opinions. My opinion is that climate science is a substantial enterprise conducted by people just as talented and using the same basic approaches as any other branch of science. I doubt neither their competence as a group nor their integrity. If my opinion on this makes me stupid in your eyes, then oh well.
Even if the severe scenarios are correct I have no false hope that the human race has options for cutting greenhouse emissions in half or anything like it anytime soon. I encounter plenty of what I call naive hippies who have no clue what is actually necessary to substantially cut human GG emissions.
As well, I am aware that we still are living in an ice age and that a return to a state of global cooling with north American glaciers advancing would be as catastrophic if not more so than a certain amount of warming. Some CO2 increase may not be a bad thing, but it cannot go on with no end in sight either.
I simply hold that the problem should be taken seriously, the scientists involved should be respected and given as much credence as any other branch of science and that we should be working as hard as possible on the technologies that are cleaner greenhouse gas emission wise and lowering our emissions as much as we can.
The hooting and jeering at climate scientists as a group that occurs is as nauseating a tactic as hooting and jeering at Rand Paul for getting his ribs broken. Serious issues deserve serious attitudes.
Roby, do you believe the common man in China and India that are the major contributors to CO2 output growth in the last 10-15 years are having this same discussion? Do you find China and India changing their CO2 discharge at the same rate as North America.
Or do you believe the liberals in America want us biting the bullett
with high cost electric cars that can’t take a family over 300 miles from home or is so small a family if four can not get themselves and all their luggage in for a weeks vacation while China and India are doing much less than we are?
And why is it that the liberals are fired up for renewable energy until a wind farm off the Northeast Coast screws up millionaires views and then renewable energy is not so important?
I dont argue climate change is not. happening, but I want everyone feeling the same pain when changes are made. If XYZ company comes into my area and messes up my view, I want the same treatment for the 1%ers with an ocean view when ABC electric company proposes a wind farm off Marthas Vineyard.
Wind and solar have proven absolutely disasterous accross the globe.
Both have proven far more expensive that expected, and far less reliable.
In the US – even California, and Europe we have found that even where we add wind and solar capacity, we still have to add fosil fuel capacity as Wind and solar are not sufficiently reliable.
The big recent change in the US has been the shift to natural gas for power generation.
NG plants can be turned on and off quickly as needed – coal which is a cheaper fuel takes days to fire up and shut down.
NG plants can scale from very large to very small, making it possible to put generating capacity closer to demand significantly reducing transmission lines and transmission costs.
We have an excellent NG transportation infrastructure which has lower losses than long distance electric lines.
So I will ask you the same question. I knew everything you posted already.
Do you believe the common man in China and India that are the major contributors to CO2 output growth in the last 10-15 years are having this same discussion? Do you find China and India changing their CO2 discharge at the same rate as North America.
My issue with this whole climate change and climate agreement is the fact that we are losing manufacturing to China and India, they have not decreased CO2 output as we have the past 10 years, they have increased over the past 15 years, we have lost jobs to those countries and companies are relocating because doing business in those countries is vastly less costly than it is in America. If the cost of doing business is less expensive and we are all playing by the same regulations, then that is fine. but when we put controls on manufacturing and other countries do not, then the climate is still getting screwed up, but just from a different continent.
I do not think that CO2 is a significant problem – so I do not care what the Common man in China or India think about it.
I think it is highly likely with proper analysis that even if CO2 warms the planet that the net result would be positive.
The US is gaining manufacturing – from China.
Though the entire lose/gain issue is nonsense.
The objective is to produce more value with less human effort.
If we wish to retain an overall higher standard of living than the rest of the world, we should focus on producing those things of the highest value.
Not on making everything in the US.
We should want China to produce those goods that can not be produced providing jobs that pay our standard of living.
We WANT those jobs on the low end to move to China or india.
There is no limit to what can be produced.
There is not reason that because China produces something we can not produce something different of higher value.
As an example we used to produce textiles.
Those jobs moved to japan long ago.
From there they moved to china,
From china to india and bangeledesch.
They are starting to head to africa.
This is why clothing prices are so low.
If you move textile jobs back to the US – you will not increase the number of jobs much – we would highly automate production.
But if you did they would be very low paying jobs, and our cloths would cost a great deal more
Trump’s economic nationalism may be a way to win elections, but it is a very very stupid way to run the world. Both parties know it, neither party is likely to aggressively try to keep jobs in the US.
We do not want to put controls on manufacturing in China or india – it will just drive manufacturing out of China or india to some other place in the 3rd world.
Besides I have already told you regulations are net evil.
China has far far less regulation than the US – though in China you can be jailed because you are out of favor.
Regardless, China’s life expectance has been rising rapidly since Mao’s death and is very close to ours.
There is no evidence that their lack of regulation is casing significant actual harm.
But it is allowing their standard of living to rise more rapidly.
“Capital goes where it’s welcome and stays where it’s well treated”
All our efforts to try to control global capital flows are ludicrously stupid.
Manufacturing will move where it pleases. Rather than trying to errect walls and cattle shoots, we should try to entice it.
The outflow of US manufacturing jobs has abated.
US manufacturing is actually at an all time high.
But we are far more automated than ever and so manufacturing jobs are and will remain low.
The US is the worlds largest and most stable market.
We have the most reliable and cheapest energy in the world
We have the best transportation system in the world
We have the largest and most reliable supply chain in the world
We have the largest high skill workforce in the world.
We have the most reliable access to natural resources in the world.
More agreement than I would have expected.
I would note that the broad strokes I posted on Climate change that you found common ground with are held by 97% of skeptics.
In fact that is partly where the claimed concensus comes from.
James Cook’s work – one of the sources of the 97% claim,
acheived that by classifying the work of Spensor, Christy, Lindzen, Curry, ….
all as part of that 97% – because each of them accepts the same things you found that we have in common.
“I have always couched my position in probabilities, not certainties. ”
Absolutely – and what is the statistical probability that a theory is correct when its predictions are 2.5 std dev away from reality and have been for two decades ?
There is room for debate at the moment regarding the degree of warming in the past 20 years. There is significant disagreement between the satellites, radiosonds, and weather balloons Which all show little or no warming, Some of the land records – such as HadCRUT which show mild warming and some such as GISTEMP which show greater warming. But all are far below model predictions. All show at least a significant decline in the rate of warming since 1998.
Whether the problem is serious is not a scientific question.
The fundimental scientific questions are
how much of warming is attributable to Human CO2,
and what is the probability of specific amounts of warming in the future.
And to a much lessor extent what are the direct physical effects of that warming.
The indirect effects are not a scientific question – they are mostly economic.
Whether warming is good or bad is not a scientific question at all.
It is not even an economic question – thought it can be informed by economics.
Whether we should be working as hard as possible on whatever,
requires answering both the scientific, economic and values questions above with far greater ability that we currently have.
We actually are significantly reducing GHG emissions.
Whether we should is actually an independent question.
If you had asked any scientist – particularly biologists, prior to 1970, they would have said Hell No!
Even today very minor changes in the discount rates that the Obama EPA used to calculate the cost of CO2 can easily produce a large net beneficial result.
You say you are a biologist – there has been a significant greening of the planet as a result of relatively minor increases in CO2. Though many factors have nearly eliminated starvation, this is one of those. Increased CO2 means a better fed people.
I expect that we will shift from Oil to other fuels – natural gas, and electricity particularly.
We will not do so because they reduce GHG’s.
We will not do so because they are cheaper.
We will do so because that delivers more value to us.
We used to burn wood, peat and dung for heat – these are cheap.
We switched to coal – even though the alternatives were cheaper.
and then to oil and gas – even though coal was cheaper,
and then to electricity – even though oil and gas were cheaper.
We did all of these changes without government, without regulation and without fixating on CAGW.
We did them because the next generation fuel was cleaner and more valuable to us.
There is alot of technogly needed to make a practical electric car – and we have solved most though not all those problems.
Regardless, there are a significant number of additional benefits – ones having nothing to do with GHG’s.
I have zero doubt that we are and will continue to work towards the future that people want. We do not need government to get there. In fact government is an impediment.
Carter’s solar subsidies destroyed solar hot water. Despite the fact that it remains viable.
Particularly for heating domestic water.
Anyway, I do not know what our emissions should be – and neither do scientists, and neither do you.
I do know that if they are actually a problem that markets can and will respond rapidly.
Climate scientists as a whole deserve hooting and jeering.
They have been hooting and jeering at other climate scientists who asked them to actually conform to the norms of scientific inquiry.
Most of the top warmist climate scientists are pretty crappy scientists.
The best and brightest tend not to go into climate science.
Apologies to Ron et al. this will be my last post in this contest.
“You are demanding that I lose interest in your desire to impose your will on others by force while admittedly not knowing what you are doing.”
I demanded nothing of the sort. Show me please where I demanded that in my own words and not some implication you make because I, (like the Bushes!) am a so-called progressive. Putting words in someone else’s mouth is certainly a fallacy. If you chose to do that I am going to call you illogical and crazy in advance.
We go round in a circle. Aren’t you tired of it yet? Do you have a strategy or a goal or is this just an endless repetitions loop that we are doomed to run around in forever? There is nothing that distinguishes me from any other poster here about using force (government). I suppose you chose me just because I am obsessive enough to argue with you.
Tell me why I am different from the other Americans who are not extreme libertarians such that I am your target. You are simply purposelessly hounding me with no end in sight and no goal.
I am going to respect the wishes of Ron and dduck and Rick and make this my last post on this debate. It goes nowhere. You are free to take advantage of the fact that I am not going to argue any more with you about this to make all kinds of absurd and provocative arguments to lure me into another round. If so, that is to your dishonour.
When you act or attempt to act through government – you use force.
Government is force.
You and I will have no problems with each other, so long as you do not seek to impose your views on others through government without justifying them first.
And yes, you are making a demand – you are asking to be left alone WHILE advocating for the use of force against others.
On the one hand you want to claim you are exempt from having any understanding of philosophy – understanding the moral consequences of action, on the other you identify as progressive – that is a philosophy.
Is it OK with you to say “I am a marxist, and free to impose marxism by force on others, but not obligated to know anything about marxism” ?
I do not particularly care about the label – marxist, socialist, fascist, progressive – even some flavors of conservative, your argument is that you are free to use government to impose your will on others.
There are few legitimate uses of force – determining those is a philosophical question – whether you care about philosophy or not.
Should we be injecting people with random drugs against their will without having any clue what the effect of those drugs might be ?
You would not permit in biology what you are eager to do in philosophy – or atleast I hope not.
I am not putting words in your mouth – you have already asserted that you are free to accomplish your will over the objections of others through force aka government.
Back away from that – and we have no despite.
You keep trying to elide that.
We go round in circles – but always end up back here. We end up here because that is the core. You shuck and jive and try to duck it, but it still always returns to your wish to use force (government) to impose your will on others.
There are only limited circumstances under which that can be done.
You do not accept that.
That is the only important issue that separates us.
Roby
“I suppose you chose me just because I am obsessive enough to argue with you.”
Pretty close.
Advocate for the use of force to impose your will on others, and you will find me responding. Roby, Jay, Moogie, Ron, Priscilla. Rick.
Once in a blue moon I miss such a post, or it is not all that clear.
Why do I respond to you more – because you make that argument more ?
There are lots of your posts I have ignored,
and some I have agreed with.
It is those that are about the use of force against others typically through government that I am going to respond to.
It has nothing to do with you – only what you advocate.
We are all different – that is one of the practical reasons – as opposed to philosophical reasons that limited government is necessary The breadth of our differences mean our common ground is smaller. Whether we can do so morally, we can legislate practically inside that common ground. That is why social democracy worked better in northern europe and also why it is failing.
”
Whether you beleive it or not, I do not see a post from Roby and say “I need to target him”
I read posts, and respond to the content, not the poster.
On many occasion I have been confused by the content and thought I was responding to someone else. That does not matter much, as I am responding to content.
But I do have two “triggers” – and your very good at pulling them.
The one is mentioned above.
The other is related. It is stepping onto a moral soapbox.
If it makes you feel better, I have had related debates with christian fundamentalists for hours and hours.
There is very little difference between christian fundamentalists and those on the left.
They are both intensely religious. Absolutely sure of the correctness of their beliefs.
Though christian fundamentalists tend to actually know theirs better than those on the left.
I do not try to lure you into anything.
Though I generally enjoy a debate – particularly with a challenging opponent,
You shift to the personal at the drop of a hat.
Even your “last post” – it is all about you.
Why are you the target ?
Own your own views and beliefs.
Particularly if you are asking government to impose them.
You are not a victim because someone disagrees with you.
Nor are you a victim because you do not know what you believe very well.
My first response to Rick, was that I have no sympathy for Trump.
Trump asks for much of the flack he gets, and he is a big dog, and can take it.
Even when he is right, he is not a victim.
Neither are you.
“Or do you believe the liberals in America want us biting the bullett
with high cost electric cars that can’t take a family over 300 miles from home or is so small a family if four can not get themselves and all their luggage in for a weeks vacation while China and India are doing much less than we are?”
No I don’t believe that. You blame too many things on liberals. If its a foggy day was it liberals? One thing that causes a lot of the heat around here (no pun intended) is the blanket blaming of the left or right for things. Seriously, reread your sentence and ask if its a reasonable question or a rhetorical and hyperbolic question that you asked to place the blame on liberals.
Desire to reduce GG emissions is obviously not limited to liberals. If liberals want anything (although they are not a monolithic group) its for the world to work together, because that is the only thing that would actually work. .
Economies at different stages of their development are going to suffer different consequences from reduced energy consumption. So, yes, third world countries are not going to agree to kill their efforts to modernize. Asking for some utterly equal reduction is like asking for a car that goes from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds and gets 200 mpg. Its just a foolproof reason to say no.
SInce I said above that I find a lot of what I call naive hippies who have no idea what it actually means to meaningfully reduce GG emissions and I also said that I have no illusions about there being an easy cure I am not sure why you are asking me this question. Because I believe that progress needs to be made in reducing GG emissions? Because I’m a liberal (to some tiny degree)?
How would you go about tackling the problem in a meaningful way? Its easy to gripe about liberals.
“but when we put controls on manufacturing and other countries do not, then the climate is still getting screwed up, but just from a different continent.”
You are 100% correct about that, Its something I also realized long ago and it is the reason why I am doubtful that the human race is up to this challenge. Its one of those impossibly tough questions like peace in the middle east. Still the answer is not to just throw up our hands and say, hopeless and when china suffers then I am willing to suffer.
Just imagine that over some period of time the GG levels do reach such a level that the worst case scenario occurs. In 50 years, 100 years, 400 years? Who can say precisely? Does it matter how long it takes? If we don’t cut we will get to any GG level you can name, just at a different rate.
Most of the earths history has been spent in much warmer climates than at present, certainly most of the period that has included vertebrate life has been much warmer with much higher levels of CO2. How will human civilization cope with the climate conditions that the dinosaurs lived under? Will our biology adapt? Its been cooling for most of the cenozoic as mammals became large and dominant. It takes millions of years for evolution, maybe tens of million of years to change the body to live in a different climate. What constitutes a big news story with over 100 degree temps in the west with old people dying and brownouts, etc. when it lasts for a few days may become just the general situation every day, too damned hot to live in a human body without being inside under air conditioning. Can we keep 8 billion people inside under air conditioning all the time? How much energy would that take? Where will it come from? If you cannot imagine a plausible scenario where a much hotter climate does not do serious or even fatal harm to our civilization and cause mass extinctions, you are not trying.
Our descendents are going to wonder WTF was wrong with us.
Roby,2 comments, try to make them short.
1. I have yet to meet a more conservative person who believes we need to put regulations on America when we dont demand the same from the worst polluters. So yes ,I think most liberals support regulations and most conservative do not. The majority middle, I dont think they are paying much attention.
2. What would I do? If America agrees to cut emissions by 25% by 2025 and ,China produces 50% more CO2 than we do, then I want the same impact on China as on America. We reduce by 25% and they reduce by 37.5%. Letting them to continue to peak out by 2030 (15 years from agreement) while we had to start now and reduce by 2025 ( 10 years) is asinine. But a lot of what Obama did was asinine..
Roby;
All I seek to blame on the left, is their repeated efforts to expand government intrusions into our lives.
While they are not alone in doing so – there are several undesirable intrusions from the right I have serious problems with that rarely get discussed here – I am pretty much the only one that raises the ever growing non-partisan police state we live in the increasing militarization of the police, the growing surveillance state, and several other instances of mostly right wing infringement on liberty – though often with the consent of the left.
For the most part the left is driving the expanding regulatory state. The left is driving the expanding entitledment state. The left is driving the expanding redistributive state.
The left is driving increasingly profligate state spending.
And yes, I will blame the left for those things, and for their failure.
“How do we go about tackling problems in a meaningful way ?”
As we have done for centuries – outside of government.
The concept that all problems require society and therefore government to solve them is primarily LEFT – and therefore you get the blame for it.
Yes, the Human race is not up to the challenge of global coordination to solve a problem.
It never has been.
Few human problems are solved by govenrments – those that are involve the legitimate use for force, and the restriction on illegitimate use of force by others.
You keep saying you do not want to discuss philosophy – but everything you wish to do reflects a specific philosophy. What you really want is to pretend that your historicially failed philosophy has been globally adopted to elide any consideration of the fact that it has always failed and resulted in copious bloodshed.
Yes, BTW it actually does matter how long it takes – because as you note “climate changes”. There are myriads of natural cycles far more consequential than a human impact we have not yet quantized and is likely small and may well be played out.
If the Climate sensitivity to CO2 is 0.25C/doubling – probably the most reasonable low.
Only a small portion of warming since 1970 is caused by Humans – which is consistent with Warming since the “little ice age”.
I keep trying to point out that Warming is logarithmic. That means that linear decreases in TCI result in exponential decreases in the rate of warming.
The rate of increase in CO2 has been approximately stable at about 1.5ppm/year since 1950. Current CO2 is almost exactly 400ppm.
If as the IPCC claims the worse case TCI is 4C/doubling that means it will take approx 266 years to see a 4C increase and nearly a millennia for the next doubling.
If conversely TCI is closer to 0.25C – that means it will take 266 years to increase temps by 0.25C and another millenia to get the next 0.25C.
The fact that the models are running hot by 2.5 std dev’s means that the latter is more likely than the former.
Finally at values of 0.25C/doubling CO2 is dwarfed by other factors including natural variation.
We must be extremely careful for projections running out 100’s and 1000’s of years.
They are completely impossible to make.
I am hard pressed to think of a single projection of anything done by government or anyone else going 20 years into the future that has proven accurate.
Change is the constant of the universe – not just climate change.
I am not sure what your remarks regarding energy mean.
Regardless, energy is the most significant factor related to future improvements in standard of living. If you reduce the energy consumption of the third world you condemn it to poverty.
There are fundimental reasons that we should not use government to solve these types of problems – because it can not.
Human behavior and values can change extremely rapidly if necessary.
Major and often disruptive transitions in human circumstances have occured in a few decades – often even a few years over the course of the past 4 centuries.
Contra the left the environmental changes postulated will near certainly occur gradually.
There are no “tipping points”. The Ipcc’s worst projections have the oceans rising a few feet by 2100, the minimums which are still higher than observations are a few inches.
Venice has been sinking for centuries – so has New Orleans.
Conversely more and more of Canada, the US north, and siberia will become available for raising crops.
We constantly ignore that should warming actually occur there are massive positive benefits.
Left wing nut scientists constantly claim that warming will result in mass extinctions – yet historically the greatest biodiversity in earths history has been when temperatures are far warmer than the present.
I do not honestly beleive we are going to see warming any different from what most of us have already experienced in our lifetimes.
But should that occur – we will do fine, we will thrive and prosper, likely more than otherwise, and we will do all of that without government intervention.
There will be winners and losers. But there will be winners and losers no matter what.
What we do not want is govenrment deciding who the winners and losers will be.
Roby
Ireland is at peace.
It has taken almost a millennia to achieve that.
40 years ago I would not have believed that was possible.
There have been myriads of government efforts to bring peace to ireland.
Ultimately the driving factor for peace in ireland was prosperity – not government.
The Mideast looks a disasterous mess.
I would be happy to agree that I do not think governments can do a damn thing about that.
But peace will come to the mideast eventually.
In the meantime we should be doing our best to stay out of the fighting and to protect ourselves from rogue regimes.
But we do not have to kill all our enemies to do so.
The US has spent over a century as a beligerant world superpower, and the evidence of our government having a positive impact on the world is nil.
Roby;
Homo Sapiens came into existance at the tail end of a global ice age, we now populate the entire earth our ability to adapt is far greater than any likely change.
We know nearly nothing about rates of past climate change.
Our records of past temperatures diminish in quality rapidly as you move into the past.
We only have direct readings of temperatures – and only for small parts of the world as far back as 1640.
Past that everything is by proxy. Each proxy covers a different time period and has a different level of granularity. Those for the past thousand years have small granularity.
Those for the past million years have enormous granularity.
If we say that the earth’s temperature was 2C higher a million years ago than today – that value is the average temperature for 100,000 years, There easily could have been multiple ice ages during that period,
We have no reason to beleive that past variation was different than present.
We have evidence to the contrary.
Major volcanic eruptions have significantly and quickly disrupted climate globally for years.
Why is it that left wing nuts always presume that everything vaguely associated with humans is inherently unusual ?
Roby;
I can imagine a disruptive warmer climate.
I can far more easily imagine a disruptive colder climate.
The avg temp in my county is 10C,
100F is 37C – that is a rise of 27C. at 4C per doubling that is almost 7 doublings of CO2
That would require CO2 at 51200ppm – I do not think those levels have ever been reached. Regardless at the current rate of change in CO2 that would take 34000 years
That is about 5 times all human recorded history.
Reduce the TCI to the more likely value of .25C and these numbers become astronomically large.
I am sorry but scientists who “beleive” in this CAGW nonsense are all mathematically challenged.
Please read about Malthus. These “malthusian” projections do not ever happen.
They can not. But it takes a better understanding of statistics, math and feedbacks than most climate scientists have to grasp that.
I noted that predicting the future is impossible. Still we have been doing it forever.
The best predictions of the future have not come from scientists or engineers (or politicians) but from ordinary people – particularly entrepeneurs.
Roby
Our decendents are not going to care about us anymore than we do about out parents generations.
They are going to be too busy fixated on whatever stupid malthusian prediction of the future and doom and gloom is prevelant in their time.
Thank you.
Those on the left have always been incredibly intolerant of other viewpoints.
I am pretty sure I have posted survey data showing that those on the far left censor themselves about 40% of the time because they are afraid of how others will respond, while those on the far right censor themselves 72% of the time.
That alone should tell you why Trump won the election.
I do not like Trump.
But I do like very much that he is in the face of the intolerant obnoxious left.
I value tolerance highly – but I really wish that those on the left like Roby had to live in the same world as most of the rest of us.
I beleive it was Jay laughed at the Lutheran minister who tried to make a religious argument for why god allows evil to exist.
I do not agree with his argument – but I am not holding him up to scorn derision and laughter.
But that is what those on the left do all of the time.
I have made serious mistakes here with Roby in particular.
My mistake is that I have allowed myself to become too much like him.
Roby is completely blind to the fact that not only doesn’t he make arguments, he does very little beyond insult those who disagree with him.
The modern US left has really become much like the soviet and Chinese communists of half a century ago.
Not only is dissent from the right punished – but within the left itself it has been punished.
Many of the modern lights I respect most at the moment were free thinkers on the left who found themselves being threatened with excomunication by the church of progressivism.
And are now calling themselves libertarians.
People like Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, or Johnathan Haidt.
The right has lots of problems and factions and infighting,
but the left is self destructing – and blind to that.
And it is doing so because it has grown so used to weaponizing the threat to label you an apostate, to identify you as a hateful hating hater, and by ever expanding the conformity required for acceptance. this is the path to destruction.
Trump’s election has accelerated this.
While Trump is far from a perfect president, he is also far from our worst.
But he won, and they lost and that is not acceptable.
That could only have happened as a consequence of some evil deed.
Our national discussion – atleast from the left is rooted in this premise that somehow Russian Facebook adds altered the election.
I do not understand why everyone with a brain does not think that is hillariously absurd ?
I also do not understand why the left does not grasp that most trump voters are likely to think it is unbelieveably condescending and insulting.
If you beleive that Russian adds altered the outcome of the election – you are telling Trump voters they were duped by russians.
Roby thinks I am a poor salesman. If you can convince those blue collar democratic Trump voters that they are so stupid they were duped into voting for Trump by stupid Russian adds showing satanic Hillary wrestling Jesus – then you are one hell of a sales person and I take my hat off to you.
Anyway a part of my point is that some of what is going on at TNM is reflective of the nation at large.
A portion of us are so angry over this election that they can not do anything but spew insults. And they are prepared to accept any means to change the results.
After Obama was elected in 2008, there was a tiny fraction on the right who felt the same,
but most of the right settled to forestalling as much as possible the worst of Obama’s policies, with some success.
If that is what the left was up to – we would not be at war.
Dave: I have to agree with you about the intolerant left. (I no longer refer to them as liberals, because they’re anything but.) I find that I can disagree with my conservative friends without incurring their wrath, but I risk expulsion from polite society if I disagree with my progressive friends. (I feel I have to monitor just how much I can get away with in my Facebook pronouncements.) If I attend a party thrown by any of my progressive friends and the other invitees know me, I have to worry that they now regard me as a heretic, if not a villain. One wife of a progressive friend has stopped interacting with me on Facebook. (She hasn’t unfriended me; she simply ignores me.) It’s really as if progressivism has become a religion and I’m risking excommunication for my heterodox ideas.
This has always been an issue – but it has been getting much worse.
I cite Prof. Haidt regularly. He thought of himself as on the left, until he accidentally “triggered” a student in class over something he thought was non-controversial.
This has resulted in his forming heterdox academy and working to fix free expression on campus.
The pew study cited alot recently that shows us more divided that ever does not indicate this on graphs – but the growing gap is because the left is moving further left.
The driving force is the intolerance of the left. And it goes beyond censoring conservatives.
In fact arguably conservatives on campus have more freedom to speak than moderates or those slightly to the left.
Like all past historical left movements – the left is most rigorous in censoring its own members.
The big revalation in ClimateGate was not that the high priest of warmendom were supressing skeptic papers – everyone already knew that.
It is that they were silently supressing other warmists – that did not hew perfictly to dogma.
It is this revelation that drove Judith Curry to the skeptic camp.
One campus left departments are harder on other leftists, than other groups – coalescing the left at the far extreme.
We are also seeing this right now with the democratic party.
No one wants to hear that Hitler was a socialist – but it is absolutely true, and he made it perfectly clear that his hatred of communism was because ideologically they were too close to Nazism. There was only room in the political space for one.
There are many decent people on the left. My wife is part of a litterally flaming UCC church tthat I think is great – and particularly great for her. I do alot to help, but when there I keep my mouth shut or find topics that I can discuss with a progressive that will nor expose that I disagree on most everything with them.
These are good people – just as Roby and Jay are likely good people.
They are doing many good things, But they beleive and attempt to do many things that are immoral and evil, and they do not grasp it.
It the real world face to face there is no possibility I could confront most progressives as I do on the web. I could not remain friends with them and many would resort to violence.
Anyone who thinks lefties are non-violent has never pissed on off.
Not really, Priscilla, the “lurkers” I am thinking of would like a slimmer site not one cluttered with one person’s posts. I am saying this about the logistics of having a conversation with so many long posts that it is hard to keep track and the comments seem to get scattered.
Ever try to have a discussion in a crowded very noisy bar from a distance of 10 feet or more if you can’t overcome the loud juke box and louder patrons.
I do get it, dd12. Over the years, we have developed a long-form commentary, and, although I admire your pithiness, we are not all possessed of such pith.
Not to mention, WordPress makes it difficult to follow a thread, and particularly to respond to a specific person, if the thread is long. I also try to directly address the people to whose comments I’m responding, to try and avoid misunderstandings…but the bar can get very noisy.
Look back at threads in 2009. Nice pithiness there.
My posts have gotten longer and sloppier.
That is because I no longer edit them, or look to shrink them, or organize them.
They are more streams of consciousness and that shows.
That is not how I write professionally.
I have spent 5 hours getting a 2 paragraph email as I want it – pithy and accurate.
Regardless, the approach I have taken with TNM optimizes my time.
And that is my choice.
You get to make your own.
I do not read TNM in my web browser and have not for a long time.
New comments come to me via email, as individual emails.
I reply to those I wish to reply to, and ignore those I do not.
That poses occasional problems – because I am rarely looking at more than two comments in a chain. It also leads to a chain staying off topic once it is shifted.
But it makes managing posts easier for me.
Just my ,02.
Your analogy does not apply.
Read a post, do not read a post.
There is no cost to you rooted in the actions of any other posters.
If instead of my posts, there were 10 other libertarians here – would that alter anything ?
Absolutely, dhii, most would be brief and to the point, with nuances.
The justification of the use of force is rarely very nuanced.
If you want a nuanced discussion with me – pick a topic that is nuanced.
Like poetry, or music, or art.
That would also fit into Roby’s idyl where all views are equal.
We can disagree over poetry and not likely have anyone wrong.
We can debate nuance, because poetry is nuanced.
It is not about force.
dduck: I completely understand your concern about the verbal “noise” here. It’s like going to a class reunion where the DJ is playing high-decibel music for the entire evening and you can’t engage in audible conversations with classmates you haven’t seen for 30 years.
I wish I could think of an easy solution. Dave dominates the proceedings with his libertarian evangelism, but he’s civil and I wouldn’t dream of evicting him. If I had more control over WordPress, I could impose a 100-word limit or a maximum number of posts per day. But I can’t. My only advice is to skim as much as possible and interact with the people you feel like interacting with. (I gave similar advice to Roby.)
Rick;
It is your site, and you can do as you please.
And I am giving serious consideration to some other options.
But I would note – the analogies do not work.
A web site is NOT like a class reunion with a loud DJ.
What one person posts here does not alter what another person must read.
And the media’s support for HRC started before Bill was elected president.
So what ?
dh, do you read your own questions: “If instead of my posts, there were 10 other libertarians here – would that alter anything ?”
I addressed you by name,. a habit which can be learned, BTW, and said this: Absolutely, dhii, most would be brief and to the point, with nuances.”
Your answer went off on a tangent- read it, above.
DO you see why it is impossible to have a coherent discussion with you on ANY subject?
And an answer other than, “it is my way, you can do it your way”, would be a start.
And, Roby, looking forward to your return.
As best as I can tell you are responding to a hypothetical with an altogether different hypothetical, claiming they are the same and that somehow I can not read my own questions.
Why do you presume that 10 other libertarians would be brief and to the point ?
Some would. Some would likely be worse.
It does not even matter if it were 10 other libertarians.
From the perspective of your argument, it could be 10 wordy progressives.
The point is that 100 2000 char posts are still 200 2000 char posts.
If I went away completely and 100 new posters showed up – you would have far more to wade through.
Is anyone following what is going on in Saudi Arabia?
I don’t completely understand it, but it appears that the more moderate, that is the anti Muslim Brotherhood (note that I’m referring to the MB, not Muslims in general) faction of the Saudi royal family is ascendant right now, and intent upon re-aligning with the US in a power shift away from the Iranian-Russian nexus.
I have no clue – between arrests of the royal family and a helicopter crash killing off the crown prince and alot of the top, I have no idea what is going on or who is ascendant.
Add to this that SA has an enormous investment in men and material in war in yemen.
Things could go completely to hell.
“So this much-needed respite from the Middle East madness may be coming to a close. An empowered Iran is getting richer, and it is watching closely how nuclear North Korea fares in its threats to the U.S. and its allies. Hezbollah, the Assad government, and Iran are waging a veritable proxy war against Saudi Arabia”.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453473/middle-east-threat-remains-beware-iranian-syrian-hezbollah-attack-israel
“Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of seven professors Monday in support of the Columbia Knight First Amendment Institute’s lawsuit challenging Trump’s ability to block opponents from his @realDonaldTrump Twitter feed.”
“Because Trump and his aides have made clear that they consider statements published on @realDonaldTrump to be official statements, the Knight First Amendment Institute argues the president has imposed an unconstitutional restriction on the plaintiffs’ participation in a designated public forum, right to access statements that defendants are otherwise making available to the public at large and right to petition the government for redress of grievances.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/358931-legal-scholars-trump-acting-like-a-dictator-by-blocking-twitter
Why should this be any different than any other disagreement between liberals and conservatives? We have been teaching our kids this behavior is fine for 20+ years by our elected officials.
Will be interesting to hear final outcome as to who did what to create the disagreement. From some reports, it appears that Paul lives in a “communist” neighborhood where home owners have control of what others can do with there property and Paul had compost in violation of those rules and growing pumpkins where it was not allowed. Other reports state he was mowing his lawn and not using a grass catcher. While mowing along the adjoining yard, grass and leaves were blowing onto the neighbor’s yard and the neighbor got pissed off.
There is no possible fact pattern consistent with those facts we do know that justifies this.
There are claims this was political – but Boucher’s lawyer deny’s that.
Boucher and Paul are both doctors and had worked together in the past.
Several people who know Paul well claim that he has never mentioned any past conflict with Boucher.
There are all kinds of rumours – some you mentioned, also a property line dispute and something about where kids were playing.
But nothing is actually known at the moment.
In the event Paul may have been doing something he was not allowed to.
Assault is not the remedy.
No assualt is never justifiable, but dont you think the way we are today it leads to more physical confrontations?
You may not think so and maybe in your neck of the woods people are more civil in their approach to differences of opinion. But I believe all the negative stimulus on TV and the internet today lends itself to impacting people to act in irrational ways that they most likely would not in a more civil society.
I agree, Ron. Before the internet, I was a quiet, reasonable, timid person. 😌
I hear that.😀
After making this comment, I heard an interview with a young lady who had been a target of the Texas shooter in high school. It got so bad with his violence she had to drop out of school, the school did not follow up on any of her complaints and the sheriffs departnent all but ignored her.
Could the negativity also be affecting the authorities where they are not taking threats as important as they should take them.
Actual US violent crime rate has been declining for decades.
Though there has been an uptick in major cities in 2016-2017
Perceived crime rate has been increasing.
https://images.dailykos.com/images/182846/large/uotxycqc8u6z0k1zh06lpg-1.png?1449160993
Typical of leftists – celebrating assault.
I don’t get the comment by Wolfram, I don’t think its funny.
If it turns out there was actually a political motive for breaking Pauls ribs etc. that would be despicable. People should not assault politicians and politicians should not assault (see Montana) people.
I would wait until all the facts are in before deciding this had some political cause. Meanwhile, its to me a serious thing that someone got blind side assaulted and seriously injured, whatever the reason. Making jokes about it is gonna backfire. An assault on Paul certainly is not a platform for having a bash at libertarians.
I don’t get people sometimes.
See, we can agree.
The use of force against others must be justified.
Even when government does it.
“Carter Page’s testimony is filled with bombshells — and supports key portions of the Steele dossier…
The House Intelligence Committee on Monday released the full transcript of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page’s testimony before the panel last week, portions of which support details in an explosive collection of memos outlining alleged collusion between the campaign and Moscow during the election.
Page revealed during his testimony that he met with both members of Russia’s presidential administration and with the head of investor relations at the state-owned Russian oil giant Rosneft during his trip to Moscow last July.
He also congratulated members of the Trump campaign’s foreign policy team on July 14 for their “excellent work” on the “Ukraine amendment” – a reference to the Trump campaign’s decision to “intervene” to water down a proposed amendment to the GOP’s Ukraine platform.“
tRUMP and his brigade of lying liars once again caught in the net of their lying lies.
http://www.businessinsider.com/carter-page-congressional-testimony-transcript-steele-dossier-2017-11
In his testimony and as documented by emails from Lewandowski, Page was told BEFORE he went to russia that he was free to do so on his own, but that he did not represent the Trump campaign. Page was invited to speak at Moscow university – much like Bill Clinton was invited to speak at Renaissance Capital.
This is consistent with What the campaign has previously stated, and consistent with what Page has previously stated.
Page has pretty actively been demanding to be allowed to testify because of the scurlous accusations made about him.
It does not matter whether Page met with Putin.
All the rest is nonsense.
I would further note that the Trip was in July, that once again means the Trump/Russia/DNC email meme is down the toilet – so many ways.
I doubt there would be any difficulty finding myriads of people affiliated with Clinton who visited Russia in 2016.
The bottom line is that all you have is a bit more detail on something we already know.
that was nothing before and remains nothing.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that whatever various people might have tried to do on their own the Trump campaign itself was actively trying to thwart contact with Russia.
Page brings back another mention by the Russians of a request that Trump visit Russia – which never happened.
You seem to think that adding just one more instance of inconsequential non-campaign contact with Russia that produced nothing is somehow meaningful.
Dave, the name of the game with the liberal press and Trump is the same as the game was for Obama and the conservative press.. For Obama it was the birther issue for months that was a “nothing burger”. The plan is to keep people that are anti trump activated to keep posting stuff in various sites.
Best if you post something in response to items like this to be restricted to “nothing new”. They know its nothing new, you know its nothing new and most people paying attention know its nothing new. Why waste the time writing out something most people already know?
The birther issue never commanded the attention that the left is getting regarding Trump.
But the comparison is apt.
I personally think the evidence that the birth certificates that have been made public have been altered is reasonably good – not absolutely certain, but still good.
HOWEVER, it is also pretty close to an absolute certainty that Obama was born in Hawaii.
There is just no possible fact pattern consistent with many things we do know that would have him born in Kenya.
The question then becomes what was Obama hiding – which is much like why won’t Trump release tax returns.
In the end both are none of our business.
My guess is that the father listed on the birth certificate is not Barack Obama Sr.
But that is a guess.
Further no matter what Obama is not responsible for something that happened 60 years ago.
Personally – I do not give a damn even if he was born in Kenya.
So the entire Obama meme devolves exactly like the Trump/Russia meme.
There is no possible outcome consistent with what we know to be facts now, that will produce the left’s hoped outcome.
Yeah! JJ
“21st Century Fox Has Held Merger Talks With Disney—Reports”
Unfortunately the deal won’t include Fox News.
That means we won’t be seeing Elmer Fudd and Donald Duck replacing Tucker Carter and Sean Hannity any time soon. (Would we know the difference?)
http://deadline.com/2017/11/21st-century-fox-has-held-merger-talks-with-disney-report-1202202840/
Could it be time for Rick to add a link to the right side of his web site under “Pages” a link called “Pissing Contests”. Maybe Roby, Dave and others that get into 300+ personal attacks could link up there and allow for common sense debate to be on the issues Rick post. I know I have made a few disparaging remarks in the past, but this is getting ridiculous given the amount of shit slinging that has taken place the last two post by Rick.
You are right, of course. Sorry about that.
Ron: We do have a link that serves the purpose of a “pissing contest.” It’s called “Wild Card Debate,” I created it for just this purpose, and we used it for about a month or two before abandoning it. But you’re right — we really need to dust off that link and start using it to reduce the verbal clutter under each of my columns. Believe me, I’m flattered that The New Moderate has been drawing a thousand comments each month, but it makes it difficult to hold a coherent discussion of each post. Let’s have some Wild Card Debates!
Give us instructions on how to get that link to notify readers by email when something is posted to that area. I have mine set to be notified when you post a new article and then I have to post something and click the boxes at the bottom of the comment box to get notified when people comment. Once that is done I see all the comment via e-mail and it links me to the comment when I follow up.
If there is a better way, would like to know.
Good one. The Second Amendment diehards love their semi-automatics the way toddlers love their teddy bears.
Second try:
Rick, I have said th is before, but I repeat. The second amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”. It does not say “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms holding 10 shots shall not be infringed.”
The preamble to the constitution includes “We the people”. It also did not specify which people. The congress did not pass a law that clarified which people. They passed an amendment making it very clear who were the people and did it in a way that made it hard for future congresses to change what they did.
If congress passes an amendment that specifically identifies what type of weapons we can or can not possess and the people supported this amendment through their states approving that amendment, then I would support that action.
I would not support legislation as that opens the door for the left to drive their agenda through further restricting rights through additional legislation. Its the drip method of infringement and as our country moves further leftand right, sensible actions in the middle is absent.
We outlawed Machine Guns.
That wasn’t unconstitutional.
It won’t be unconstitutional to outlaw semi automatics, or any other class of guns.
As long as we don’t out ALL weapons we are faithful to the 2nd Amendment’s self protection intention.
Jay did we really outlaw machine guns? What is the basic difference between an automatic assault rifle and a machine gun? Could the people in Los Vegas tell the difference or the ones in the Texas church?
You say as long as we don’t outlaw all guns we are following the 2nd amendment. So how many guns banned is OK?
Liberals and progressives are much more gullible thinking government will pass one law and go no further. Libertarians and those with Libertarian leanings understand government will not stop once they get a foot in the door.
So I ask you the same thing as I am asking rick. Why not do it the right way and pass the 28th amendment defining what you and I can own, along with giving people the right to carry nationally instead of 50 different state laws where I might be able to carry in 20 legally, but illegally in 30 others when I am passing though on a vacation. That is why amendments were set up, just for issue like this.
And don’t tell me that it would never pass 2/3rds of the states. If it would never pass, then it IS NOT what the people want nationally and only some from bleeding heart states would want it. If people want it, they will let their state elected officials know and then elect those that would support the amendment. That is the democratic way of government, not the Democrat way!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are Machine Guns illegal?
No, and Yes.
“From 1936 to 1986
The federal government started regulating and keeping records of machine guns back when it passed the National Firearms Act of 1934.
That law mandated strict guidelines for manufacturers and put them in place for owners to register their machine guns.
Then in 1986, the feds imposed the Firearm Owners Protection Act which expanded on the original law.
It also banned possession and transfer of new automatic firearms and parts that fire bullets without stopping once the trigger is depressed.
Critically, legal machine guns must be manufactured before May 19, 1986 — the cutoff date imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives (ATF).
Because of their scarcity, legal machine guns are very expensive, still require the original 1934 Machine Gun Tax stamp of $200 and the owner or trader must undergo extensive background checks and also permit the federal government to conduct searches.
Law enforcement agencies and the military are not subject to the same stringent measures.
Registered machine gun dealers are also permitted to possess samples to sell to military and law enforcement customers.
Federal and state laws
More legislation regarding machine guns exist at the state level and can impose long prison sentences.
In fact, fines of up to $250,000 and prison sentences up to 10 years can be instituted to those in possession of an unregistered machine gun.
Connecticut is a small state of 4 million residents but possesses the greatest share of machine guns nationwide, with 52,965 registered. Their machine gun law details that the parts of a machine gun must be registered with the ATF.
“Connecticut residents may purchase machine guns if they are capable of a ‘full automatic only’ rate of fire. Any select fire weapon is considered an ‘Assault Weapon’ and is prohibited by State Law,” according to their gun laws.
Nevada follows the federal guidelines: machine guns can be possessed if they are registered and manufactured before 1986.
As of April 2017, there were over 11,000 machine guns registered in the same state where Adam Lanza committed one of the nation’s deadliest mass shootings when he killed 26 people, including 20 first graders.
But these guns mostly aren’t being handled by the general public.
“[Many are] in the hands of law enforcement, and they have to register too. Those are part of the high number,” Lindsay Nichols, the Federal Policy Director from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun law advocacy organization told ABC News.
Texas falls in second to Connecticut with 36,534 machine guns registered among a population of almost 28 million.
The state has the most federally registered weapons with almost 590,000.
The ATF’s Nationally, according to the 2017 Commencement Report confirmed there were 630,019 machine guns registered nationwide. A spokesperson for the ATF said that the number of machine gun owners nationwide is not known. ”
http://abcnews.go.com/US/machine-gun-laws-us/story?id=50256580
Jay, can you also address the issue about the “28th” amendment?
I’d slightly alter the wording to ‘more strictly’ applies to senators and/or Representatives.
Well this is internet communication for ya. There is no 28th amendment. I said in my previous comment that I would support a 28th amendment that specifically identified what we could or could not bear in the form of arms..
So when you responded with the info on machine guns and did not answer my question concerning your position on that, then I asked what you thought about the “28th” amendment. MY BAD!
So I put people in three categories.
Complete trust in government
Trust but clarify government
Complete distrust of gov’t
I fall in the middle groupband therefore want the roadmap they follow clearly defined.
Ron, I thought you meant this proposed amendment:
“Viral message quotes a proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to wit: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives.”
Description: Viral text / Forwarded email
Circulating since: Nov. 2009
So I will put you in the trust government category since you have twice avoided the question and I suspect you dont want to debate the issue of limiting future gun control by future liberal adminustrations since an amendment would do that where legislation would not.
AR-15’s are not being handled by the “general public” they are being handled by the about 3m – that is about 1% of the population that owns them.
You misunderstand/misuse the meaning of “general public.”
Look it up.
Websters
general public: all the people of an area, country
Assault rifle has no meaning. The definition used in the “assault rifle ban” was “scarry looking weapon” essentially.
Automatic and machine gun essentially means the same thing.
The weapons the left wishes to ban are not automatics.
The AR-15 Receiver can be made at home now, so there really is no way to stop them.
An M-16 Receiver is no more difficult to make than an AR-15 – the guns are very strongly related. But there are no opensource CNC files for an M16 yet.
In the end you just can not control this.
We behave stupidly when we ban things. It just does not work – ever.
An AR-15 can be converted from Semi-Autmatic to full automatic in a few minutes with a mod kit – but once that is done, it is illegal. Bump Stocks are more popular because they are legal. But they also screw badly with the accuracy of the weapon.
BTW pretty much every handgun is “semi-automatic” – they can fire multiple shots – one with each pull of the trigger. That is exactly how an AR-15 works.
We did not outlaw machine guns, we just extremely regulated them.
It is possible to privately own a machine gun in the US.
To my knowledge there is no supreme court precedent regarding the constitutionality fo regulating machine guns.
Those on the left are affraid they would lose if such a case was brought and those on the right are affraid they would lose.
So everybody sticks with the status quo.
Ron: You have to acknowledge that when the Bill of Rights was drafted, “arms” meant muskets, long rifles, pistols and bayonets. The Founding Fathers couldn’t have foreseen the destructive power of semi-automatic assault weapons. Also (although the language is ambiguous), the Second Amendment granted the right to bear arms within the framework of “a well-ordered militia.” I don’t see any order in lone madmen mowing down crowds of innocent people.
Government-imposed regulations on driving (driver’s tests, license renewals, mandatory seat belts, baby seats, airbags, etc.) have saved countless lives over the years. I feel strongly that assault weapons, whose only purpose is to kill as many people in as short a time as possible, should be regulated at least as stringently as our cars.
Rick, and driving and the rules pertaining to driver’s tests, license renewals, mandatory seat belts, baby seats, airbags, etc. is also based on a privileged and not a right. I have no problem making laws when something is a privilege and can be revoked for any reason.
But again, whats the problem with a constitutional amendment that updates the constitution and spells out what we can and can not own? Jay keeps posting stuff that says more than 50% of the people are fine with restrictions to gun ownership. So if they are fine with restrictions, why not make it constitutionally defined what we can and can not own.
I am not gullible enough to think if Pelosi and Shumer ever get a law to ban assault rifles and then someone walks in with a 22 caliber rifle with a Tubular magazine that holds 25 Short, 19 Long or 17 Long Rifle cartridges and kills 7 or 8 people that they might not decide that these rifles should be banned. And then something happens with a handgun and they or their successors decide that one needs to be banned. Finally all guns are banned.
I have no problem determining what Americans can own, but do it the right way, just like congress did with the 14th amendment. Think about it. If congress way back then had passed a law saying people born in the country were citizens, someone like Trump comes along and decides kids born to illegals should not be citizens and he gets congress to pass another law revoking that one and the new one takes citizenship away from this group if born in the USA in the future.. He can’t do that now because congress did it the right way to begin with.
When the bill of rights was drifted “ARMs” meant the best weapons available at the time.
One of the reasons for the success of the continentals was a sufficiently large number of Pennsylvania Rifles.
The pennsylvania rifle was incredibly accurate for its time and had nearly twice the range of anything the british possessed, and it was fairly common among homesteaders and farmers.
Its primary weakness was that its rate of fire was far slower than british muskets.
But war is often about finding the tactics that feature the strength of your weapons while avoiding their weakenesses.
Particularly in new england the continentals were extremely effective at ambushing british from a distance. They would load there weapons, position themselves to fire when the british got within range – fire once and they retreat immediately, reload, setup and do it again. The result was a slow whittling away of british forces with no continental casualties, because the continentals had far better range and accuracy.
Do not kid yourself the Pennsyvania Rifle was the “assualt weapon” of its era.
BTW during the colonial era we had private ownership of cannon (and still do).
We also had privateers – privately owned warships used primarily as commerce raiders.
People value all kinds of things over human lives.
Sometimes they value things over their own lives.
One of the fundimental differences between many libertarians and everyone else is that we grasp that ultimately life has a value, and it is not all that high.
The left and sometimes the right seem to think that a price can not be placed on life.
But we do it all the time.
When you go a bit over (or under) the speed limit, you increase your odds of dying.
You do nit base on your personal preference. You may not littlerally do the math, but you know that you could die, and you know the odds are real but small.
You have assigned a value for your own life.
But when those on the left and right duck the issue – that just means that government ends up deciding the value of a human life.
In 2010 HHS used a value of 225K in determining whether to treat different diseases and illnesses under ObamaCare.
Deciding that government handles placing a value on human life – means that value is low.
So far in South Korea, President Me-Me-Me has talked about:
-HIS stock market heights
-HIS unemployment rate lows
-Women’s U.S. Open being held at HIS Trump property.
And the MSM isn’t giving him a hard time about it. 😏
In the article I am linking, there is a quote from the director of this California regulatory agency. He states ““If the test of the validity of government programs is they act 100 percent perfectly, there would be no government programs. We’d never do anything,” he said. “We can do better, but just because we can’t do everything doesn’t mean we can’t do everything we can.”
In 2013 there were 20,000 people on the restricted list that officials had not been able to contact. There are people on the list that should not be on the list and it is very difficult to get off. One has to wonder what the ACLU’s position is on this is since they have challenged the no fly list multiple times and won some of them. California has agents going to homes and searching residences for guns. (But trump caught hell when someone commented about agents looking for illegal immigrants by going to homes).
And they say this might have stopped Kelley in Texas had this been available in Texas. Problem is, no one reported him so he may never have been placed on a list. Had he been reported as the law required, he also would have had a harder time securing a gun.
So this activates my Libertarian dislike for government because a program that can not be 100% correct then needs for someone to determine if the program is OK at 90% 80% 50% validity. How many people incorrectly added to the list and their rights taken away is acceptable? Is it OK for the state to search a residence to determine if guns are present if there are no indications that guns are present just because your on a list?
This is a shining example of why gun control will not work. Only the ones following the law will be effected and they are not the problem.
All this demonstrates is the overall failure of government regulation – including gun control.
The TX shooter was stopped by a citizen with a gun.
Many mass shootings are averted that way – but you do not here about them – because the avg number of deaths in potential mass shooting instances where there is broad carry rights, is 2.
In an active shooter incident the police are just not arriving in minutes, and whenever they arrive it will take some time before they assess and deploy.
At Columbine there were 6 SWAT teams present for more than an hour. while killing continued.
There are very very few instances were SWAT teams have actually ended an active shooter incident.
SWAT teams are primarily used for serving search warrants.
The TX incident is unfortunate – but it would have been worse with greater gun control, not better.
With respect to your regulator from California.
He is astute but he actually gets it wrong.
Government can rarely if ever resolve any problem better than the market.
The choice rarely is between bad government regulation and chaos.
This is not just about gun control – all government regulation suffers these problems.
Regulation is incredibly burdensome
There is the cost of what does nto happen because of regulation
There is the cost of compliance,
There is the cost of enforcement
There is the cost because markets do not find their own solutions
And in the end few regulations actually work.
People who “shouldn’t” still get guns.
How #Trumpanzee Fox reacted to yesterday’s elections:
“Sean Hannity, whose Fox show airs at 9 p.m. EST, devoted just six seconds of coverage — six seconds! — to the Virginia and New Jersey results, dismissing them as “not states Donald Trump won.” Hannity carried President Trump’s 34-minute speech to South Korea’s National Assembly live and in full.
“Pundits are calling Tuesday’s results a repudiation of Trump,” wrote Breitbart’s Joel Pollack. “It would be more accurate to point out that, once again, the Republican establishment came up short.” The website’s home-page headline echoed Trump’s late-night effort to distance himself from Gillespie’s loss, branding Gillespie a “Republican swamp thing.”
Throughout the campaign, Breitbart praised Gillespie for incorporating Trumpist messages.”
ALL THE NEWS IT’S FIT TO ignore
Kind of like MSNBC not covering the Clinton scandals.
No, not really.
Scandals = Subjective
Election = Objective
(And don’t forget the FACT that FOX always undercovers tRUMP Scandals)
An awful lot of the Clinton scandals is absolutely objective:
The U1 deal really did happen.
The Clinton Foundation really did receive 140M through their canadian Subsidiary from oligarchs that were part of the deal.
The Russians really did try to Corrupt US businessmen as part of the Deal.
The FBI/DOJ really did open up a large investigation into Russian bribery and corruption related to the U1 deal.
That investigation really did languish for years while the deal proceeded.
CFIUS really was made aware of the bribery and corruption
Congress really was kept in the dark about the bribery and corruption.
Clinton really did know that Benghazi was planned terrorist attack on the night of the attack
and she really did lie about it
Clinton really did violate the memorandum of understanding she and Bill had with Obama regarding their outside activities.
Clinton really did use a private unsecured email server for official US government communications as Sec. State.
She really did send classified information over the internet – which is somethat can not be done except by deliberate act.
Clinton really did send some of that to people who did not have security clearances.
She really did violate Federal records keeping laws.
Government Emails on her private server really were deleted AFTER both congressional subpeonas and a court order to preserve was issued.
The Clinton Foundation really did forward requests for speciai treatment by big donors to top Clinton staffers and those people really did often get special treatment.
All of the above – plus lots and lots more is absolutely objectively true fact.
I really have not listed many many other things that really did happen.
There are a handful of conclusions that are drawn from those facts that are mildly subjective. Such as Clinton really did violate 18cfr793(f) and probably (e).
Intent really is not a requirement for (f).
Others – such as Petreaus, and Deutch really were prosecuted and convicted of less/
But whether that was prosecutable is mildly subjective.
Not a big Fox fan, pretty much never watch it.
That said the harvard media analysis of the first 6 months of the Trump campaign found that Fox coverage of Trump was 51% unfavorable.
That is compared to MSNBC which was 92% unfavorable.
Regardless, Fox is biased – I have no problem with that. I do not particularly think they are pro-trump biased. MSNBC is also biased, as is CNN, NYT, WAPO, ….
Recognize that the media is biased and make your choices accordingly.
You seem to beleive you have some right to a perfectly objective report of the world.
That does not and can not exist, and what you actually want is not unbiased anyway, it is just that your viewpoint is featured.
Jay REALLY???????????????. Are you really going to tell me that MSNBC would cover Hillary or any other democrats questionable activities as closely as they would cover Trumps?
NEWSFLASH!!!!!!!!!!!! They all do it depending on their political tilt. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I would also note that the VA election was a heavyweight slugfest between moderates.
The message to Republicans is either that VA is finally tipping Blue – which is inevitable.
Or that moderates can not win as Republicans in VA.
The message to Democrats should be that then need to shift strongly to the center.
There are some other complications. Gillespie studiously avoided Trump.
But he did buy into to a small amount of Bannon’s economic populism – and it did not win for him in VA.
Northam fumbled badly handling the economic populist attack on him, but regardless, no one saw him as a Bernie Sanders democrat regardless, He was a dull, somewhat politically inept centrist democrat not really looking to make any waves.
I am not sure how Virginia Translates to PA or the rust belt.
But VA should be sending a message that Dull Centrist democrats can win in purple states.
“The message to Republicans is either that VA is finally tipping Blue – which is inevitable.”
Like i already said, it tuned purple years ago when Harry Byrd jr and his machine exited the scene. The state, even though conservative, had more conservative leadership and was still controlled by the southern white anti equal rights division of the democrats for many years. Harry Byrd was a democrat until he switched to independent and took his conservative form of democrat with him. Once he left, the state turned red because the state was still leaning right politically. Remember, the Republicans were the civil rights party in the south and the democrats opposed it. Harry Byrd was in that group.
But with the growth of government workers and other growth in the North in the past 30 years, it offset the rural and military votes in the southern regions and then the decline in the military population further eroded the more conservative vote.
I may be wrong and only the future will tell, but Northam appears to be the type of Democrat I could vote for since he is a very moderate democrat, voted for Bush both elections and he claims to be a fiscal conservative and social liberal (kind of like my kind of Libertarian).
Only time will tell what kind of politician he really is. But I can’t see much Hillary or Barrock in him at this time.
Jay, STOP with the liberal crap!!
Virginis election has nothing to do with Trump. Virginia has been trending blue for 20+ years. Since 2002, only 4 years have been a GOP administration. With the growth of governmental workers in Northern Va and the decline in military in southest Va, the state is northern blue and not southern red. Not even purple anymore.
And the same trend is playing out in NC. Strong red to purple with all the northern liberals moving into Charlotte and Raleigh and bringing their liberal policies with them.
Mostly I agree with you.
But Gillespie lost by more than I expected – in an off off year election that is significant.
It is also significant that neither Northam nor Gillespie made Trump and issue.
Both candidates were strong respected Virginia Centrists.
The election did significantly lift the cloud over the democratic party.
A loss or even a 2pt win in VA would have been absolutely disasterous for democrats.
It is hard to say exactly what this means nationwide – for many of the reasons you cite.
The message I would get is that democratic centrists can still win elections.
“The message I would get is that democratic centrists can still win elections.”
Thats because common sense still prevails in some parts of the country, unlike California, New York, Alabama and other states where far wing wackos have taken over the parties.
If Northam is a fiscal conservative and social liberal like he says, he just might be someone who would appeal to the national democrats and appeal to moderates as well in 2020.
Each state is different.
I do not think a moderate democrat can win in California 0r Alabama.
CA is going far left no matter what. AL is going right no matter what.
Atleast today.
VA is a purple state. or maybe now a Blue state – it is hard to tell.
Something like 2/3 of voters in the exit polls wanted confederate statues to remain.
Regardless, it is an increasingly hard win for Republicans.
The states to watch in 2018 are
Missouri – can McCaskill hang on.
West VA – can Manchin hang on.
North Dakota – can Heitkamp hold on.
Indiana, montana.
These are red states with blue senators.
Then there is what happens in swing states.
Blue collar
PA, OH, WI,
Other
FL
The really really big test for Trump will be those blue collar swing states.
If the GOP does not do well in those in 2018 Trump is toast in 2020.
Those states were generally considered Blue – except maybe OH
until recently.
Republicans have lost VA, and Picked up PA, OH, and WI.
If they can hold that is a really big deal.
The VA victory was just big enough to scare Republicans.
But not big enough that Republicans should be partying.
“The VA victory was just big enough to scare Republicans.”
There is difference with Va Governors race and 2018 and 2020. Political analyst can come up with all the statistics they want and they can asked voters if they approve of Trump or not. But look at his map and tell me if there is anything different about Va than the national voting pattern.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/virginia-general-elections
The governors race is local, Many voters vote based on what the want for their state, not the president. I think that is what is happening in VA.
The biggest difference is southeast virginia and the DC area. I am sending a link on prior governor elections in Va on another comment as two links get moderated.. You can see what I am saying about the change around DC and the military in southeast Va.
Now look at this one and move the cursor to the 97 year when Gilmore won. Fewer military today = fewer GOP voters, more government workers = more democrat votes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/metro/elections/2009/governor-map.html
Now, Ron, don’t get all in a titter; it’s MODERATE Liberal Crap.
A ModerateLiberal beat a ModerateRepublican (from a Trumpian POV).
What’s interesting for future projections of Republican election difficulty ahead was Exit polls…
“But what is unusual about Tuesday night is the extent to which the two races were about Trump. And the stark results cast fresh doubt on the health of Republican majorities in the House and Senate, in addition to gubernatorial races in next year’s midterm elections.
Trump’s approval rating in Virginia was just 40 percent, according to the exit poll. Among the 57 percent of voters who disapproved of Trump’s job performance, Democrat Ralph Northam beat Republican Ed Gillespie, 87 percent to 11 percent.
The intensity gap strongly favored Northam, too. Nearly half of Virginia voters, 47 percent, strongly disapproved of Trump — and Northam won 95 percent of that vote. In other words, nearly 45 percent of the votes cast on Tuesday were from strong Trump disapprovers who voted for Northam.
Half of Virginia voters said Trump was a reason for their vote — with twice as many saying they were voting to oppose Trump (34 percent) as to support him (17 percent). Northam won 97 percent of voters for whom opposing Trump was a factor.“
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/08/virginia-exit-polls-trump-northam-gillespie-244677
Even more worrisome for Republicans down the road is the age exit demographics results.
For voters 18 to 29 – Nordham Plus 39%
For voters 30 to 49 – Nordham Plus 24%
I’ll link that below
Both Northam and Gillespie were very moderate.
Northern Virginia is just about as Anti-Trump as you can get in the entire country.
These are the swamp people Trump is litterally after.
Yet oddly exit polls say the election was NOT mostly about Trump.
It has been near universally true for my entire life that 18-29 year olds vote democratic – usually hard left.
remember the 50-60 year olds who are voting heavily for Trump today were voting for George McGovern 35 years ago.
I would suggest more carefully looking at the details of the youth demographic.
Their views are extremely unusual.
On the one hand they are the most pro-socialist cohort we have seen in a very long time.
At the same time an extraodrinarily large portion of them are very anti programs like welfare, social security and medicare.
What is mostly true is that this age cohort is badly educated politically and holds a warped and highly self contradictiory set of political values.
That is near certain to change as they age, and I would predict given the odd mix of values and the strength of some of the more unusual ones they will shift right faster than prior generations. This generation also has the largest cohort of libertarains in ages.
These demographics is destiny arguments have been made for decades.
The current political makeup of the country is purportedly demographically impossible.
If you wish to fixate on demographics here are a few that fall strongly republican:
Moving out of your parents house.
Having a job.
Paying taxes,
Owning a home.
Getting married
having kids
Living in the suburbs
Getting older
Rising standard of living.
These are things that happen to every generation.
They even happen to minorities.
Once upon a time Jews, Irish and Italians were going to deliver to democrats a permanent majority.
“A ModerateLiberal beat a ModerateRepublican (from a Trumpian POV).”
I would not call a fiscal conservative/social liberal a moderate liberal. I would call them a moderate right candidate, more Libertarian, than democrat or republican. “Stay out of my wallet and out of my bedroom”.
If that is how he governs, then I would be a Virginia Democrat.
Ed Gillespie was going to be much more social conservative and that would have swung my vote to Northam given the choices.
Yes, Trump is an albatross around the neck of the GOP. And if the house switches to democrat and Pelosi is speaker, what changes? Congress can’t get anything done anyway and they own all three branches now. I think looking at history when we have divided government, we have the best government. They can’t do much to f^&* things up like they did in 2009 with Obamacare.
But if things do play out in 2020 with Warren, Booker or Ellison becoming president, I will be one of the first with my hand out getting all the “free” crap they are going to offer.
Because we all know the government can spend anything it wants and never pay it back.
I do not use the term “liberal” anymore.
Aside from the fact that it means someone who values individual liberty.
I would be hard pressed to identify a modern democrat that I could call a liberal by 60’s or 70’s terms.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2017-election/VA
New Jersey is meaningless.
Virginia is more meaningful.
It should be mildly good news for democrats.
Had the race been closer as was expected – that would be a strong indication that we are significantly overstating the impact of Trump – though VA voters in exit polls close to universally claimed Trump was not a factor.
Complicating this is that Northam did not run an especially good campaign.
The VA results should give Republicans more to worry about that democrats.
It strongly suggests the traditional models – which suggest a 20 seat loss in the house for Republicans in 2018 is correct.
That is not a democratic wave. But it is also not the death of the democratic party.
My personal read of the Tea leaves suggests that is wrong, and that the GOP will do better in 2018 than expected. That VA is not representative of the nation as a whole.
But VA does provide some excellent reasons to question that.
At the same time while VA offers some sunlight in what has been a very cloudy democratic future, it does not portend a wave in 2018 (or 2020), merely more normal patterns.
Yeah, but the New Jersey dude is another Goldman Sacks prodigy. Thought those Democrats wanted to rid the country of Wall Street.
New Jersey is a deep blue state. Christy was an anomally.
I do not even know who ran in NJ – did anyone think a republican was winning ?
Didn’t tRUMP-a-Dump promise to do that too?
You can’t trust either party to be honest.
But now, the Rs are way more deceitful
I think if you list all the lies that Obama or Clinton told to get elected, and compared them to those of Trump, McCain, or Romney, you would find that the “D’s” are far more deceitful.
That is why libertarians and independents often hold their nose and vote R.
And why despite a significant registration advantage most of the country is red.
But you can believe whatever you want.
What I would ask is given that you grasp neither party is to be trusted.
Something I would completely agree with you even if I think the “D’s” are way more deceiptful than the R’s.
Why given that it is crooks all the way down – do you want to increase the power of govenrment ?
Are you some kind of masochist ?
Why is is so hard for those on the left to grasp that we are getting crooks and liars no matter what, we should atleast give them as little power as possible.
“Why given that it is crooks all the way down – do you want to increase the power of govenrment ?”
Another simpleminded simplification.
First, ALL THROUGH HISTORY some politicians have been corrupt, but the majority are not.
Second, I want to assign to politicians limited power, to keep the cogs of civilization meshing: some government is good: some bad. There’s a lot I’d like to circumscribe but there’s a lot that I’m content to see continue. When things get broke, fix them. You need to find a balance. Not ditch it all.
But discussing this with you is a waste of time.
I’d rather throw rotten tomatoes at you:
“First, ALL THROUGH HISTORY some politicians have been corrupt, but the majority are not.”
All politicians corrupt ? Maybe not, depends on how you define corrupt.
Majority not ? Again depends on definitions.
Way too much corruption – does not depend on definitions.
Way too many politicians are corrupt in some form – may not criminally corrupt, but atleast such that they are not the people we really want running our lives.
“Second, I want to assign to politicians limited power, to keep the cogs of civilization meshing: some government is good: some bad. There’s a lot I’d like to circumscribe but there’s a lot that I’m content to see continue. When things get broke, fix them. You need to find a balance. Not ditch it all.”
Again we agree – well except for definitional problems.
The cogs of civilization require some, but very little assistance from government,
Much government assistance is sand in the gears.
Alot here alot there – not particularly specific.
Before we allow government to use force against us. I think it would be very wise to be clear about the specifics regarding when force can and can not be used.
Things get broken all the time. Every broken thing does nto require government to fix it.
Further much of what is “broke” today is govenrment, and it is abysmal at fixing itself.
Not arguing to “ditch it all”
Throwing rotten tomotoes at someone would be something that government is actually justified in punishing.
“Throwing rotten tomotoes at someone would be something that government is actually justified in punishing.”
That eas, as you well know, a metaphorical tomato, as the cartoon illustrates – so I guess you want to have government punish free speech too – or punish us with more of your surplus windiness.
The punishment for real violence should be real – preferably through government.
The punishment for rhetorical violence should be rhetorical.
This seems appropriate
A good peice by Turley.
Be careful what you want.
A Chinatown Tic Tac Toe Chicken…
HA, Jonah Goldberg, easily my favorite conservative!
Hows that regulation working for yah
Oh! No! Russia! Oops – the FBI!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-fbi-blindly-hacked-computers-in-russia-china-and-iran
VIRGINIA AND NEW JERSEY (The Borowitz Report)—Throwing caution to the wind, voters in Virginia and New Jersey on Tuesday night overturned the political applecart and chose as their new governors two men with no reality-show experience whatsoever.
Republican officials were staggered by the voters’ decision because, historically, reality shows have been a reliable proving ground for the nation’s finest leaders.
Ronna Romney McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, said that the voters’ risky bet on two men who had never set foot on a reality-show stage showed that the electorate was acting “emotionally and not rationally.”
“You look at the résumés of these two men and you won’t find ‘Survivor,’ you won’t find ‘Big Brother,’ you won’t find ‘The Bachelor,’ ” she said. “What we have are two individuals who are, to put it mildly, unfit for office.”
“This is not normal,” she said.
She gave both winning candidates credit for tapping into the angry voters’ anti-reality-show mood, but she warned, “Once these two have been in office, I think voters will start longing for someone who had at least won an immunity idol or swallowed a live caterpillar.”
😊
Exactly my opinion of populism a la trump.
“Because of the inflation of the American presidency, there often is a countercyclical partisan effect, usually felt in midterm congressional elections. Americans like to complain that Washington never gets anything done, and they have a marked preference for divided governments that help keep Washington from getting anything done. Trump is an unpopular figure, and an obnoxious one. He likes being the center of attention, which means that he is going to be a factor in the mayor’s race in St. Petersburg and the governor’s race in Virginia. If the American electorate continues to have a low opinion of him, then Republicans should calculate that drag into their electoral expectations.
It is often the case that populism has a short shelf life, after which is ceases to be popular. There is a reason for that: Populism is almost always based on a false hope. Populist demagogues such as Trump arise when people are broadly dissatisfied with the national state of affairs and begin to lose confidence in critical institutions. Along comes a charismatic outsider — or someone doing a good impersonation of one — who offers an alternative. Trump-style populism is an almost entirely negative proposition: “I’m not one of Them.” What happens next is in most cases what’s been happening with Trump: The promise of radical change quickly gets mired down in the messy realities of democratic governance. (If you’re lucky, that’s what happens; absent the messy realities of democratic governance, what you end up with is Venezuela.) The “independent” man, the “outsider,” turns out not to have the experience, knowledge, or relationships to get much done. The savior doesn’t deliver the goods.
Trump came into Washington with a roar that quickly diminished to a whimper on Twitter. Gillespie, he tweeted, “did not embrace me or what I stand for.” He may or may not be right in that, but that isn’t how Virginia voters saw it. Republican Scott Taylor, who represents Virginia Beach in the House, said he heard from dissatisfied Democrats and Republicans both that this election was “a referendum on the administration.” Former Republican congressman Tom Davis told the Washington Post: “It’s a huge drag on the ticket. . . . Democrats came out en masse in protest. This was their first chance to mobilize the base. The lesson here is that Republicans have to get their act together.” The promise of radical change quickly gets mired down in the messy realities of democratic governance. Funny choice of words, there. Trump has an act. Republicans are supposed to have something else: an agenda, a platform, principles, a philosophy. For a long time, that philosophy was conservatism: limited government under the Constitution, property rights, free enterprise, the rule of law, moral and social traditionalism, an assertive foreign policy, fiscal sobriety, order. (Imperfectly realized, of course, as conservatives would expect.) Trump offered something else: “winning.””
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453527/virginia-election-results-trump-republicans
Roby ” The promise of radical change quickly gets mired down in the messy realities of democratic governance. ”
This may have been true many moons ago when more of the elected officials actually went to Washington to represent the people. Now many if not most of the elected officials go to Washington to (1), establish a career and (2) perpetuate that career through cozy relationships with the 1%ers in America.
Just look at what happened to Sanders. The democratic process was working fine since most all of his support was coming from average citizens, but the establishment and big money decided beforehand who they wanted to represent them in the White House. The fix was in.
Sorry I can’t buy into your thinking we have a democratic process running the country. It might be better than any other system, but corporate America and the few with all the money predetermine who will be the candidates in most all federal and state elections. You can have one person from a middle class environment with the best ideas for his/her district who offers cheap sensible solutions to make their ideas a reality running against dumbo who inherited a business from his father, has all the connections in the state and the money will flow to dumbo. He will overpower the sensible candidate due to the difference in the amount of money he is able to spend.
And the radical change that gets mired down. That could be due to the special interest money blocking anything other than establishment politics.
“Sorry I can’t buy into your thinking we have a democratic process running the country.”
Well, I don’t think its “my idea.”
As well, I have never ever been any happier with the money–politics connection than the average joe. The trump populist revolution was an exceptional fraud. All the “populists” trump choose for his cabinet are exactly the rich idiots who he was supposedly the antidote to. Meanwhile, his voters notice not and are thrilled. Stupidity is one of those vast impersonal forces I say are behind the events of our public life.
Trump did not run promising to put poor people in control of government.
He ran promising to turn those in washington out.
He explicitly ran promising to put pretty much the people he put into government.
To the extent he has “failed” it is that he has only been able to kill off the top layer or two of the beast.
Further Trump voters knew that the new guys might be just as corrupt as the old – they did not care. New is still getting rid of the old corrupt guys.
Essentially that is the principle behind term limits – the assumption that it takes a while to get good at corruption and getting rid of people every few years prevents them from getting good. Not a perfect solution, but better than nothing.
Further, while Trump made promises – unless you voted for him – he did nto make them to you. You have little justification for being disappointed that you did not get the Trump you want. Politicians respond to those who voted for them – those who did not – not so much.
And no the people Trump brought in are quite different from those of Obama or Clinton.
Trump’s cabinet may be 1%’s, but they are NOT government lifers.
These are people who have already succeeded financial. They are in government to give back. Most of them do not owe anyone.
I find the nonsense about Trump and how somehow he is profiting off his presidency hillarious. Trump is a billionaire. If he spent a million dollars everyday he would still likely die with more money than he has now. Now amount of additional money would have him living better than he does now. The idea that this is about making more money for him just proves how envious and greedy the left is.
I would suggest that if you are constantly assuming greed BEFORE there is evidence, that it is you that has a problem with greed and envy. That is not to say that there are not issues. The press went after DeVos for her private flights as Sec. Ed – until she pointed out that she was rich as shit and was going to fly however she wanted and had paid for it all herself. Price on the other hand ended up resigning for the same private flights – even though his use was no differnet from the average Obama cabinet secretary. Why ? Because price was a politician, not independently wealthy and was stiffing the government for giving him the lifestyle that devos had earned and Obama’s people had taken from the public.
Overall Trump voters are more loyal to him that Clinton voters are to her.
That should concern you headed for 2020.
Anyway, I am not looking to “defend Trump”, there is alot to be unhappy about.
On the other hand with very few exceptions the presidents of my lifetime have been near universally poor, and Trump is at worst no worse, and possibly better than average.
Certainly better than the past 16 years.
You complain that I am this “extremist” libertarian. Yet, I am the one who can cope with the fact that our president is pretty far from my ideal.
We have all these moderates here – who are supposed to be able to take the good with the bad, And yet, so many are ranting because Trump is not a socialist ?
Trump has alot of faults – but extremism is not among them. He is a populist, not an extremist. My disappointments with him are mostly in places he is NOT extreme.
Ron
I posted a video on Public Choice economics – That really means economists examining politics in the same way they examine free market exchanges.
Anyway that directly addresses many of your points.
Politicians have never gone to washington to serve the public good,
They also do not go to serve the 1%. They go to serve their own self interests – as they always have. We idolyze our founders – yet the evidence is their politics were more reprehensible and scurrilous than ours.
Anyway, time, technology and myriads of other factors change the details of the workings of politics and government but they do not change the fundimentals.
We had government caused disasters like the housing crisis back in the early 19th century.
What happened with Sanders has been occuring since the begining of time.
Nor do I have much sympathy for him as either he is incredibly stupid – which I doubt, or he is selling crap he knows does not work in order to get elected.
Regardless, Every appeal he makes was – you will get something from me for free – and someone else will have to pay for it.
Do I care if someone looking to steal and screw people ends up having an election stolen from him and gets screwed ?
Separately we do not want a democratic process running the country.
The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
Another reason that I would suggest looking at the video I linked is the “median voter theory” specifically targets the failure of moderates.
While I do not think the influence of the 1% or corporate america is as great as you do, it does not matter if I am wrong. Given that government has power some special interest is going to leverage it. The beleif that absent the 1% or corporations it is going to serve the common good is naive. Even today quite often people get into the 1% by working government. Scandals such as Solyandra or others – are not Buffet or gates corrupting government. They are people from the top 10% or 20% buying government join the 1%.
I would further refer you to the same video regarding “cheap and sensible solutions”.
Government is not structured – and can not be to deliver “cheap sensible solutions”.
The issues with buracracy are not addressed until towards the end.
Regardless take any good or service – if you get it through the free market – those you buy from go to a great deal of trouble to make buying from them as quick and painless as possible. Amazon will deliver recomended books taylored to my prefernces to my kindle, and a single click and I own them and can start reading. I often do not have to look for the book, and when I chose that book – I have it in a second or two. Compare that to paying your property tax or water bill. I must either write a check for each of those, or go through a 3rd party service that charges me extra for the “convenience”.
To pay – even on line I( have to navigate websites that are opaque and misleading.
I have to have my bill infront of my and enter perfectly myriads of magic numbers.
The transaction does not clear immediately and often an online transaction with government still involved multiple mailings. If something goes wrong – I am responsible and I get screwed.
I recently bought a car battery at Autozone. My son put the new battery in and the one terminal was tight so he pounded it on with a mallet and cracked a brand new battery.
I took the battery back to autozone – they had a no questions asked return policy.
I told them what had happened – they did not care, they gave me a new battery.
Monday I was at the country treasureres to pay my water bill for my apartments.
I came into the court house. Discovered I had to walk back to my car – because cell phones are no longer allowed in the court house. Ignoring the fact that I think it should be accept to record government even court procedings, there is the separate issue of there are many many services in the courthouse besides court rooms. So if I want to pay a bill, look up a deed, or any of the myriads of non court functions, I must take my cell phone back to my car. The courthouse is downtown so that means parking 3 blocks away.
So after a six block walk and being xrayed and grouped, I am now to the office to pay my water bill. So they look up my building and the bill is 1200. My quarterly water bill it 200 not 1200, so I tell them there must be a mistake. A clerk who really knows nothing about water service politely and repeatedly tells my that is my problem. That a 1200 water bill can easily occur from a toilet running – I have to do the math, and the bill is opaque as to actual water usage, but I am pretty sure that a single toilet running 24×7 can not generate a 1200 water bill. Besides I have had a water heater fail in the basement and not get detected for a month and had a 3/4″ water line dump water into the basement for several weeks and not run about a 400 water bill. Well I can pay $10 to have the meter read manually – but that is it. I asked what the appeals process is – there is none.
There is no water in my basement – it is bone dry, and no toilets running – I am in the basement of the apartments typically one a week and if water is running continuously – even just a toilet running you can hear it in the drain pipes.
Basically the county has randomly added a $1000 water tax to my bill.
I can waste alot of time fighting this and likely get nowhere. Or I can raise my rents.
What do you think is going to happen ?
Now if this had been autozone, they would be saying – please let me fix your bill.
What can I do to help you ?
When you are dealing with government – you are always wrong. The burden of proof is on you, and it is high. All the clerks and people you deal with treat you as a burden on them
I am incredibly polite in dealing with them – despite my rant above – why ? Because piss of the minor public servants who you interact to pay bills and similar things and guaranteed government is going to screw you. That is not going to happen at home depot or Walmart.
Private businesses can screw you once – maybe. After that you go elsewhere, and they know it.
Anyway even government doing simple common sense things never ends up simple or common sense.
Cross Examining A Robot Republican
well, he was honest.
Roby;
This is a response to Jay’s link – but the link did not work for me.
I am not “targetting” you. The only ad hominem in this post is directed at the congresscritter. The only way you can take that personally is by owning her views.
I add this disclaimer, because you can not seem to be able to distinguish, between rootless personal insults directed at you, and criticizing ideas, or others.
Ideas are not entitled to respect. They must earn it.
The congresscritter doing the questioning is either stupid – I doubt) or dis-ingenuous.
All actual business income ultimately becomes individual income.
You can structure taxes myriads of ways :
You can have all taxes be business and corporate and none be personal
You can have all taxes be individual and none be business and corporate.
The end result is always the same – taxes are always ultimately paid by individuals.
Overall it is preferable to tax individuals directly – as then they know what they are paying in taxes and are better able to decide whether they support tax increases or not.
It is far easier to grow a huge government when people are less aware they are paying for it. When they are deceived into beleiving that the rich are paying for it, or businesses are.
Businesses and the rich do not “pay” taxes, and can not be made to. They pass those taxes on to the rest of us. There is no means of avoiding this, and efforts to attempt to do so are inefficient.
What you do not want is the same stream down to an individual being taxed multiple times.
As to the robot reference – we are talking about law.
We want law that is “robotic”.
The last thing you want is an IRA agent or police office consulting their feelings before deciding whether you have violated the law or not.
The core premise of the questioner is that people should have to pay little or no taxes.
Or that some “special” people should have to pay little or no taxes.
The more deductions you give one person the more someone else must pay.
I have benefited from many deductions – ones that various people are feverishly arguing for right now.
I want the lowest overall tax rates – with as close to the same for everyone, with little of no deductions of any kind for anyone.
The best way to do that is to make eliminate all business taxes of any kind,
There is no such thing as a deduction if there are no taxes.
tax money from business as personal income – when that money is transfered to people – either directly or through perqs.
Every arrangement has potential issues – what I propose requires policing to make sure that individuals do not hide personal expenses in business – such as health insurance, or entertainment, or cars.
Until 1916 the federal government was paid for from tarrifs – which had to be kept low or that would negatively impact the economy, Excise taxes – mostly on alcohol (sales taxes), and head taxes on individuals.
Our founders beleived that each mans fair share of the burden of supporting the state was the same – that the super wealthy like George Washington should have to pay exactly the same amount as the poor. Not the same percentage but the same amount.
Regardless, it is absolutely critical that each of us pay to support government, that we do so as transparently as possible – directly rather than indirectly, and that it is clear that whenever the cost of government increases that we will have to pay more taxes.
The left argues that progressive government is popular – and that popularity – democracy is sufficient to justify it. But progressive government is near universally unpopular, when people know they actually have to pay for it. When politicians game the tax system by pretending that ordinary people are not the ones paying when they tax business or the rich, that is the only way they can get popular support for big government.
In otherwords the premise that people actually support big government requires lying to them.
National Renumeration A$$ociation
Grocery stores make money by providing you with food – that should be prohibited – because they are greedy.
Doctors should be prohibited from making money by providing you medical services – that is greedy.
Your employer should not have to pay you – that is greed on your part.
Sorry Jay
If free people decide to exchange their money for guns, or their guns for money.
That free exchange is how all of our lives are improved.
I do not care whether people are trading
sex,
drugs,
guns
food,
homes
cloths.
So long as the exchange was done freely, it is not your business, my business or the governments.
You do not have the right to tell someone else what they can and can not buy or sell.
Grocery stores that sell products which consistently kills customers get sued and go out of business.
Doctors who kill a lot of patients also get sued, lose their licenses and sometimes get jailed.
Employees who work for low wages do it for survival, not greed. The fact you can’t distinguish that proves once again how out of touch you are with ordinary human life. It’s very Trumpian of you.
Dave, what do you say when one person’s rights conflict with another person’s rights? You defend the rights of those who want to buy and sell assault weapons and ammo, but those rights can interfere with the right of individuals to attend church, or a concert, or school (etc., etc.) without having their lives prematurely terminated.
We have to weigh the consequences. The man with the right to buy the guns can nullify the rights of 10, 20 or 50 people in a single incident. If we banned assault weapons from private ownership, gun lovers could simply buy single-shot weapons. We’ve barely infringed on their rights. On the other hand, if a nutjob equipped with semi-automatics kills 30 people inside of a minute, he’s nullified a much more important right — the right to live — and he’s nullified that right 30 times over.
Weigh the one against the other, and I think it’s obvious that banning certain types of guns is a less serious restriction of rights than allowing 30 people to die sudden, random, violent deaths.
“If we banned assault weapons from private ownership, gun lovers could simply buy single-shot weapons”
Or own double barrel shotguns. And be safe and secure in their homes with those. My British friends say the family shotgun, passed down from fathers and uncles, is sufficient to prevent the paranoia Americans have of being attacked by intruders. Plus they can go out and shoot some geese for dinner if they’re hungry 😋
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to defend your home or shoot deer.
It is an open threat to totalitarian government. As noted elsewhere there are far more AR-15’s than M4’s in the military.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to make government think twice before breaking down our doors.
Our founders did not keep this secret. They firmly beleived that without a gun in nearly every home the american revolution would not have been possible.
Victory at Yorktown was acheived because Washington over years managed to build a real traditional and formidable army capable of standing toe to toe with the british.
But the time necescary to do that was bought by farmers and homesteaders and ordinary people with guns harrasing the british wherever they were and forcing them to enscounce themselves in big cities. leaving much of the country to the continentals.
“It is an open threat to totalitarian government. As noted elsewhere there are far more AR-15’s than M4’s in the military.”
The purpose was to protect against FOREIGN despots and invasion, because the US didn’t have a standing Army when the Amendment was written. They had no intention of arming the populace to mount Insurrection against our own government, that’s what you’re suggesting now: armed civilians fighting against other American citizens (police, military, national guard, etc). Do you know how STUPID that is?… Apparently not.
Our founders would disagree.
There are littleraly dozens of quotes. These are just a few.
I would particularly note Cheif Justice Story, and Madison in federalist 46 as those are not merely quotes but texts with authority with respect to constitutional interpretation.
The federalist papers as the explanation of the meaning of the constitution given by madison, jay and hamilton to persuade people to ratify it.
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster,
“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
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story,
Jay you may want to do some research or visit one of the historical sites like Williamsburg and ask.
Many in the founding fathers had complete distrust for centralized control and believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. They did live under British control and their oppression, remember?
I constructed a long reply and my computer ate it so maybe the 2nd try will be shorter.
The only right that humans have that I think can ever conflict with another right is the right to initiate violence.
And that is the only right we cede to government through the social contract.
If you come up with another conflict between and two actual rights – we can discuss this further – otherwise you pose a hypothetical and probably impossible question.
To paraphrase Any Rand when you think two rights are in conflict – check your premises. One of the rights in conflict is not a right. Actual contradictions do not exist in nature.
With respect to TX – the right to buy an AR-15 is not the right to kill people with one – or with anything else.
We do not blame pencils for what we write,
We can not blame guns or anything else because we chose to kill people.
I can easily kill 30 people with the stuff in your laundry.
For $20 I can go to autozone and buy everything I need to make a flame thrower.
The anarchist cookbook is readily available and will tell you how to make all kinds of explosives.
According to the Pennsylvania supreme court an uncooked egg can be a “deadly weapon.
Austrailia’s near total gun ban accomplished nothing.
Austraila and New Zealand are near demographically identical.
Both have low rates of violence.
Austrialia banned nearly all fireamarms. New Zealand did not.
There is no differences in the rates of violence and violent death – before or after AU’s law between AU and NZ.
The only change to AU was a significant decrease in mass shootings.
But mass killings did NOT go down – Mass Killings by Arson went up.
Buying a gun does not nullify anyones rights.
Killing people violates their rights.
Killing people with a gun violates their rights,
Killing them with a baseball bat violates their rights.
First “asualt weapons” – aka machine guns are already illegal.
Second you presume could actually ban semi automatics.
The Las Vegas Shooter has actual machine guns despite their being banned.
I can not see how any law stopped him.
There are approximately 2.5M(2010) AR-15’s in the US today, That does not count myriads of other long guns you would call “assualt weapons”.
They are just about the least likely gun to be used in a crime. It is extremely rare to see AR-15’s in a crime.
There are more AR-15’s in the US today than the US millitary has M4’s.
Then there is this. Defense Distributed bundles a CNC machine – even it you put DD out of business CNC machines are readily available, and Open Source CNC programming to build an AR-15 Receiver – that is the part with the serial number that BATF tracks and the most complicated part of the gun. Once you have made your own receiver – and you can made as many as you want, then you can buy without any record all the other parts to complete your own highly customized AR-15. And if you make other parts illegal – there will be CNC codes for them too. You can not actually makes CNC codes illegal – they are covered by the first amendment.
https://ghostgunner.net/
We are entering a new era. This is not just about guns. It is about the governments ability to ban anything.
I think I posted that you can buy a kit to do your own CRISPR experiments in your basement or garage for $140. What is CRISPR ? The technology to do gene splicing.
There is already a large base of inhome researcher experimenting with genetic cures for pet diseases. And they expect results in the next 6-7 months.
Separately we have chemical assemblers – these are sort of 3d printers for drugs – enter a chemical formula and the machine will produce the drug.
They are not yet affordable enough to compete in price with street drugs,
But they are affordable enough to very seriously impeded drug laws.
No drug dealer, you make your own. If you make it just before using, there is only a tiny window you can be prosecuted in.
Nor are these the only developments in process.
Give up banning is highly impractical.
It has never worked for anything.
It did nto work for alcohol.
It did not work for drugs.
Why do you think it will work for guns ?
There is no actual right to live. Only a right not to be killed.
Properly expressed all rights are negative.
You do not have a right to free speach, you have the right not to have government interfere in your speach.
All rights are inherently negative.
You have no right to buy a gun. You have the right not to have government interfere with you buying a gun. You still have to make the money, make the choice, find someone to sell to you.
If you really want to do a deep dive into rights and the philosophy involved.
One placce to start might be Kant’s catagorical imperative.
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law”
This is a superset of the linbertarian Non-Agression principle or
the principle of equal liberty.
Regardless, there is no credibly philosophy, or religion or government that accepts a right to initiate violence against others.
It is murder that violates the rights of another – not murder with a gun, or in a house, or with a mouse, …
Both parties alive but not at all well.
switching my name as part of a campaign to get all the posts delivered to a new mailbox. Hope it works.
I had a feeling it was you, Roby. Well, that name is a mouthful… I’ll just go with “Vermont” if it’s OK with you.
Is Trump actually stupid ? From someone with a great deal of experience in intelligence testing.
Surely YOU know there are many ways to be stupid…
“Surely YOU know there are many ways to be stupid…”
Sorry, this is long, but it is excellent.
It addresses why government is the way it is, and why it is different from the other things in our lives. And why where possible we do not want to solve problems using governmnet.
New subject.
Tax Reform
Must be one hell of a good bill.
Article on Yahoo News linked to another site says this is one huge tax cut for the rich.
Morning Fox News programs and other conservative sites having mental breakdowns since this is huge. tax increase for Rich in high tax states where the majority of the rich live.
This has to be a good bill for the poor and middle-class since both wings of political pundits dislike the bill.
There is zero chance I will get anything close to what I hope for.
My expectations are small – an improvement over the mess we have.
If we kill SALT – that alone would be great.
There is now talk of killing the individual mandate – and that will apparently save almost 400B. the total cost of PPACA is far beyond that, but why are we even paying 400B for this albatross.
Beyond that – kill as many deductions and subsidies as possible,
move to as few a brackets as possible.
eliminate as many business taxes as possible – all would be prefered.
I really do not want to hear idiocy about this group or that group paying more – it is close to meaningless.
If you reduce corporate and business taxes and reduce upper margin rates,
you will get more growth and that will quickly make up for it.
Would you trade 4% higher taxes for 1% additional increase in income EVERY YEAR ?
If you wouldn’t – then move to cuba, because you are clueless.
An additional 1% growth in about 15 years would equal all the benefits anyone gets from all government programs – that is SS, Medicare, all safetynet programs.
When you trade growth for security you get neither.
Anyway – I am not going to get the above.But we might see some of it.
“Must be one hell of a good bill.”
Is that a snide comment?
“Is that a snide comment?”
Nope. When the left AND the right does not like the same identical bill, then in all likelyhood it is a damn good bill for the middle.
Or ‘When the left AND the right does not like the same identical bill’ the bill is thoroughly defective.
Jay “the bill is thoroughly defective.” Yes if they argues the same thing, but when they argue positions that arepolar opposites, that indicates to me it is politics that make them dislike it and not policy.
The fact that the left and the right do not like something – does not mean anything – beyond that the left and the right do not like it.
Absurdum ad reductio
I think that Ron is generally correct, and that class warfare tactics we see from the left, and purist arguments from the right are largely political. There is really nothing much wrong with the bill, except that, if it passes, it will likely improve the economy, and give almost everyone in the middle class at least a small tax break, or no change at all.
Jay’s “absurdum ad reductio” objection makes no sense here, because there is no absurdity in arguing that purely political objections to proposed legislation are rarely based on the actual merits of a bill. They’re often more like sour grapes objections.
Aparently the current bill ends deductions for new stadiums.
I’m waiting for the Senate/House version. The House blows a big hole in the debt and needs a lot of regulation (enforced) to keep corporate cheaters in check. I think the medical deduction will be back in some form.
If you are wise – you eliminate business taxes completely.
They are all passed down to employees and consumers anyway.
All business profits become personal income for someone at some point.
Either as dividends or as appreciation in the value of stocks, or litterally as income to owners and management.
If a business actually retains and invests profits – that is a good thing.
There is nothing a business can do with profits that does not either greatly benefit us such that it should not be taxed, or become personal income for someone.
Then the only thing you have to concern yourself with is “perqs” and benefits.
And those should be taxed as income to the person receiving them.
Regardless, there is no tax scheme that you can come up with that businesses – particularly big businesses will not be able to circumvent.
And if you are smart you do not want businesses paying lawyers and accountants and lobbyiests to get arround taxes. What you want is for them to be spending their profits in the best way to make more – because that means more jobs, more income, more wealth for all of us.
I do not know the specifics of the house plan, but if it actually needs more regulation then it is defacto a bad plan.
One of the many reasons for lowering taxes and eliminating deductions is to REDUCE regulations.
Referencing the linked video – I do not want teachers thinking about whether they should buy construction paper for their classes because it is or is not tax deductable.
zero deductions of any kind for anyone, and the lowest possible tax rates.
And if tax reform actually increases the deficit over the long run – then reduce government spending which we desparately need to be doing anyway.
I also want the tax code as simple as possible so that people know when government says I am spending $600B on XXXX that people know – that is THEIR money.
It is easy to say “I love ObamaCare” when you think someone else is paying for it.
It is highly unpopular (like -80%) if people think THEY have to pay for it.
The worse tRUMP does, the more likely he is to be nominated again by Republicans in next Prez election. (You have to read through to the end for that assessment)
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/08/gillespie-trump-trumpism-rich-lowry-215806
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Politicians are hypocrites!
Tell me something I do not know.
Both Northam and Gillespie were moderates – not very far apart on the issues that ultimately matter as governor.
Both sought to find the winning combination of tweaks in position and issues to get a majority of voters.
Both had the problem of trying to reach those in the middle without losing voters from their own extreme flank aka party base.
Both made alot of mistakes.
The Northam pickup Truck add was absolutely reprehensible.
Both did some pretty hypocritical things.
Northam ultimately won.
Virginia was fortunate – because neither was a bad choice.
As compared to 2016 presidential election where BOTH were bad choices.
I am not fixated on VA post mortem’s.
I though Gillespi was going to do better, though his odds of winning were slim.
I though Northam had stepped in it repeatedly in the last couple weeks of the election.
But the undecideds went heavily for Northam.
I am sure the pundits will analyze the crap out of this, but my guess is that Gillespi did about the best that was possible. Moving left any further would have lost the republican base and not picked up enough votes from the center.
Moving farther right would have cost more of the center than he could have picked up on the right.
I also think that Norther VA democrats – aka federal government employees were highly energized – because Republicans are after their jobs.
VA might appear to be in play for republicans because the split is so close and the vast majority of the state is red- but it probably is not, there are alot of people in Norther VA and those blue major cities.
I think the margin Northam won by is enough for Republicans more broadly to be concerned and for Democrats to start smiling.
But it is not enough for republicans to be terrified and democrats to be celebrating.
What A Difference A Few Indictments Makes..
“More than twice as many Americans approve as disapprove of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of possible coordination between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds, indicating that the conservative effort to discredit the probe has fallen flat as the case has progressed toward its first public charges.
A 58 percent majority say they approve of Mueller’s handling of the investigation while 28 percent say they disapprove, the Post-ABC poll finds. People’s views depend in large part on their political leanings, but overall, Americans are generally inclined to trust Mueller and the case he has made so far.
Meanwhile, fewer than 4 in 10 Americans say they believe Trump is cooperating with Mueller’s investigation, while about half believe he is not.”
https://lawfareblog.com/what-difference-few-indictments-make-public-confidence-mueller-soars
The rule of law is not decided by polls.
BTW there is enormous popular support to investigate Clinton too.
Why should Trump cooperate with Mueller ?
Milltary certainly was very uncoopoerative in the investigations of her ?
I expect that anyone being investigated for anything will decide on their own how to deal with the investigator.
Co-operating is rarely a good idea.
There is an excellent series on Youtube titled something like don’t talk to police.
I am sure Scooter Libby wishes he had been less cooperative.
Martha Stewart, too.
Martha Stewart is a beautiful example.
Stewart desparately tried and failed to “commit” insider trading.
Her mistake/actual crime was her misstatements to investigators.
Jonah gets it right again today, commenting on those rushing to deflect the Judge Moore accusations:
“I am one of those naïve fools who actually believed that the conservatives who often talked the loudest about the supreme importance of character were sincere. The last two years disabused me of that.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453612/roy-moore-washington-post-allegations-saving-moore-isnt-worth-it
Jay, I was never a Moore supporter . I think he is this years GOP brain fart. Kind of like Delaware, Nevada and Missouri in previous years.
But I have to wonder why this was not brought up years ago when he was rising through the Alabama justice department. Being a pedophile and letting him set on the highest court in the state is unforgivable! Why wait 30 years to mention this? Is it something that can be prosecuted or will this be like Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddk and Kathleen Willey who waited so long few believed them. Why wait until 2weeks before the election where Alabama law does not allow for an individuals name to be added or deleted from the ballot? Could they not come forth before the primary? Or did they know they were going to stay quite until just before the election?
To me this shits got to stop. If someone did something , especially to a child, that was an illegal sexual act, then it needs to come out now and not years down the road when someone runs for office.
Moore will run, he may or may not win, if he doesnt our country will survive, if he does we will witness years of investigation and innuendo but we will survive, the Washington Post will deflect any legal challenge that Moore instigates, it will show the opposition that something that can or can not be proven can be used at the end of a campaign to severely impact the outcome of an election and the worst part, people will just say this is dirty politics and not believe those making claims in the future.
Moore is scum.
I said that long ago.
I am glad Bezos went after him.
Wonder of wonders! We agree!!
I said More was scum long before this recent revelations.
But I expected him to win anyway. Now hopefully he will bow out, be dropped or lose.
I think we are also likely to see Arpiao run in AZ, and he is scum too.
And if he runs he too is likely to win.
So if Bezos wants to find something on him – Now Please !
Can you agree that those who have sex with underage prositiutes are as bad or worse than Moore ?
Sen. Menendez, Bill Clinton ?
Republican, Democrat, I do not care,
Are we all prepared to hold all of our public servants to the same standards ?
Are we prepared to withhold our votes where credible claims of sexual misconduct exist ?
Are we prepared to prosecuted when that misconduct is criminal and the evidence is sufficient ?
Are we prepared to shun the apologists for these people ?
Elsewhere I linked to Andrew MacCarthy’s article regarding the radical difference in the way the Clinton and Trump investigations are being handled.
That is the rule of man, not law. It is something we must end.
Until we hold democrats and republicans accountable in the same way regardless of the issue, and regardless of our own political affiliation. We are lawless.
The evidence against Moore is more than sufficient, that no one should be voting for him or defending him. Whether it would have been sufficient for a criminal conviction.
The evidence against menendez and Clinton is and was stronger – when each was running for election. And yet democrats voted for both.
Dave “Are we all prepared to hold all of our public servants to the same standards ?”
When does this ever happen.
Why not ?
I am tired of the crap pretending Roy Moore is somehow the same as Joseph.
Just as I am tired of seeing Clinton, Menendez and other democrats do worse and no one on the left cares.
Menendez and Clinton were regulars on the “lolita express” – that was not about 30 something in the caribbean. Broderick is as believable as this former 14 year old in Alabama.
Given what we have learned about DOJ investigations during the Obama administration, why would we lete Mueller investigate a traffic ticket ?
After the 2016 election I really felt we should all take a deep breath and let Clinton slink quietly away into ignominy. But no the left has to go batshit crazy on this non-existant Russia crap, so I am sorry, I am ready to investigate the shit out of it all, and throw them all in jail. Clinton, Holder, Lynch, Lerhner, Mueller, Rosenstein, Comey, …..
And if you want to throw in as many republicans as you can catch at the same time by the same standards – great.
I have zero faith in or IC – though I have not for a long, long long time.
I do nto uderstand why the left thinks that CIA and NSA are nazi’s when they are supporting the Bushes, but are true patriots when they are doing the lefts bidding,.
They were not so hot before, and no better now.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453632/roy-moore-defenders-disgusting
The NSRC has defunded Moore, it is pretty likely that if elected the Senate will not seat him.
There are still far too many idiots defending him, but most Republicans are not.
Moore should never have been on any ballot.
But democrats have plenty of their own problems.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/juanita-broaddrick-wants-to-be-believed?utm_term=.pdrm8Y523#.bpZKnOEBa
This is the view that will prevail in the election, and in seating Moore. Just like it did over the tRUMP groping story when it first hit the news.
I generally like Horowitz, but in this instance I do not agree.
I would not be horribly unhappy if Moore won and if the Senate refused to seat him and Alabama had to replace him.
I am not sure that the GOP should not openly advocate for specifically that now.
Vote for Moore – to keep the seat in Republican hands and then we will not seat him.
But what will happen, will happen, and I can live with the GOP losing an otherwise safe seat for 6 years because it ran a scumbag.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/opinion/juanita-broaddrick-bill-clinton.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=section
We may not have much longer to wait.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/09/supreme-court-takes-gun-control-case-decision-will-huge/
A Moderate Republican View of A Disgusting Republican Response
Another Moderate Republican Concurs
Second try:
Jay, this is the problem with the two party system when we get like we are today. One party is lined up like a duck family heading to the lake and the other is like a yellow jacket nest. The democrats all think alike except for a couple in the senate and a handful in the house. The GOP is made up of everyone else. Susan Collins on one end and Ted Cruz in the other. Then we have divergent thinking with libertarian types, moderate types, fiscal conservatives, social moderate and many others. So then come Christine O’Donnell and her beliefs in witches, Akin in Missouri that didnt believe a woman could get pregnant from rape unless she wanted to and now we have Moore running in Alabama who, even with the sexual allegations, is so extreme he makes Cruz look moderate. We need a third party where common sense moderates can run and get support from the majority of America that has some common sense.
But I still want to know why they waited until after the date where ballots in Alabama can not be changed to share this info. I dont think their lying nor telling the truth. I dont know, but why wait?
I’m no fan of the two party system, and have stated so frequently.
I would absolutely concur with Romney on this – except that I opposed Moore from the begining.
I do not know much about the D running against Moore, not alot about Strange, but neitehr are Clinton – and honestly I would vote for Clinton over Moore.
Clinton was not the lessor evil compared to Trump – but she is compared to Moore.
More on the “non-collusion” with russia.
The dirt repeatedly offered Trump by the Russians on Clinton, was not actually dirt on Clinton.
Basically we have proof that Russia wanted to get in bed with Trump – and failed, repeatedly. They could not even produce useful dirt on Clinton. They did not understand US politics.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453634/fusion-gps-dossier-targeted-clinton-foundation-donors
The entire article is a NothingBerger. Big surprise, with its NY Post affiliation.
Is it earth shattering ? No.
Is it fact ? Yes.
Does it mean that the few interactions between Trump surogates and Russia have zippo to do with “collusion” ?
Further though not proven, it actually looks like Clinton through Fusion GPS were trying to set Trump up.
Which if true means there can not be any “collusion” – because Clinton was involved during the campaign and would have been aware and would have made public any successful “collusion”
My guess is that Manafort understood this was a possibility – because all his ties to Russia involved democrats like the podesta group too.
We know that manafort was actively playing a game of wack-a-mole with low level surrogates trying to get stuff from Russia. Manafort repeatedly shut these down.
He likely did so, because he knew that Trump could not engage with Russia without Clinton and democrats likely knowing. And that meant there was nothing to gain.
If this is true… disconcerting is an understatement.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-probes-flynns-role-in-alleged-plan-to-deliver-cleric-to-turkey-1510309982
Apparently you are unaware of all the shenanigans like this that went on during the Bush and possibly Obama administration.
I do not like this. But it is not surprising, and it is stuff the US has done all the time.
Do you think it was legal for navy seals to go into pakistan – a soveriegn nation to abuduct and later kill Osama Bin Laden.
anybody Still Defending DoubhebagDonald As Good For American Trade?
Jay, as Colin Kaeperneck’s Castro shirt had printed “LIKE MINDS THINK ALIKE”
So do some politicians.
Please note the following sentence in this article.
“Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both say they oppose TPP. It’s one of the few issues on which they are in agreement.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-policy-on-tpp-trade-deal-2016-10
Sorry to burst your bubble on this one.
Oh and by the way, I think this is good. I know Dave will disagree since he believes we should open our borders to any and all foreign products, but as far as I can tell, there was nothing added since Obama negotiated the deal that address currency manipulation and drug patent infringement. And I bet there are other things where Obama gave the store away that would not have become apparent until we saw the rest of manufacturing leaving the country like we saw with the NAFTA. Remember old Ross Perot and the sucking sound he said would happen and everyone called him crazy. Well I suspect that same sucking sound would be heard all the way to Asia with this deal.
Agreed.
This thing is, trade agreements are only as good as their details. Same with any agreement, really. Part of the problem with the Iran deal was that the details were kept secret, and we now know that Iran got virtually everything it wanted out the “negotiation,” and any sanctions that we can now impose are “too little, too late.”
But back to trade….Many Republicans and libertarians advocate free trade, on the basis that bi-lateral and multi-lateral free trade agreements benefit all sides. But the history of increasing US trade deficits, intellectual property theft, and displaced workers has shown that the details matter.
A major cause of the populist anti-free trade movement that is currently gaining power on both sides of the US electorate, is the fact that many people believe that America has been rolled in these agreements. Maybe global corporations and the stock market have benefited, but American workers have gotten screwed.
In the past, the answer to this was that Americans got cheaper prices on goods that they wanted, but that assumed that displaced workers found employment elsewhere, so that they could BUY those cheaper goods.
Our education system and our immigration system have not kept up with the changes in the global marketplace, and this is the failure of our leadership, which has not paid enough attention to the needs of the American people ~ “regular folks”, you could choose to call them, and have allowed global corporate entities to drive policy.
We can’t go back to the sixties, but we need to find a balance.
Priscilla, good comments. Just one more. Cheaper prices equal crappy quality. My brother in law has a GE refr. in his garage given to him by parents. They bought it when they married in the forties. How many refigerators made today will be running 70 years from now. Or 7 years from now.
I would not have a much problem with imports if the quality was good, but when you need something and your choice is between the least worse ( like voting), you know at the start you are wasting your money but still have to spend it.
A refridgerator made int he forties is likely so energy inefficient that it costs more to operate than it would to replace with a new cheap refridgerator that died every year.
Quality has been inconsistent in both the past and the present.
In the past most things were designed to be repairable.
Today that is more rare.
In 1960 the minimum wage was $1.25/hr.
A sears toaster cost $12.00 – that means it took ten hours of MW work to buy a toaster.
Today a toaster costs $12.00 or 1.6hr of MW labor.
The toaster is no longer made to be repaired. That makes absolutely no sense.
It would cost more to drive it to the repair shop and back than it is worth.
Further because it need not be repaired it can be manufactured differently – both more cheaply and more reliably.
Absolutely Nothing made 40 years ago is a tiny fraction as complex as my cell phone.
In fact nothing is as complex as the $9,00 Orange Pi computer that has more horsepower and features than my cellphone.
I have way too many cars – two 1998’s, a 1994, and a 2001.
Though they have had plenty of repairs, none have had the type of overhauls that used to be common.
None have had their engines rebuilt or anything like that. Two have over 200,000 miles and 2 are very near that.
I am probably shooting them all soon – not because they are not still good cars,
but because even a few problems when they must be inspected cost more to repair than the cars are worth, and I can buy a car almost 10 years newer for what only a bit more than the repairs cost.
I remember in the 60’s engines getting overhauled every 50,000 miles and trading in anything that had over 100,000 miles on it.
Some things did work better 40 years ago – most did not.
I am frustrated because CFL’s do not last the 20,000 hours they are supposed to.
But a 40 year old incandescent lasts about 2000 hours, and costs more for the same amount of light.
You are free to b happy with crap from China. I am not. I would rather pay $200 for a electric shop tool that will last 8-10 years with normal maintenance than $75 for one from China that that I have to replace every 2-3 years where no parts are available. You seem fine in paying $300 to $500, while i prefer the $200 one time expense.
And by the way, those cars with 200,000 mile engines, are they ” made in China” labeled?
The first car my wife and I bought together was a 1984 Honda Civic DX.
We lost that in 2008 when it no longer would pass inspection because of structural rust,
it would have cost 500 to fix and probably still would not have passed inspection.
In over 20 years I paid about 2500 in repairs. The car har 189,000 miles when we killed it and the engine was about as good as new.
My current cars are a 1998 Oldsmobile Bravada, with about 170,000 miles.
It tows great, and nothing I have ever driven is as good in the snow.
It constantly requires repairs, but the parts at GM and are cheap and nearly everyone can repair it.
A 1994 Mercedes E320 wagon with almost 300K miles. It has electrical problems that no one can find, and leaks oil (it does not burn oil), and is about as beat up as you would expect from a car that old. But you can take it cross country cruising at 100Mph and it will not let you down – though you might not like buying gas for it – it is not a honda.
A 1998 Mercedes E320 wagon with just over 200K miles. It is nicer than the 1994 – but has early versions of the all electronic everything, and it recently cost me $200 to have the key repaired which required sending an electronic module to england for reprogramming.
BTW I absolutely hate this “anti-theft” electronic key systems. When they get flakey or you loose your keys you can count on an expensive bill – and it gets worse the newer the car is.
While generally an excellent car both have one serious flaw – they are positively dangerous in snow.
A 2001 Audi A6 with about 200,000 miles. Handles almost as well in the snow as the Bravada and is otherwise nicer than the Mercedes.
All the german cars require much fewer repairs and cost far more to repair when they have problems.
You really should not own an old German made car unless you can maintain it yourself otherwise you are going broke.
Finally we have 2 newer Honda’s. They are not near as nice to drive as the german cars or the SUV. They “feel” less substantial when you drive them, and when you step on the gas you wonder if the gerbils powering the car are going to have a heart attack. But they get excellent gas mileage and cost next to nothing to maintain.
The details of a “Trade agreement” are quite simple.
We agree to low or not tarrifs or restrictions on goods made in your country being sold in ours, or mode in ours and being sold in yours.
And we hope you fully reciprotcate.
But even if you do not, it is still a win for us.
In other words no agreement is necescary.
I do agree with US Trade Rep, Robert Lighthizer:
““President Trump understands that too many nations talk about free trade abroad, only to shield their economies behind tariff and non-tariff barriers at home. The United States will no longer allow these actions to continue, and we are willing to use our economic leverage to pursue truly fair and balanced trade.”
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/november/ustr-lighthizer-statement
When our trade “partners” call the use of US protective tariffs a “trade war,” yet use those identical tariffs to protect their own economies, we should renegotiate.
Starting an actual trade war is one of the truly stupid things that Trump could do.
He did essentially threaten that during the election.
It is my hope that he does nto mean that. And there is ample evidence that though he threatens I is smart enough to grasp that a trade war is just about the worst thing he could do to our economy.
I also think most of his key advisors during the campaign and subsequently are free traders.
Free trade is one of those things that nearly all economist agree on.
Free trade is good, the freer the better, it is so good that it is net positive even if it is not recipricol, even if it is unilateral.
There is no need for agreements – we just agree to low or no tarrifs with everybody,
Yep and I bet I would still be using the $30.00 toaster today, while in 40 years for now (like the difference between 79 and 2017), I will have bought at least 4 of them because the best you can get out of Chinese crap is 10 years (more like 5). So in 1979, I spend $30.00 over 40 years and in 2057 that same taster has cost me at least $60.00.
I do not have a single appliance that is 40 years old. Do you ?
Well maybe not 40, but a few around 25. Toaster/oven, Oven (32 years old), stand mixer and maybe a couple more.
Why do you beleive that it is inherently bad for the US to not be part of multilateral agreements ?
Why do you think it is bad for the US if other nations reach trade agreements amoung themselves ?
Do we have to be a part of everything ?
I do not like some of what Trump has SAID regarding Trade – but thus far what he has DONE is actually better than Obama.
One of the biggest likely deals that is inevitable so long as the UK goes through with BREXIT is a US UK deal.
That will likely be an unbeleiveable win-win.
The discussion is something very very close to an actual “free trade deal”
Any drug that is approved int he US is approved in the UK and visa versa.
Any product that is approved in the US is approved in the UK and visa versa.
Regulatory competition between states can radically reduce the negative impacts of regulation.
“Why do you beleive that it is inherently bad for the US to not be part of multilateral agreements ?”
I don’t believe that, Dave. What I said was that multi-lateral agreements are not inherently good.
The devil is in the details. And once a treaty has been signed, there are often details that have unforeseen negative consequences that can’t be undone. For example, when the US enters into an agreement with a poor nation that abuses its workers by refusing to enforce safe working conditions and fair labor practices, we are tacitly agreeing to those conditions and rewarding those nations. Not to mention that there are many countries that willfully subvert the terms of the agreement, by refusing to remove barriers to access to American goods and services, by devaluing their currencies, and by stealing patented ideas.
I’m in favor of free trade. But just saying that something is a “free trade ” agreement, does not make it so. And America does not exist to grow the economies of other nations, at the expense of the US economy. There are good agreements and bad. We have made a practice lately of entering into bad ones.
Priscilla;
Rereading the question you quoted, it is “accurate” my difficult to decipher.
I think it is fine if the US is not a part of every trade or other agreement in the world.
I think that trump has chosen to emphasize bi-lateral over multi-lateral agreements over both trade and other issues – and I think that is a wise tactic.
But it is just a tactic and even Trump is not rigidly committed to it.
Every choice – of individuals and of nations has unforseen consequences – sometimes negative ones.
To the greatest extent possible we should make choices as close to the individual as possible, because the negative consequences are then closest to those who made the choice, and can do something about it.
Also because everyone going in the same direction is very very dangerous.
But along with negative consequences, are positive ones.
The benefits of free trade dwarf the unintended consequences.
BTW it is the “details” of trade agreements that are the problem.
Actual free trade does not require “detailed” agreements – you just agree to the lowest tarrifs and proceed from there.
Trade agreements should NOT be where governments should seek to mess with the laws of other nations.
The US in fact uses trade agreements not merely to leaverage the laws in foriegn countries – but to leaverage our own laws.
If businesses can get beneficial changes to US laws into Trade agreements they can bypass the house of representatives, and get an up/down vote on the entire deal without looking too deeply at the details. Trade agreements are treated as treaties and bypass some of our constitutional impediments to “regulation”
Anyway, most of the socalled negative unintended consequences of trade agreements – the loss of jobs is dying or uncompetitive industries are inevitable.
Priscilla;
Free trade is so tremendously heavily net positive that even “unfree trade” is better than whatever preceded it.
If the US unilaterally dropped all barriers to trade and the rest of the world raised theirs.
We would still be better off. Trade is that economically beneficial.
If the actions of the US grow the economies of the rest of the world – that is net positive FOR US. If other nations reciprocate – that is even more positive for us.
What people get most wrong about economics is the distinctions between those things that are zero sum and those that are not.
Trade – meaning the actual exchange of goods and money between countries is zero sum unless one nation is subsidizing its industry – then it is a wealth transfer to the other country. We should never prevent nations from stupidly subsidizing their foreign trade, it is of benefit to us.
Imballances in trade must be exactly balanced by imbalances in capital accounts.
A trade deficit is the not harmful. Our trade deficit requires foreign countries to invest in the US. It should not be surprising that those nations owning most of our public debt, are those we have the largest trade deficits with.
There is not much you can do with excess dollars that is harmful to americans.
While the exchange of goods between countries is zero sum, trade itself is always win win.
Even other nations increasing standard of living is to our benefit.
The wealthier the rest of the world becomes the larger the market for high value goods becomes. That not only means the US has a bigger market to sell into,
but that there will be more an more high value goods for americans to purchase.
I have noted before that a drug produced in the US starts with a base cost of $3B to get FDA approval. There are few drugs that an justify that cost for a market of some fraction of 300M people.
But china and india increase the market by 10 fold. But they still have lower standard of living than the US so the drug must be more affordable for indians and chinese to buy it.
But a much larger market makes that possible.
We benefit by having more goods – like drugs because there is a larger market and theirfor people producing more because of that larger market.
We would all like the US to remain the highest standard of living country in the world – which discounting a few small nations we are.
But even if China, Japan, India magically surpassed us somehow which is highly unlikely.
So long as our own standard of living continued to rise – we would still be better off.
unfree trade harms us all. It makes us poorer, not richer.
The greatest danger of a Trump presidency was a return to protectionism.
When the US becomes protectionist the entire world suffers – including us, and very badly.
Dave, , “But china and india increase the market by 10 fold. ” Only when they protect the patents on the drugs sold in their country. In a large number of cases, they dont and they let, even encourage, their drug companies to copy and make a generic equivalent. Our drug companies have the cost, but not the revenue! Is that “fair trade”?
“Only when they protect the patents on the drugs sold in their country. ”
While patents are not the worst laws in the US – our copyright law is worse.
Patents are far less important than people generally perceive.
“intellectual property” is not “property” it does not share the attributes of property.
“He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”
Thomas Jefferson
The primary cost of US drug companies is the expensive approval process in the US.
BTW there is absolutley nothing that prohibits US drug companies from selling their drugs cheaply in India or elsewhere, regardless of the absence of “patent” protection.
And they do. which is one of the reasons that pharma vigorously opposed drug re-importation.
This is only a problem – because drug companies have convinced you it is a problem.
In truth we have more problems in reverse.
Nitroglycerin is very effective in stopping or reducing the harm of a heart attack.
It was invented so long ago that any patents long ago expired.
Yes, it is impossible to get a generic Nitroglycerin tablet approved in the US.
Indians have available to them a dirt cheap medicine to help in the event of a heart attack.
Americans are deprived of it by the FDA’s war against generics.
There are many many other such examples.
Oh wait, sorry… I see that I mis-read your question, and you asked why it’s bad for us NOT to be in multilateral agreements. I think that we should seek bilateral and multilateral agreements that are mutually beneficial.
I know that things aren’t always equal ~ but cheating should literally be a deal breaker, and without fair agreements, it becomes harder to call out the cheaters. Our problem is that we have acquiesced to unfair agreements, and then allowed them to continue, often because they benefit crony capitalists.
Priscilla;
Let me try a different direction.
Destruction is an inherent part of the free market.
To make more value with less human effort inherently means someone finding a better way, which means those doing it the old way must change or die.
No one can have the same job at the same relative pay producing the same thing with the same efficiency all their lives – without all economic growth everywhere stopping.
Without nothing at all changing.
A higher standard of living – whether we are part of a global economy or a completely isolated one, requires the destruction of old less efficient jobs.
All the bad things you think are a consequence of Free Trade or “cheating” are going to happen anyway.
Protectionist policies – cheating, harms everyone a little, but the greatest harm is to the nation doing the “cheating”
I do care if china “cheats” – because we are all worse off – but China most o all.
Regardless there is no way to “Game” free trade to actually gain an advantage.
As an example – say China subsidizes steel in an attempt to shift global steel production to China.
1). Steel from china must be transported farther – a cost domestic suppliers elsewhere do not have.
2). The destruction of existing domestic steel produces most heavily and rapidly effects the least efficient – they were ultimately doomed anyway. Their destruction frees capital and human resources, which are most commonly directed at newer more innovative more efficient means of producing better cheaper steel.
In the US big old steel makers slowly died to be replaced by newer much more efficient “mini-mills”
3). Ultimately China must now compete with even more efficient domestic producers.
4). So long as China subsidizes steel – US consumers receive a wealth transfer from China – because that is what the subisidy is.
Fundimentally there is no difference between one nation attempting to “cheat” or game the system relative to others, than one business trying to do so relative to the others.
The late 19th century brought the birth of “antiTrust” – it took over 50 years to grasp how ludicrously stupid this concept was. We still have the laws on the books – but they are very rarely enforced – because they are a self destructive concept.
In the past century economists have learned that it is not actually possible for big players over the long run to game the system. That so long as business can not initiate force or fraud, even “cheating” is eventually self limiting and self defeating.
There is no historical instance anywhere ever of “preditory pricing” as an example actually working. Businesses have driven prices down to put competitors out of business, but they have never been able to subsequently raise them to recoup their losses.
Much of the mess in the mideast today is because Franking in the US has severely altered the geopolitics of energy. The Saudi’s declared war on US frackers and succeeded in taking many of them out. Saudi Arabia had the advantage of the cheapest oil in the world, I think they pay about $6/barrel to extract it. But they must transport it, and that is expensive. Originally the Saudi’s estimated that if they drove oil prices below $60/barrel that US frackers would go out of business. Eventually the price dropped below 20/barral and only 1/3 of US frackers had failed. Worse still with each uptick in prices more of them returned to business.
The consequences of this oil war have not merely effected the Saudi’s, but all of OPEC.
Venezuela would not likely be in the toilet if their economy was still subsidized by billions of petro dollars each year. Russia has been in a severe recession for several years – because energy is 2/3 of Russian exports.
Further US fracking has resulted in massive increases in NG – which reduce our need for oil and coal.
And the fracking revolution has only started. China likely has higher frackable reserves of oil than the US. Frackable sources of oil and NG are far more numerous throughout the world than traditional oil sources.
How does this relate to trade and cheating ?
Simple, it does not work. Trying to game the system always ultimately fails.
We need to focus on the initiation of force and fraud – that is govenrments legitimate scope, and the rest takes care of itself.
Did Deceptive Donnie Lie About This Too?
“When asked about his meeting with Putin, Trump told reporters on Air Force One that Putin denied attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election. “I just asked him again,” Trump said. “He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election, he did not do what they are saying he did.”
“Every time he sees me, he said: ‘I didn’t do that.’ And I believe, I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it,” Trump said, noting that Putin is “very insulted” by the accusation. Trump called the allegation an “artificial barrier” erected by Democrats — once again casting doubt on the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia tried to interfere in the election to help Trump win.“
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/359893-putin-trump-did-not-bring-up-election-meddling
Given that Putin has repeatedly said that Russia did not interfere in the US election, and you do not beleive that – why do you beleive him when he was he did not talk to Trump about it ?
“why do you beleive him when he was he did not talk to Trump about it ?”
Dave
Jay has psychic abilities. A human lie detector.r
Haha.
Who could fail to believe these two innocent smiling faces? Putin denies Russian meddling in our elections, trump eats it up.
What will the history books say?
Here is the gold:
http://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/jonah-goldberg-iii-transcript/
The entire discussion is excellent. Here is a great quote”
“People on the left, people on the right, defenders, critics, everyone is trying to fit Donald Trump into some larger meta-thesis about his agenda or American politics and all these kinds of things. And I certainly believe we can do that. But you have to take into account that he is essentially a leaf on the wind, right? He is a Chinatown tic-tac-toe chicken who is not motivated by any grand ideological agenda, with the exception of stuff like trade, right? “Take the oil.”
KRISTOL: Right.
GOLDBERG: There are a handful of things that he’s believed for a very long time. But for the most part it’s pure lizard-brain, status, glandular stuff. And he listens to the last person who talked to him. He’s seduced by compliments.”
He is overseas now, being seduced every day. Yesterday it was Putin’s turn. When is he more dangerous, when he is at home or when he is abroad?
Given that what Trump says and what he does (or does nto do) regarding Trade are often out of sink – Goldberg would be in error.
I respect Goldberg – alot, I am not obligated to universally agree with him.
Ideology is a collection of principles that we believe is how the world does (or should in the case of must left ideologies) operate.
Whether you are ideological or not, and regardless of your ideology – the world and humans behave as they do. The earth does nto change its orbit because you wish it to.
Humans do not interact radically differently because you wish it to.
One’s ideology can be true – or close to true, or completely false.
Or one can have no ideology but pragmatically reach the same conclusions that someone adhering to an ideology does.
Because regardless of our beleifs the world acts as it does.
I do not grasp you you fixate on what Trump and Putin say about this.
You beleive that Russia did interfere – yet Putin says they did not.
But you beleive Putin rather than Trump when Putin says it was not discussed ?
In the end it is all meaningless – Putin is not going to say Russia meddled – even if they did. He is not going to say the issue was discussed – even if it was.
Trump is going to say it was – even if it was not.
And neither you nor I will be able to tell what the truth is.
And it will not matter.
The Despicable Dunce continues to UNDERMINE the security and safety of the nation by badmouthing Institutions meant to protect us.
And I am right there with him. Our intelligence community has become useless.
Do I actually have to list all the major intelligence failures of the past 20 years ?
Sorry, Jay we need to clean house and start over.
The problem is far deeper than a few people at the top.
If John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey are not political hacks, I don’t know who is.
Clapper committed perjury before Congress, Comey intentionally allowed Hillary to destroy evidence in a criminal investigation and get away with it, and Brennan also lied about spying on members of the Senate.
They’re the outrage.
Appeal to authority – and not a particularly good one.
I expect the MSM to report the news, not be the news or spin the news.
We can form our own opinions from the facts.
Wow, I just realized who Putin reminded me of:
“Powerful you have become, the dark side I sense in you.”
– Yoda
You may like this article dduck. Having my own window into Russian politics and their point of view (by which I mostly mean putin’s point of view) and having followed putin’s career closely I agree strongly with the author of the article, he has made an accurate and realistic assessment of the situation. The author, a Russian ex-pat and the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti, very clearly explains how he sees putin’s game plan:
“That, unfortunately, is likely Putin’s third long game. He doesn’t believe there’s any upside to cooperating with the West. It has been his refrain in recent years that sanctions against Russia won’t be lifted no matter what it does. So he’s out to prove that the West, and above all the U.S., is so shaky that the slightest push could throw it off balance. The demonstration is intended for the rest of the developing world. It’s supposed to embolden Asian, Middle Eastern and Latin American nations to challenge U.S. hegemony — to treat the West as a colossus with feet of clay. It can work: In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte is a Putin admirer. Putin’s demonstration of Western weakness may even be working on China, which increasingly appears to have abandoned any intention to continue liberalizing. ”
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-10/putin-s-trolling-of-the-west-is-not-just-a-tactic
The fact that anyone, let alone a large number of trump-defending conservatives, is in denial mode about what putin is doing boggles my mind completely and makes me wonder if they actually have any core beliefs or values at all. Is defending trump really worth living in a make believe world in which putin has not hugely affected our political process? We are in deep shit, the information war from without and the rot from within.
I suspect that you are correct that this is Putin’s strategy.
But just because Putin has a strategy does not mean it will work.
Putin’s actions in the 2016 election – did not change the outcome. They did not change the failure of identity politics, they did not change the increasingly extremist left shift of the democratic party. they did not change that we are geographically more ideologically concentrated than ever before, they did not change the growing gap between the left and the rest of us.
Atmost Putin through some coal on an already burning fire, and the left took the bait.
Except honestly the left was going to go bonkers over Trump’s election no matter what.
No one beleifs the left is actually upset because “Trump/Russia/Collusion”
The left is upset because Trump won, and the left lost.
The left did not beleive that was possible.
The left still beleives in its own fore-ordained ascendency.
Putin did not create any of this. It all would have happened in some form no matter what.
Russia is still a superpower on the decline. It is only the gradula reversion to a soviet police state than keeps Putin in power.
I have no doubt Putin seeks influence elsewhere in the world.
I have no evidence of any significant success.
Russia is the 6th largest economy in the world.
China, EU, US are each 5 times larger.
India is 3 times larger and Japan is almost twice as large.
Russia has been struggling for almost a decade, and things are getting worse.
While we should not be stupid about the country with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, we should also not run our entire foreign policy under the premise that Putin and Russia will manage what the USSR could not.
Russia has an advantage in global politics because they have been a significant global political player nearly as long as the US. But the player with real clout is China.
They have not been politicially active throughout the world until recently and are learning.
But they dwarf Russia in importance.
Putin is not doing anything of consequence.
He is trying to do most of what is in your analysis.
Trying is not doing.
dd12 might point out that this sounds familiar 😉
“Do or do not. There is no try.” ~ Yoda
I do not see how anyone could prove anything one way or the other about how strong an effect putin had on the election. The system of our dysfunctional election and the effects on mass psychology and the psychologies of certain sub cultures are far too complex to prove anything.
If a person smokes for 30 years and dies of lung cancer no one can prove it was the cigarettes that did it. And if he worked in an asbestos mine and drank like a fish and ate all the wrong foods the case would be even more complex, multiple contributions occurred to ill health.
Of all the many many things that justifiably had an effect on this &^%$# election, one thing that should NOT have been of any consequence was putin’s efforts. No one is going to ever convince me that they had no effect.
putin’s methods should concern us in the future, which makes this whole affair a very valid question that needs to be thoroughly investigated, as it is being. Regarding the behaviours of various campaigns and public figures, I will wait till the investigation is complete and the fat lady sings.
*†**********iwanta..(to much to key☺)….When you have piss poor candidates it makes it much easier for others with their own agenda to post items and have them seem more believable. If the democrats had run a more centrist candidate with less baggage and talked about how middle class America would be better off they would not have been so vulnerable. Instead of the candidate with years of questionable actions and who had a party that delivered a message of division by constantly using women, gays and other ” groups” in their messaging, there would have been less impact by outside manipulation. No one will ever know the impact, but why put your party in that position?
So knowing what the fringe idiot voters in both parties usually do, we could most likely end up with Napoleon and Pocahontas as our choices. What a future this country has!!
“No one will ever know the impact, but why put your party in that position?”
Ron, if the dem. and rep. parties were monolithic groups then one could speak about them as though they were a person who needed to make a sensible choice. Instead they are chaotic unpredictable coalitions of groups led by their most primitive members, the drunken teenager part of the brain seems to have control of the parties. You and I could make a good choice of candidates for the next election, two sensible moderates with appropriate experience and gravity. Sadly…..
Democracy, the worst system, except for all the others (I think, not always so sure).
Roby “the drunken teenager part of the brain seems to have control of the parties”
Could not describe it better if I were given month’s to come up with something different. And the money keeps going to the insane as the parties get further and further apart. There is something very wrong in this country when you hear things like friends for +20 years breaking off friendships due to one being demkcrat and one being Republican.
Why is what you claim to be true regarding the parties not just the way democracy works ?
Maybe it is not you that is capable of making the sensible choice – maybe you are the one outside the mainstream.
That is a serious question not an insult.
The real point is that there is this presumption in much of what you post that you and a few like you are the only sane people in an insane world.
Why is the converse not possible ?
This is a part of why I do not respect your arguments about “differences of opinion”.
I do not see the “sanity” or “moderation” or a set of political “beleifs” as valueless subjective judgements.
Our inability to know absolute truth does not preclude knowing that somethings are more true than others, and that most things are false.
But you seem to want to dwell in this world where all viewpoints are equal.
Atleast when that is convenient – clearly you think many viewpoints are inferior.
You have at times argued that a poplular view has more merit than a less popular one.
Anyway you have admitted that the parties are fragmented and that the results do not fit your definition of sanity.
Why isn’t it your definition of sanity that is suspect ?
Just to be clear – I am trying to argue relative to YOUR frame of references and values.
I have answers to these questions as they apply to myself – which is that the merits of the argument or position are important, not the popularity of it.
Did Putin atler any of the voting after it was cast ?
If not then Putin had no effect on the election.
Attempting to persuade people – speach, free expression is not an effect.
It is also not something you can do anything about.
And not something you should do anything about.
People vote as they do for unfathomable reasons.
It is outside the role of government to decide what people may and may not hear regarding an election – or anything else for that matter.
Free speach is not merely a constitutional right – it is a natural right.
While in the vast scheme of the election what appears to have been russian expression is tiny and more toward Clinton issues than Trump ones – it would not matter if it was huge.
Lets say that we decide that Russia could not have posted on Facebook or Twitter or whatever.
Are you going to say NO ONE could have ?
Why is MSNBC allowed to expound on an election but RT is not ?
There is no meas of stopping Russian speach that does not seriously interfere with everyones speach.
An if you eliminate attempts to hack voting machines, and speaking on social media – you have nothing.
I do nto really think the Russian presence on Social media was consequential
But I do not care if it was.
I do not thing the russians were Pro-Trump
But I do not care if they were.
If you say expression is an unacceptable form of influence, any concept of actual freedom is dead.
If you try to say that political expression is acceptable – but only if it comes from approved sources – there is little difference between that and controlling all political expression.
I doubt as an example that all the right sources in the media, Plus all the Russian participation, cam close to a small portion of that of the left.
Ultimately the claim that Russian expression on social media tipped the election is a direct assertion that the left has the right to control what people see and hear – that people are unable to vote without being protected from “bad influences”
You say you beleive in democracy – that requires accepting the will of the people – even when what they will is not what you want. It includes accepting it when you think they have made the wrong choice. It means accepting it even when you think the results would have been different if only you could have controlled everything they hear.
If as you claim the russians are able to “influence” people and change their votes – then so is SEUI, or GE or George Sorros, or MSNBC, or anyone else engaged in political expression.
I do not think anyone’s vote was changed by images of Jesus and Clinton wrestling, but if they were – that is democracy, and how political expression works.
Thomas Paine sought and received great influence with the french revolution.
Ben Franklin sought to influence British public oppinion towards the colonists prior to the revolutionary war.
We these all illegitimate ?
I am not interested in debates about “mass psychology”.
Democrats and the left are as able to attempt to engage in “mass psychological influence” as anyone else. And frankly the Russia efforts were inept.
Regardless, the argument still devolves to “we the left must be allowed to protect the people from scarry mass psychological boogey men”
You seem to have defined election dysfunction – as voters not voting as you desired.
As noted many times before – my grandmother voted for the most handsome candidate.
That is to me, and possibly you a poor way to vote. But it was hers, and her right to do so.
That is also why we are not a democracy and why we have limited government.
It is why we limit the power of govenrment rather than limiting what might influence voters.
The entire argument that government should be able to control the influences on voters is unbeleivably circular and dangerous.
A torts claim with respect to cigarettes and asbestos does not require proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Preponderance of the evidence is sufficient.
Smokers usually lost cigarette liability cases because for most of their lifetime we have know that cigarettes were dangerous. They were called death sticks shortly after WWII,
possibly earlier.
If you point a loaded gun at your head and pull the trigger, your death is a result of your actions not the gun.
I want to see us free to do whatever we wish that does not directly harm others.
Smoke Pot, visit prostitutes, shoot heroin.
Where someone selling us a product or providing us a service conceals a known harm – they are culpable. But where we know we could be hurting ourselves – the responsibility lies with us.
Of course no one is going to convince you.
Because you beleive that you should be allowed to control the outcome.
That you should be allowed to control the influences.
Because you to not beleive in freedom.
Because you beleive that people need ot be protected from Bad influences – as if we are all toddlers.
Putin’s methods were crude. Have you actually paid any attention to any of these adds ?
Putin’s understanding of the US is completely lacking any subtlty.
Multiple times Putin tried to sell Trump dirt that was purportedly damaging to clinton.
Turns out this dirt was really about one of Clinton’s contributors.
Only Russians – and possibly leftists, think that demonstrating misconduct of a donor is the same as misconduct of a candidate.
George Soros was a Nazi. Does that make Clinton and the entire left Nazi’s ?
The “fat lady” is not singing – because she has nothing to sing.
There are two sides to this.
The one is the interactions between Trump and Putin – which you are desparately trying to find.
But the other is the actual influence on the election.
Aside from your “mass psychology” nonsense – there is nothing there.
Your argument seems to boil down to millions of voters were secretly programmed by Russia to vote for Trump.
No votes were altered by Russia after they were cast.
No voters were paid for their votes – and even if they were – US voting is by secret ballot – you can not buy a vote because you can not know that you got it.
“The fact that anyone, let alone a large number of trump-defending conservatives, is in denial mode about what putin is doing boggles my mind completely and makes me wonder if they actually have any core beliefs or values at all.”
No one is in denial mode about Putin. Are you in denial mode about the ayatollahs of Iran cheating on the terms of the nuclear deal? I doubt that you are. You understand that the mullahs are bad guys, but I presume you believe that Obama negotiated with them to get the best outcome. Does that make you an Obama-defending liberal? Not necessarily.
American presidents have had to deal with any number of bad guys. Roosevelt and Stalin, Reagan and Suharto, W.Bush and the House of Saud, Obama and the Castro’s. It has very little to do with core values and beliefs, and almost everything to do with diplomatic maneuvering.
Obama sucked up to Putin big-time, until it became obvious that he was being totally played. Bush, too (remember how he “looked into his eyes”, or some such nonsense?). So, it was ok for them to collude with Putin?
Should Trump not shake hands with Putin? Not speak to him? Say terrible things about him in public? Avoid international meetings where they might end up at dinner together? Is this High School?
Obama sucked up to Putin until Clinton lost the election.
Its very hard to simultaneously call putins meddling in our election on a grand scale a nothing berger and try to combat that influence.
I have loved ones in Moscow and other places in Russia and former Soviet Union. Their ages range from those just starting their lives to others in their golden years. I see some of them nearly daily on skype, one is just starting med school, one is in grade school, lovely young women who deserve a future. I would love to see them living in country and a region whose future was not being driven into the ground by geopolitics. If there is one thing that trump ever said that Really resonates with me its that anyone who wants bad relations with Russia is crazy.
But, he has made a true mess of it thus far in my estimation, inexperience naivete, belief in his own entitlement to do whatever the heck he wants to. For the sake of my loved ones in Russia, I surely hope that somehow the trump method is the one that turns the tide. I do not loathe trump more than I love my people in Russia. Let them win for once, even if trump wins too. Certainly no American has ever been so openly willing to overlook the actions of the current Russian leader as trump.
My take is that he is being had, with big future consequences.
You can not combat putin’s influence on the election.
Anything you might wish to do will be worse and will be immoral.
Our relationship with Russia is definitely at a nadir – but that is the responsibility to the left, which apparently wants to bring back the cold war.
I think the Iran Obama’s Iran deal was bad. But the big mistake of the Obama administration was slowing down ABM development.
I think we should be engaged with Iran, and Russia and North Korea.
Probably we should not be pissing of allies like Saudia Arabia and Israel at the same time – even if Saudi Arabia is at best the lessor of evils.
Engage is not capitulate, but it is also not sabre rattle and sanction the crap out of them.
Roby;
I would seriously like to try to understand what you are arguing regarding Russian influence.
I am not going to pretend to not be highly skeptical. Honestly I do not think you have thought past the fact that the results of the election were not to your liking.
But I find myself attacking hypothetical positions of yours on this issue. Because I have to guess what your real positions are.
But lets get beyond this election and try to address how things should be.
Do you honestly believe that people are heavily influenced by advertisments that does not play into their pre-existing views ?
BTW the advertising industry did alot of research on this. It is nearly impossible to get people to buy something they do not want. It is possible to get people to buy something they want – today rather than tomorow. It is possible to get them to buy it from you rather than someone else. But advertising works with our existing values, and wants, not against them.
Are you asserting otherwise ?
If you are asserting that Putin’s influence was somehow outsized – then why not CNN, MSNBC, … ?
Are you saying that facebook should Ban Russian’s ?
Are you saying the government should require facebook to ban Russians ?
If Facebook bans russians from posting political adds regarding US elections,
and somehow can manage to do that without all kinds of unintended consequences,
Would you oppose a competitor saying – “we will not ban anything” ?
Or are you going to require banning by law ?
Given the massive amount of identity theft and that spammers already have all americans names and probably emails. What are you going to do if Russian’s get more sophisticated and impersonate real americans ?
If you are banning russian influence in US elections – are you going to shutdown US efforts to influence elections in other nations ?
How was Obama’s remarks on brexit different from what you claim Putin is doing ?
Are you saying that “Voice of America” was evil ?
What about ordinary americans ? We have accepted the assertion that because Russians expressed views int he US election, that means Russia/Putin did – obviously all Russians are not putin. But does you ban extend to ordinary Russians ?
Is it reciprocal – are ordinary americans banned from expressing themselves in the political issues of other nations ?
Who is going to police this ?
I do not think you have thought this out. But maybe I am wrong.
I am openly admitting I do not think what you think you want is either possible or desireable. But at the very least you are entitled to explain what you mean, and the rest of us are entitled to know what you are planning – before we run government off willy nilly trying to regulate this
correction: Certainly no American PRESIDENT has ever been so openly willing to overlook the actions of the current Russian leader as trump.
What would you have Trump do ?
Nuke Russia ?
We are already sanctioning them far more than ever made any sense.
The left is quite litterally seeking to bring back the cold war.
The exact Bush quote that I was trying to recall, went like this :
“I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.”
How sweet.
Or the hot mic message from Obama to Putin, heard by the world:
“”On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space….This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
Nice of Obama to let him know, huh?
Was Putin a good guy back then? No, actually both Bush and Obama learned the hard way that playing footsie with Vlad was a bad idea.
Putin’s increasing power in the world has been, in large part, thanks to the foreign policy decisions of both Bush and Obama. Maybe he’ll roll Trump, too. But I doubt that James Mattis is being had, and he’s got Trump’s ear.
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev had a famously good relationship. Didn’t stop Reagan from playing hardball with the Russian leader, when he needed to. I think it’s unwise to make these kind of assumptions, based on snippets of information.
The collapse of the USSR is not a reason to suddenly become best buddies with Russia.
At the same time we would be wise to be on the best possible terms with a nation that actually has more nukes than we do.
Every President since Kennedy has attempted to form a better relationship with Russia – including Obama with Clinton’s leadership. Though they blundered at this and did so corruptly, the overall decisions was correct and remains so.
We can expect Russia to meddle in the affairs of other countries – just as we do.
We can expect they will meddle in our elections.
We can expect they will flex their military muscles – particularly with their neighbors.
Some of this we can do nothing about – unless we are prepared to engage in a hot war with a major nuclear power.
Regardless, the fact that we do not agree with everything Russia does, does not mean we should return to the cold war.
Every president since Kennedy has blundered with regard to Russia.
But they were all right to try.
Putin is not our enemy. He is also not our friend.
We should work together where we can, oppose Russia where we should, and not pretend that Russia is either Darth Vader or Mother Theressa.
“When you look at the dark side, careful you must be. For the dark side looks back.”
– Yoda
“In a dark place we find ourselves, and a little more knowledge lights our way.”
– Yoda
Trump thinks he can outplay Putin, he needs “more knowledge”, for sure.
However, I agree, “you don’t poke the tiger with sticks, but you also don’t put your am into his cage.”
– Anon.
Ron
Generalizations always have exceptions – some of what is made today is crap.
Much of what was made decades ago, cost much more in real terms, and was made to be repairable – but it was also not designed to have nearly as high a mean time between failure.
I have lots of old tools – I frequent auctions, it is fun and it makes me feel good to buy something at a real bargain.
I have tools of all kinds – way too many. Sometimes the old ones are better. Often that is not the case.
As a good rule, products are increasingly made to cost less, last longer, not be repairable, and more likely to fail when used outside their limits.
That is not unique to china. I spent some time in farm equipment factory in Wisconsin.
They test things like axles to destruction. But the goal is not to make them indestructible.
That is not possible, and not cost effective for them or customers.
The objective is to assure that every single part of the axle works up to about 120% of rated capacity, and that just above that every single part is equally likely to fail.
They do not want one part of the axle to be able to handle 200% of capacity and another to handle 150% and another to only handle 110%. All excess is waste.
And yes, there is also a tendency of producers to decide if they can reduce the cost enough, that a product becomes disposable. That it is not worth the effort to repair.
Sometimes that is annoying. Sometimes it is not.
Andrew McCarthy is excellent as usual.
http://c6.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/xml_20171127_mccarthy.html
This McCarthy article is really good, a really comprehensive analysis of the Mueller investigation, and its results ~ or lack of same ~ thus far.
Unfortunately, anyone who’s convinced that Trump was “colluding” with Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton, will not read it.
They don’t want to know. Nothingburgers. It’s “Russia, Russia, Russia.”
Neither side values anything but winning anymore ~ playing by the rules, accepting defeat with dignity, learning from mistakes, agreeing to work with the victor…all of that is down the drain. If you didn’t win an election, impeach the candidate who did. Call him illegitimate, say he was born in Kenya, say the Russians did it.
I’ve said many times that this is exactly what created the conditions for Trump’s victory. Obama’s, too. Both Obama and Trump knew how to win under these conditions ~ appeal to your base, keep that base riled up and energized against the other side, even if it means dividing the country in ways that may not be healed. Tell that base that your opponents are evil, that they should be in jail, that they are trying to hurt people like you. That they are racists, that they want to start wars.
And it’s not just the candidates ~ every single one of your fellow citizens who voted for someone other than your choice is the enemy, It’s Grouptthink on a grand scale ~ dysfunctional and destructive. Rick gets it:
“The public gang-assault on Trump since he upset Mrs. Clinton has been virtually unprecedented in our time. He may or may not have been guilty of collusion with Russia to win the election; at worst, he was no more guilty than the DNC. ”
I don’t care that half the country despises Trump ~ half the country despised Obama, too. Half of the country will despise the next president. And it’s going to keep going like that, until most people think like Rick, or most people think like Jay.
The 2nd MacCarthy article I cite is actually better.
It compares and contrasts the Mueller investigation with the Comey investigation of Clinton. It could have added the Rosenstein/Mueller/Comey investigation of the U1 deal.
It makes clear a serious disparity in the standards of prosecution.
Those on the left want an aggressive prosecution of Trump. But they were unwilling to tolerate a hobbled investigation into U1 and Clinton.
“a government of laws, and not of men,” John Adams.
Adam’s expounded on this – this is the rule of law.
It means that laws are applied equally without regard for who they are applied to.
Black or white, rich or poor, Democrat or Republican.
One government, one law, one standard, no discretion in the application of the law.
That is the most serious failure we have regarding Mueller.
We litterally have not aggressively investigated Clinton or the Obama administration, because they are Clinton and Obama, and we are literally frothing at the mouth to investigate Trump, because he is Trump.
And almost no one has fully grasped how wrong that is.
Priscilla,
Priscilla, as to the Russian influence question, if there is one place in politics where I have “skin in the game” on many levels its the Russian arena. Here, I will write a small book if I am not careful.
The conflict between the authoritarian axis and the western axis is as deep and meaningful as any conflict in history. These two systems simply clash by definition and the people in one do not truly comprehend the thinking of the people in the other. In the pre-Nuclear Era we would have fought an ultra bloody WWIII over this issue and one side would have more or less prevailed. In the Nuclear Era its a frozen conflict. Both sides grit their teeth and pound sand.
I have followed the path of putin’s reign event by event over the years . Had Yeltsin chosen a Medvedev instead of putin as his successor, what kind of path would post-Soviet history have taken? putin inherited a situation that you and I cannot even begin to comprehend, overnight his Soviet country disintegrated and left chaos, economic collapse, mafia rule. putin has done what any similar ultra patriotic KGB product would have done to stabilize Russia and the region. Its not surprising that under putin the conflict between the authoritarian worldview of Russia, China, NK, etc. and western democracy has slowly but steadily gone downhill since the naively optimistic moments in the 80s and 90s. For both sides this conflict is a wasteful losing economic proposition, but we are trapped, neither “East” nor “West” can change the thinking of the other side. Suddenly, in the wake of Crimea and its info wars, beyond all belief, putin has found that he CAN change the values of the other side, and, even more unbelievably, working from the most unlikely part of American society, a part of the conservative thinkers and voters.
If you ask me what scares me most, what was most eventful in the last election its not trump’s election, that can be defused; its that putin actually has found in the US and even in Europe that he has a semi-sympathetic ear in, of all places, parts of the nationalist right.
The level of interference that putin’s informations warriors (the successors of the KGB are the FSB (Federal Security Service) and the SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service) engaged in in western politics since Crimea, and not up-front interference, like the Voice of America, but, the dirty KGB type of interference, is an issue of the deepest consequence. This is NOT a nothingberger! (How I &*^%$ HATE the word nothingburger, it up there with selfie and sheeple in its ability to disgust me. Its the “so what” mentality condensed into one stupid expression. Why should anyone ever argue with a So-whater?)
I am 100% with the people in our intelligence world and our political world who take putin’s dirty war on our system as the ultra serious thing it is. The people who want to “so what” it away are out of their minds as far as I am concerned.
The future world will be greatly affected by the level of success that putin has with his authoritarian model. Someday putin will be gone. WIll the next Russian leader be a Medvedev, a putin, something worse? It matters and it will be determined by events. Containment was the strategy of the West from the end of WWII until the USSR failed and China began to loosen the communist model. Reagan and Bush I had the pleasure of seeing Lenin’s statues come down, and the Berlin wall, on their watch but it was decades of containment that made it possible. Containment, containment, and more containment. Resolution to outlast.
The Russian economic system is frail and backward, uncompetitive outside a few areas like energy and weapons. It does not nearly produce a standard of living for the average Russian that meets Western standards. For Russians, rejecting the putin path of perpetual conflict with the west is the path to a better future in Russia in the long run. If you can’t beat em, join em. But, containment, containment, containment by the West is what moved Leninism out and it is what can move putinism out. Yes Mattis understands all this, and much more deeply than I do, I am sure. But he is not POTUS and the POTUS is notoriously stubborn and is sending a variety of chaotic signals rather than a well-focused consistent message. A leaf on the wind.
I see the penetration of putin’s info war machinations into the trump administration and a part of the GOP base as a catastrophe. That is Not a *&^%$ nothingberger. Its something worth fighting about and it is to my endless stupification that elements of the American right and left have reversed sides on this. What would Reagan think of trump, micheal flynn, and the rest of the trump campaign circus and their approach to putin?
Roby;
Your “inside Russia” analysis might be correct, but it is mostly irrelevant.
But for its Nukes, Russia is a third rate power. I suspect your assessment of who Putin is and what does he want, is correct.
But when you go from that to what can he do, you are outside of Russia your outside the area you claim expertise in and pretty far off.
Are americans outside of the left less terrified of Russia than they were 40 years ago – sure ? Are they naive Putin worshipers ? Not a chance.
Trump was far too fawning over Putin as a candidate and it was annoying.
At this point Trump is president of the United States and Putin is a pest.
I have seen no US ties between the alt-right and Putin. Regardless the US alt-right is tiny and inconsequential – well except when leftists blow them into some boogey monster by deciding every white male in the country who is not happy at being at the end of the line is somehow a defacto neo-nazi.
The alt-right is an inconsequential political factor in the US, and will remain that way unless the left actually manages to regain power and force more idiotic identity politics down everyone’s throat.
At Charlottesville after deliberately inflaming passions the night before the alt-right was outnumbered by counter protestors 5:1 atleast. Probably there were atleast as many antifa as alt-right. Through out the country subsequently actual free speach groups, often not affiliated with Trump are completely dominated by antifa.
The greatest immediate threat of serious violence in the US today is from the extreme left, not the extreme right. The pew poll noting how divided we have become found that nearly all of that was the result of a large shift left of democrats.
Just to be clear I do think that a strong nationalist shift is possible, but if it occurs it will be because the left has gone even more out of control.
European politics is far more complex, and the labels in Europe do not mean the same as they do in the US.
Europe does appear to be in the midst of a strong and growning and possibly dangerous nationalist backlash – but that is driven by a massive mostly 20th century surge in immigration into countries that were monocultures.
Putin may well try to exploit that, but he is not driving it.
Back to Putin in the US.
Sorry, but Putin spent next to nothing. Actual meaningful “influence” in US elections is far beyond russias resources.
Putin ended up being wildly successful – not because he changed the outcome of the election. The impact of Russia on the actual election was inconsequential, but because left wing nuts beleive he changed the outcome of the election – primarly because it is beyond their ability to contemplate that Trump actually won.
Trump’s election is a earth shattering experience for most on the left.
It is not supposed to be possible.
It is also all the worse because you made him into 10 times the ogre he is and therefore his victory is 10 times more meaningful than it is.
Regardless, no one is pretending that Putin does not have aspirations of restoring Russia to its USSR stature, nor that we should not be warry of Putin.
To the extent of my knowledge I think your internal assessments of Russia are spot on.
I would note that the same forces you hope will challenge Putin in the future are the ones that brought down the USSR. The average Russian looks at themselves and does not grasp why they do not have the standard of living of Europe and the US.
Putin is trying to make the answer even greater nationalism. But that did not work for the USSR.
I acknowledge and understand what you’re saying about Russia, Roby (and thank you for being Roby again, by the way!). I am not a Putin defender in any way, and I honestly don’t know anyone who is, Trump voter, Clinton voter, or otherwise. I’ve been ranting for 5 years about Obama’s decisions regarding Syria and Iran, precisely because those decisions allowed Putin to gain a power base in the ME, and put the US and its allies in a weakened, no-win situation. Putin understands that the anti-Western agenda of the Iranians dovetails nicely with his own aspirations, and he has used some very bad decisions on the part of US presidents.
And you are right about Putin, and Russian leaders over the last 50-60 years, for that matter, attempting to change the values of America and American voters, but I believe that you are absolutely wrong about the fact that he has changed the hearts and minds of conservatives. And, although I have general respect for the intelligence community, I believe that, over time, much of it has become politicized, and that is not a good thing. No cop or spook should have a Democrat or Republican agenda.
Trump’s comments about Putin during the election were….well, I would say they were “trumpian” in his obnoxious way, comparing Putin as a “strong” leader and Obama as a “weak” leader. Trump, himself seems more authoritarian in his style ~ which, since his style was developed as a hard-driving real estate tycoon, doesn’t seem all that unusual. But, he has been far LESS authoritarian than Obama was as president, despite his blatherings.
As to your Reagan question ~
Reagan was a great president, who had spent a lifetime fighting communist infiltration, first in Hollywood, then in Washington, He was a man of high principle and character, who believed in limited, constitutional government. Very much different than our recent presidents…yet he also made some big mistakes and was let down by his closest advisors a few times.
I think that Reagan would probably have never hired Michael Flynn. Ditto for the volunteer “advisors” like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos ~ but, remember that more experienced types were refusing to work with Trump. Reagan was a far more experienced politician, with his own inner circle of foreign policy advisors.
On the other hand, I think that Reagan would have been very much on board with Trump hiring Manafort to manage his convention delegate floor count (which is why Trump replaced Lewandowski with Manafort), since Reagan himself had hired Manafort for the same purpose…as had Ford (to fight off a primary challenge from Reagan), Bush 41, and Dole. Manafort was a highly regarded campaign advisor and manager.
On a final note, I would say that both campaigns were “circuses.” And that had nothing to do with Russia.
“but I believe that you are absolutely wrong about the fact that he has changed the hearts and minds of conservatives.”
We are closer to agreeing on putin than almost anything else. But I am on solid ground to say that putin has found some sympathy and support from the nationalist right here and in Europe. Polls (yes, I still I believe in polls) have shown that both assange and putin experienced surprising changes in their perception by both left and right, the left viewing them less favorably and the right more favorably. Certainly not every conservative which why I used my usual set of qualifiers.
The whole argument that putin did not meddle in the election, while our own intelligence agencies pretty unanimously say they did, that trump made and many of his supporters are happy to echo is not consistent with people who are taking putin’s work seriously. That shocks me to my core, much more than the election of trump, which can be defused in many ways. trump likes to be obnoxious, and nowhere more obviously than on this issue, and his true core supporters, conservatives of some kind for the most, repeat what come from trump central. Not to see that is denial Priscilla.
Polling in Germany and other European countries that I have been following since Crimea has shown the same pattern, nationalist affiliated people are taking putins work as being harmless and natural, or even beneficial and natural. Merkel has had to deal with that head wind in her own heroic attempts to oppose putin in Ukraine. Here is an excerpt.
“Right-Wing Groups Find a Haven, for a Day, in Russia
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia — A motley crew of representatives of fringe right-wing political organizations in Europe and the United States used a conference here on Sunday to denounce what they called the degradation of white, Christian traditions in the West. Their hosts used the conference to advance Russia’s effort to lure political allies of any stripe.
Railing against same-sex marriage, immigration, New York financiers, radical Islam and globalization, among other targets, one speaker after another lauded Russia and President Vladimir V. Putin as a pillar of robust, conservative, even manly values.
Mr. Putin has for some time sought international influence by casting Russia as the global guardian of traditional mores. Yet the effort has acquired new urgency, as Moscow seeks to undermine support in Europe for economic sanctions and other policies meant to isolate Moscow over its aggressive actions against Ukraine.
“Putin’s calculation is that Europe should change its attitude toward Ukraine, and it can easily happen when and if internal European problems outweigh Ukrainian events,” said Nikolai Petrov, a political scientist in Moscow.
“They can make friends with everybody who poses a threat to the ruling parties, including radical forces,” he said. “If the radical nationalists are increasing their weight in Europe, they can serve as good allies for the Kremlin.”
Yes, Republicans have gone from complete russia phobes to “maybe we can manage to work with him” at the same time as democrats have gone from “we should all get along including with Putin, to Putin is Darth Vader”.
Regardless, there is a difference between not being horribly unpopular and actually having influence. Putin is not driving american politics on the right. Though he absolutely is on the left. He owns space in your head.
You claim to be knowledgeable regarding Russia – so why are you selling this total nonsense that right and left are somehow the same between the US and Europe ?
European nationalism is radically different, regardless, Trump is more populist.
I do not doubt Putin wants influence – anywhere he can.
But want and has are quite different.
I do not even understand why we are having this discussion ?
How many people besides you beleive that Putin has a large cadre of followers in the US ?
There is a huge difference between saying “Putin’s miniscule efforts did not alter the election, and we are all in the bag for putin”.
My fears regarding Putin have more to do with economics than anything else.
So long as the russian economy remains weak the temptation to act ever more beligerating will be strong as it is easier to Russians from a weak economy with ever stronger nationalism.
At the moment I would trust the conservatives to better grasps Putin than the left.
The Russian Reset was a LEFT effort to placate Putin. The return to the cold war is the LEFT. Conservatives are mostly standing still. The left is gyrating arround Putin like a windmill.
Can we cut the crap ?
Russia might have attempted to jigger with some voting machines – and failed.
There is still some fog on that issue.
Regardless, I think there is some agrement that is likely true.
But no one seems to be doing a damn thing about it.
There is a long chain of circulstantial evidence that Russia might have put a relatively small amount of money into social media politics.
It appears most of that was issue rather than candidate oriented.
It appears that it favored Clinton more than Trump.
It was ineffectual.
No the IC is NOT unanimous.
Brennan and Clapper formed a special committee rather than going through ordinary channels, they cherry picked the commitee people. and only 4 agencies signed on to the report, which BTW concluded the russian efforts were not unusual and not effective.
They did all of this based on crap for evidence.
I am libertarian – I just posted that chart. I am pretty trusting – of all the things that republicans or democrats do not trust. But I do not Trust government.
BTW why should we trust the IC – what is it that they have gotten right ?
9/11 ? Sadam’s WMD’s ? Anthrax ? The Arab Spring ? Libya, Egypt, Benghazi ?
Please tell me what they have gotten right that they deserve our trust ?
Honestly Roby, I am trying, but for all your understanding of Russia – and possibly Putin, you are completely clueless regarding the right.
Amazing how I feel I’m living inside a clothes dryer and everything around me is topsy-turvey…
I agree with pretty much everything you say.
Reagan might have Hired Flynn – he did hire north and poindexter.
He would not have hired Page, and Papadopoulos, but he would not have had to.
Trump had a fractured GOP and alot of the major Republican’s in thee areas were unwilling to join his campaign. Trump had a lot of rank amatuers because he was shunned by the GOP. To be clear – I understand that. I was a Nevertrumper and a NeverClintoner in the same election. But whether I agree with shunning Trump, it had consequences, it meant more people with less experience.
Nor am I altogether unhappy about that – we need less insiders.
But Papadopoulos appears to have been duped by people with no ties to Russia.
The one link rule is going to lead to me making a series of posts. Here is an article from a year back on the american loony nationalist alt right embracing putin. Unfortunately, ideas that start on the fringes work their way into more mainstream politics, and the polling I have seen does show that what was a fringe attitude a year back has worked its way into trumps base in some form. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a logic that many are willing to accept.
“Russian President Vladimir Putin has emerged as a hero of several prominent alt-right figures, raising new questions about the Kremlin’s influence on the far-right, white nationalist movement that has asserted itself as a new force in American politics.
Whether Russia has played a direct role in awakening the American alt-right, whose resurgence as a crusade against establishment politics coincided with the rise of President-elect Donald Trump, is debatable.
But the extent to which the alt-right has found a natural ally in Russia’s current zeitgeist — which perceives the US as a globalist, imperialist power working on behalf of liberal elites — is hard to overstate.
Self-described white nationalist Matthew Heimbach, who said he identifies as a member of the alt-right, has praised Putin’s Russia as “the axis for nationalists.”
“I really believe that Russia is the leader of the free world right now,” Heimbach told Business Insider in a recent interview. “Putin is supporting nationalists around the world and building an anti-globalist alliance, while promoting traditional values and self-determination.”
Heimbach described the US’ current foreign policy as aggressive and imperialistic, and he criticized NATO’s military buildup in eastern Europe as an example of how the US is trying to promote a “global conflict” with Russia.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-connections-to-the-alt-right-2016-11
Let’s see there is one mention of Richard Spensor, and then almost the entire rest of this is about some Alt-Right guy no one has heard of.
1). The Alt-Right is TINY.
2). The Alt-Right is inconsequential in US politics and will remain so unless the far left keeps up its endless stupidity and drives ever more people into the Alt-Right.
3). For most of the past 5 decades the “alt-right” has been on a long slow decline.
There were real KKK rallies in my Pennsylvania county with 3000 people burning crosses in farmers fields when I was a teen.
Real Nazi’s marched through my City.
That has not happened in decades.
These guys are berely even neoNazi wannabees.
There is far more political danger from the far left in Berkeley than the entire Alt-right in the US. You have no sense of proportion.
I am sure the Westborro Baptist Church is supporting anti-LGBTQ laws in Russia.
But they are not representative of any consequential part of US politics.
They are idiots dancing at the fringes.
There are similar idiots dancing at the left fringes – with several important differences:
They are far more numerous.
They are far more influential.
They are far better received by the left as a whole.
They are the logical extension of leftisim, while the alt-right is inherently collectivists.
And BTW the far left is extremely anti-semetic. Probably more so today than the alt-right.
This one dated Jan 6, 2017.
“….But the conservative-populist nationalists in both the United States and Europe view Putin as a potential ally because they are focused on a sharply contrasting set of international priorities: resisting Islamic radicalization, unwinding global economic integration, and fighting the secularization of Western societies. Top Trump advisers like incoming White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn have expressed strikingly similar views.
In that way, the clashing perspectives on Putin reflect not only differences on how to relate specifically to Russia, but on what goals should guide American foreign policy in the 21st century, and what allies are necessary to advance those aims. On both sides of the Atlantic, the push to reset with Putin reflects a desire to elevate a different set of foreign-policy concerns while downplaying, or even abandoning, the alliances that have bound European nations more tightly to each other, and to the United States, for decades.
One critical variable of the Trump presidency may be how far this radical shift in perspective advances in a Republican Party where most elected officials and foreign-policy analysts still believe global stability depends on an American-led network of rules and alliances, and still view Putin as an escalating threat to that order. Though the conservative-populist embrace of Putin common in Europe remains confined to the GOP’s margins, it appears to be establishing a beachhead under Trump, noted Richard Fontaine, president of the centrist Center for a New American Security, and the former top foreign-policy aide to McCain. “It’s already going further than I expected it to go,” Fontaine said in an interview. “The fact that dyed-in-the-wool Republicans are going out and suggesting we don’t know who hacked what [in the 2016 campaign] and the sanctions may be an overreaction is not a terribly encouraging sign…..””
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/putin-trump-le-pen-hungary-france-populist-bannon/512303/
Why am I reading some atlantic monthly editor telling me what Trump and Flynn thought in Jan 2017 ?
Is there something wrong with what Trump and Flynn said ?
Is it possible for those on the left to grasp the views of people on the right – without someone providing them a magic decoder ring or ouija board ?
I do not know RONALD BROWNSTEIN, But I have know reason to beleive his views regarding Flynn etc rather than what Flynn has said.
Further – take a look. Flynn is gone, so is Bannon,
Bump firing. How nice for killers.
This one is for the Mini-14
Do you think that is accurate ?
You can do this with a pistol too.
Should we ban wood ?
Mass shootings in gun free nations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/09/mass-shootings-in-gun-free-nations/?utm_term=.63f155cccb84
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/12/good-guys-with-guns-saving-lives.html
We should ban wooden heads and rapid firing bloggers.
Oooo, I forgot, libertarians want complete FREEDOM from government interference.
It seems good guys with keyboards can’t stop full automatic comments any more than good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns. BTW, the good guy with guns are often cops.
“We should ban wooden heads and rapid firing bloggers.”
what violence or fraud is involved ?
“Oooo, I forgot, libertarians want complete FREEDOM from government interference.”
Bzzt, Wrong.
“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”
That is not “complete” freedom.
“It seems good guys with keyboards can’t stop full automatic comments any more than good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns. BTW, the good guy with guns are often cops.”
And sometimes the bad guys with guns are often the cops – ask Black Lives Matters.
We can not stop the sun from rising either.
“good guys with keyboards” If you step onto a moral soap box, you should expect to be knocked off. I see no inherently “good guys” with keyboards here.
It is crap like this that is why many of us do not trust those on the left, do not trust democrats, do not trust Obama, Clinton, Comey or Mueller.
Because to you the law only works as a weapon against your enemies.
It never applies to you or your friends.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453659/mueller-paul-manafort-investigation-hardball-tactics
Dave. Libertarians have an almost complete distrust of government. Most everyone else thinks what they do is fine.
And we are the ones that are called wacko nut cases..
“Libertarians have an almost complete distrust of government. Most everyone else thinks what they do is fine.
And we are the ones that are called wacko nut cases..”
Ron, couldn’t there be an impure middle ground between those end points? People with absolutely opposite opinions on Anything nearly Always regard each other as wacko nut cases.
Why can’t someone be slightly libertarian? Or slightly liberal?
Roby, second try.. WordPress sucks and I hate keying info.
Yes there is a “slightly” middle groud. But that position is shrinking and totally silent.
Roby;
Of course there is a middle ground, but there is zero reasons not to take an extreme position with the left. Because for more than a century compromise between progressives and the rest of us has always been “we agree to grow government a little bit less than we planned today – but we will be back with a demand for ever more govenrment tomorow.”
So how much are you prepared to CUT government TODAY ?
Lets try that for a change and see how well that works for a decade or two.
Actually, Given that the number of people who identify as Dem. or Rep. have hit lows of 28% and 28% I am not sure that the “slightlys” really are shrinking.
But they sure are silent.
The sun seems to rise, but hey you haven’t argued about that yet. Or can we expect several thousand words on why it doesn’t. LMAO
I am not the one trying to rage against nature or human nature.
I am not the one that thinks that laws that command can alter the laws of nature or human behavior.
You are free to try to change the laws of nature or human nature – on your own, as an individual or in concert with others that think as you do.
And you may even succeed to that benefit of all, and profit from that success.
But you are not free to do so by force through government.
Same story twice from different media outlets, does not make the story anymore meaningful.
if the first contact was Sept. and this really is WikiLeaks, then:
What this does is PROVE trump had nothing to do with the DNC hack/leak as that occurred 4-5 months earlier.
The communications was apparently nearly one way.
At the same time If I were Trump Jr. I would have accepted WikiLeaks emails.
Who knows, maybe they would provide some of Clinton’s 30,000 deleted emails.
WikiLeaks is not a foreign state – not that I care much.
This would still amount to nothing if Putin sent the emails personally.
You still do not seem to grasp what you actually need to establish and never will be able to to get what you want.
If you actually think this is “illegal” then why wasn’t The Clinton Campaign’s receipt of the Russian FSB concocted Steele Dossier even more illegal ?
September is well past the DNC hack.
The claim that Wikileaks is a Russian Front is Hilarious.
I love how the journalist makes everything sound suspicious by using words like “secret”.
I emailed my wife “secretly” twice today. I guess I am conspiring.
It is also odd that the DNC conspiring to defraud Sanders – that is not phrased as “secret” or scurlious – though finding out about it is.
Yet, Wikileaks emailing Trump Jr. = that is a clearly a surreptitious.
Remove all the adjectives – and you have more nothing.
BTW – why do you actually beleive the emails are from WikiLeaks ?
So some hackers – possibly WikiLeaks more likely not may have provided Trump Jr. information about anti-Trump sites and PACs.
And Trump Jr. does nto rebuff – crime of the century.
Does that mean Clinton should have rejected the Steele Dossier ?
That ACTUALLY came from Russia ?
WOW!!! Massive collusion. Impeach NOW!!!!
Sorry, Jay more nothing.
This could be all kinds of things.
But there is one thing it is NOT – evidence of Russian collusion.
Just to be clear – I do not think this is actually from WikiLeaks.
I do not think Assange would have asked to be “ambassador to the US”.
Assange is not stupid, and the requests from these people are not from smart people.
BUT, there is one credible part of this.
Russia appears to have just sought to stir up trouble.
WikiLeaks probably actually was after Clinton.
But WikiLeaks would have been after Clinton no matter who the Republican candidate was.
Clinton and Assange hate each other. Clinton has gone out of her way to make Assange’s life hell, and I have no doubt he would do the same if he could.
But a candidate going after their oponent, at the same time a victim of that opponent goes after them is not illegal collusion.
Otherwise Jones in Alabama is “colluding” with Roy Moore’s victims.
So you are clear in this analogy Clinton is Moore. WikiLeaks is Moore’s victim’s and Jones is Trump.
Once again the left is unable to deal with life consistently.
Drip drip drip drip… (Drump tweeted he likes the idea of destroying Keurig coffee makers)
Mueller team questions how much Trump knew on Russia contacts:
Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team are looking to determine how much President Trump knew about his campaign members’ contacts with Russian officials and representatives — if anything — during the 2016 race.
Investigators on Mueller’s team have questioned Sam Clovis, the co-chairman of Trump’s campaign, to determine what Trump knew during the campaign and subsequent presidential transition, Reuters reported Saturday.
“The ultimate question Mueller is after is whether candidate Trump and then President-elect Trump knew of the discussions going on with Russia, and who approved or even directed them,” one source told Reuters. “That is still just a question.”
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/359898-muellers-russia-investigation-narrowing-down-how-much-trump-knew
Lets see, thus far we have Papadoupolis contacting a fake russian in england to try to arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin that the Trump Campaign explicitly rejected – repeatedly.
We have Trump Jr. Receiving unsolicited emails from WikiLeaks – that is NOT Russia.
Though it would not matter it if was. That are either providing information on antittump pac’s or making bizzarre requests for ambassadorships, or Telling Trump Jr. AFTER TEH FACT what WikiLeaks had done.
And We have Trump Jr. meeting with Lawyer Natalia, getting dirt on a Clinton Global Inititive contributor which is thoroughly useless with respect to Clinton – and doing nothing with it. A lawyer tied to Fusion GPS making this look alot like a Clinton attempted Frame up that Trump wisely avoided.
So you want Mueller to investigate what Trump knew about what subordinates were doing that was not illegal and pretty much pointless.
We are investigating who knew who was having coffee at Dunkin Donuts, when the gas station a mile away was being robbed.
Was Paul Blart, Mall Cop, on his ass?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/locals-were-troubled-by-roy-moores-interactions-with-teen-girls-at-the-gadsden-mall
More independent verification of Moore’s sexual propensities are emerging, yet Brietbart is sending reporters to discredit those coming forward with their recollections of his behavior.
What’s wrong with these Bannonites?
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/gadsden_residents_say_moores_b.html
Why hasn’t Libertarian Rand Paul withdrawn his endorsement of Moore?
Are Libertarians philosophically in favor of Dirty Old Men?
Maybe because someone beat the crap out of him, and he has 6 broken ribs and has not left his house and is on serious pain meds and has more important things to consider.
It could be the fact the man almost cant breath and has more important things to worry about ( like his health).
The way we find the Truth is to test it thoroughly.
While I think WaPo did a good job here.
I will feel more sure after Breitbart has tried to shred this and come up with nothing that changes my mind.
I am far more disturbed by the idiot comparing Moore to Joseph.
Paul is back in DC, speaking to reporters. It would be nice if you guys got your facts straight.
Yes, as of Monday Rand Paul was in DC specifically for Senate votes.
But he was running a light schedule.
Dereliction of Drump Duty?
Has Prez Drump implemented sanctions against Russia yet, voted 98-2 by Senate?
Is Diplomatic Malpractice impeachable?
Russian sanctions have been inplace for years.
We have sanctioned Russia so much we are now down to closing their facilities in the US and sending staff back to Russia, because there is little or nothing left to do.
Several months ago Trump put in place another round of Sanctions and the Russians countered by throwing people out of the US embassy in Russia.
The senate alone BTW can not authorize sanctions.
In fact absent super majorities in both the house and the senate Trump’s consent would be needed.
But hey, lets just keep this up forever, Next stop we can ban “russian dressing” because it has Russia in the name.
We all know you are angry because Clinton lost and you are unable to believe that Trump appealed more (or was found less revolting) to voters than Clinton, or that your ideas were found wanting by voters.
We know you beleive absent evidence that it must be something else, and the straw man you are beating the crap out of is Russia.
But in the end if you wish to improve the performance of democrats you need to figure your own failures out.
Northam beat Gillespie for many reasons – but one of the big ones is that he was not falling off the left edge of the planet and not obviously drowning in corruption.
Try more of that. The democratic party will do better, the nation will do better.
Actually, 3Mil more voters (including me) found Trump more revolting and Hillary less so. The evidence/truth hurts don’t it.
And that is the genius of the founding fathers to realize that power could be localized in a few states that could control the elections, so they crated the electoral college to give the smaller states a voice in who was elected president.
If the country does not like the process there is a way to fix it. Amend the constitution to state the president will be elected by popular vote and not by electoral college. Until that happens, candidates have to be smart enough to get their voters out in states where it can make or break their outcome. Hillary was not smart enough to realize what was happening and it cost her big time!
The evidence is that Trump won the election by the rules we chose.
Different rules would have changed how everyone conducted the election.
Neither Clinton nor Trump put much effort into states they were certain to win.
Winning by 20% is no better than winning by 5% and both focused on states that were close – swing states.
You do not think Trump could have easily picked up another 3M votes in the south where turnout was light and Trump won easily ?
It is not the football team with the most yards that wins the game. It is the one with the highest score. And the objective of the players is to score – not to accumulate yards.
And BTW I did not vote for Trump – he still won.
I am STILL glad Clinton lost. But that is all.
If 90% of the people voted for a law that required the execution of all jews – or Gays or Blacks or ….
Would that be acceptable to you ?
Trump winning is very significant.
But almost as important is that nearly half the electorate rejected identity politics.
Half of the country is hostile to the left – and that number is near certain to grow.
The more the left accomplishes the more enemies it will make.
“Russian sanctions have been inplace for years.”
Criminal laws have been in place for years. You want to ignore subsequent crimes because previous ones have been prosecuted?
Really, sometimes you are abysmally ignorant.
“Trump appealed more (or was found less revolting) to voters than Clinton”
Not only are you abysmally ignorant, you are abysmally blind to facts, like the 3 million more votes Clinton received nationally. When you ignore facts as regularly as you do it’s no wonder you come up with so many a-i conclusions.
There is an executive order directing federal employees to disregard Russian Sanctions ?
Jay, I am not the one disconnected from reality.
Fine – Trump appealed more to the voters he needed to to win the election.
Everyone knew what was needed to win the election from the start.
You do not get a do-over because you want different rules.
And I should trust our government?
https://www.ofwlaw.com/2017/10/18/jack-block-dusky-gopher-frog/
Actually there are lots of cases like this.
A couple of decades ago as an architect we were looking to build a new school for a school district. They owned land adjacent to an existing school that was perfect.
The building was designed and we were getting ready to go out for bids when the maintanace people in the existing school had a problem with their pool. Someone had the bright idea to drain the pool onto the land we were about to build on.
That still would not have been a big deal, except a biology teacher noticed that the area where the water had been dumped changed in character and called the state in, they declared the area a “wetlands” and the building could not be built there.
We argued that it was a “temporary man made wetlands” and would naturally dry out in about a year. Did not matter, we could not build so long as the area remained a wetlands.
The district ended up buying other land, and slightly redisgning the school and paying to expedite construction because they needed the additional classrooms or they were in violation of other state laws.
I was a principle in an architectural firm from 1981-2003.
I had several responsibilities. One of those was building codes – particularly life safety.
This is one of the factors in my rage against regulations. If you beleive life safety codes are about saving lives – you are deluded.
We did alot of school work. The primary life safety feature of a school is the ease of egress. Most elementary schools in my state had every classroom directly exit to the outside. That was the most important safety feature of those schools. BTW that is not only effective with respect to fires but pretty much any other problem imaginable.
Columbine and Sandy Hook would have been much less of a problem if people could exit the school from nearly any room.
But while I was engaged in life safety issues the insurance companies increasingly lobbied for stricter and stricter fire codes. They were agressively driving for sprinklers. But along the way we got increasing requirements for non-combusible construction.
Going back to the begining – the primary issue regarding life safety in a building is EXITING. Sprinklers and non-combustible construction – do not save lives – they save buildings and reduce the damage to the building.
the evolving laws resulted in all kinds of bizzare results.
Nearly every school we designed for many years had a cafeteria passthrough going into the hallways of the school. I have never seen these used. They are their to game the building codes. The codes on fire ratings specifically preclude the regulation from disrupting open plan design. Putting a cafeteria passthrough into a corridor converts the corridors to part of an “open plan”, and the building no longer needs to be fire rated.
That can save 5-10% of the cost of the building.
Anyway designing buildings was full of all kinds of tricks and gimicks like this to exploit loopholes in codes.
Most of these saved cost. Few of these created real safety issues.
But in some instances we used tricks to make buildings safer – because the codes actually interfered.
And then we ended up with ADA – which was not implimented by code, but buy “guidance” from the department of Justice.
For several decades the AIA had been working towards improved handicapped access to buildings. Many colleges of architecture engaged in experiments testing different means of improving access. Then in 1990 everything changed and suddenly architects and building owners were required to make buildings accessible – with really no guidance on what that means. Half complete experiments from architectual schools suddenly became the law – sort of. Most of these things were failures – because the schools had not had long enough to test them. One big aspect of accessibility is tactile surfaces – it has taken more than 20 years to resolve all the problems rushing tactile surfaces into the public sphere.
At one point everyone has probably seen concrete with dimples at curb cuts.
But it is not easy to cast concrete like that and it does nto hold up to weather, and it is hard to clear of snow and ice and … Other materials have been tried.
And tactile surfaces is just one part of ADA that tried jump ahead of what people and technology were ready for.
Please note – I stated schools had been studying accessibility for a long time – and were producing results – both ideas that world and those that did not.
This all happened WITHOUT laws and regulations.
The only thing ADA did was rush a bunch of half tried ideas onto the marketplace with a resultant mess. And lawsuits. ADA was a disasterous effort by government to fix something that was slowly fixing itself.
The importance of improved mobility for the less abled was slowly being recognozed and valued over time. Further we were grasping that all of us are less abled at different times – whether sprained ankles or aging.
As architects whenever we renovated existing buildings – we removed things like waterfountains and telephones. Because the existing ones did not comply, and we were not required by law to provide water fountains and telephones.
In many places restrooms disappeared – if they were not legally required.
There remains today a debate over handicapped ramps – these are good for wheelchairs, but they are actually very hard on the ankles of older people.
I have still never been to a parking lot where all the handicapped spaces were full – or even half. Though that is slowly changing, because increasingly almost anyone can get a handicapped placard.
Are all building codes inherently bad ? No.
But the conflict between the wishes of insurance companies and builders and owners should not be the realm of the state.
The earliest building codes were private – from insurance companies.
And that is how it should be. Your insurance rates should reflect your choices in your building.
Mostly what I found was that designing better and safer buildings was not about complying with the law, if was quite often about finding ways arround the law.
Worse some of the things that supposedly make buildings safer lead to complacancy and even increased danger. Sprinkler systems and non-combusitble or fireproof construction have lead to a reduction in emphasis on rapid egress, and an increased reliance on firefighters. If a fire proceeds more slowly firefighters have longer to fight it and people can shelter in place. All sounds good – but in practice – no amount of time allows firefighters to go higher then their equipment permits. Smoke inhalation is the primary cause of death in fires, and the ventalation systems in buildings that are on fire do not work well.
And need I mention that fires are hot. A building can survive at temperatures that Humans can not.
Another sneaky tRUMP unqualified legal nominee is deceptive on his official questionnaire – par for the course when you have a sneaky unqualified president setting an example.
So were Bill Clinton’s speaking fees a conflict for Hillary when she was Sec. State ?
If Clinton’s speaking fees were a conflict of interest, multiply them by 4 minimum for Trump family conflicts of interest, or aren’t you paying attention to what’s going on there?
Clinton was an appointed public servant with a voluntary agreement with the President which she violated.
Trump is the elected president who is complying with the constitution.
Separately there is another important difference, anything Trump might receive is the normal results of an ongoing enterprise.
Bill Clinton received specific payments from People Hillary Clinton was in the process of negotiating deals with and providing services to as Sec. State.
Can we dispense with the insults ?
You know or should know before you post your remarks that I do know “what is going on here”. That I am better aquainted with the facts than you are. That the fundimental difference beyond that between us, is that you insist on buying an impossible conspiracy.
The denial that GOP/conservative voters have sharply changed their opinions on assange and putin along with the attempt to say that its democrats who have been wildly changing has one problem: It isn’t true.
“After Donald Trump seized the Republican presidential nomination, pollsters found the party’s voters shifting their opinions on trade to match up with the candidate. On Wednesday, new polling by YouGov finds a similar phenomenon moving Republican views of WikiLeaks and Russian President Vladimir Putin, with the party’s voters increasingly fond of both.
The Economist-YouGov poll, which has tracked partisan sentiment about WikiLeaks since 2013, now finds a majority of Republicans viewing the organization favorably. In the summer of 2013, WikiLeaks was viewed more negatively than positively by Republicans by a 47-point margin; Democrats, by a 3-point margin, also viewed it negatively. Now, Republicans view WikiLeaks favorably by a 27-point margin, a 74-point swing; Democrats have swung against it by just 25 points.
That’s probably a result of the presidential campaign, which closed with 33 days of WikiLeaks dumps from the stolen emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. On the stump, Trump frequently drew applause simply by saying the word “WikiLeaks,” then drew more as he gave a quick-and-dirty version of an allegation from the emails. “Boy, we love WikiLeaks!” he told a mid-October crowd in North Carolina. Despite steady media coverage of the stolen emails, Trump also accused the press of suppressing their revelations.
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
Very little pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So dishonest! Rigged system!
8:46 AM – Oct 12, 2016 · United States
9,571 9,571 Replies 22,627 22,627 Retweets 52,672 52,672 likes
Trump was not alone on the right. WikiLeaks stories rippled through conservative media, and some WikiLeaks revelations — like an exchange between liberal Catholic Clinton campaign staff in which they criticized their church leadership — were advanced or hyped by fitful Trump critics like House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.).
There’s been similar movement on the Putin question. In the summer of 2014, both Democrats and Republicans held negative views of the Russian president. His net negative rating with Democrats was 54 points; with Republicans, it was 66 points. At the time, the mainstream Republican foreign policy opinion was that a wily, aggressive Putin was rolling over U.S. interests in Europe. There was some punditry about Putin as a greater leader than President Obama, but it did not shift views of Putin himself.
Trump’s campaign did so. There’s been a 56-point positive shift among Republicans in their views of Putin; his net negative rating is now just 10 points. While Clinton voters view Putin negatively by 72 points, Trump voters do so by a slim 16-point margin.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/14/gop-voters-warm-to-russia-putin-wikileaks-poll-finds/?utm_term=.901180a89e66
You use the word “denial” like salt to spice up any remarks.
“The denial that GOP/conservative voters have sharply changed their opinions on assange”
This statement is just nonsense.
Try this:
“The denial of Democratic voters that they have moved sharply to the left ”
Such constructions are nonsense.
My views on Assange have not changed.
I have actively supported WikiLeaks since its inception.
My views on Putin have not changed, I trust him no more or less than a decade ago, or two decades ago.
But my views on somethings have changed – that is part of life.
Regardless, these are individual views.
I do not speak for everyone, or for republicans or conservatives.
Both parties have been dynamically shifting on myriads of issues over my entire lifetime.
I am not aware that either party is actively “denying” that. Though the shifts are often gradual.
Further neither republicans nor democrats are obligated to hold a press conference and announce – our critical mass has changed yesterday Assange was evil, today he is good.
The actual hypocracy – whether of the left or right is NOT about what PEOPLE they support, but what Values.
And yes there has been some change with respect to the GOP and Russia over the past 5 years. Of course the left has flipped even more radically over the same time period.
Anyway, what does it take to get you to lay off the deliberately deceiptful rhetoric ?
“Anyway, what does it take to get you to lay off the deliberately deceiptful rhetoric ?”
What does it take to get you to lay of ad hominems? You really want to climb back into that hole?
Roby;
You are the one who thinks you can malign everything that moves without getting anything back in return.
If you wish to claim that everyone who disagrees with you is in “denial”
Then you should expect your assertions to be called “deceitful”.
You do not know how to write without insult,
That’s fine but you can not expect nothing in return.
As to “Black holes” – I made some commitments to myself – not to you.
No I am not interested in getting back into a spittle contest with you.
It may be who you are, but it is not who I see myself as.
At the same time, I am not going to pretend everything is rainbows and unicorns when you load your own writing with insult.
Your analysis of Russia internally was excellent. Likely the result of your ties.
Your understanding of the US political right is worthless.
Your understanding of the US political left is little better.
Globally Russia is a fading power.
Obama opened the door for them to expand their influence in the mideast.
And still they are just a bit player. Propping up Assad is not much of an accomplishment for a country that used to dominate the entire Mideast.
Russia is boxed in by China, India, Europe and the US. It has a limited role inside the former USSR, and an even more limited role in the mideast.
It is a non-entity most everywhere else.
Even in the former USSR it has to litterally make war to exert influence,
and that is a very expensive game – even if it is politically popular at home in the short run.
Putin scored a huge coup in the US election – but that coup was not actually influencing the US election. Russia’s actual influence was less than rounding error.
His coup was that Russian influence provided an explanation to the left for an unthinkable outcome. And it prevents the left from looking in the mirror to see that the fault lies not with Russia, but with itself.
Beyond that Putin has guarenteed the US will seem hypocritical when it complains of future Russian elections – which what Putins real goal from the start.
Everything else was gravy.
Only the left is in “denial”
God, I hate the deliberately deceptive rhetoric of the left.
I should spend a week or two using the same stupid word games on you.
According to the left – and YOU.
A lie is not immeditately confessing publicly anything you feel you have the right to know.
This definition – like that of all other perjuratives – does nto apply to those on the left.
If a democrat is not forthcoming they are protecting their privacy.
But a republican is engaged in “lying”, “denial”, “secrecy”
I find this particularly hypocritical as Clinton is given a pass by the left for actually engaging in lying and covering up her conduct as a public servant.
Trump on the other hand as well as everyone not on the left is engaged in criminal secrecy, lying, and denial for failure to tell you everything you might want to know about their private conduct, before you want to know it.
And you are completely incapable of seeing the hypocrisy in this.
And you wonder why you live in a bubble ?
I fully expect some rant about my “rationalizations” – that just appears to be left wing nut “dog whistles” for irrefutable and embarrasing logic.
If you insult and argument enough maybe it will go away.
We have been engaged in this nonsense for almost exactly a year
Trumps favorables are 4 points HIGHER than they were on election Day 2016.
The left has vented its spleen. But accomplished nothing else.
Meanwhile Clinton is more unpopular than ever before,
There is more evidence than ever before of Clinton’s, Obama’s and the entire DNC’s malfeasance than ever before.
From a libertarian perspective this is a major victory – everyone hates government more than ever.
Are you arguing that change is evil ?
You are starting to sound like a conservative.
Its completely clear that GOP/conservative voters have changed their opinions on putin’s Russia, Dems/liberals less so. No amount of massaging the data or so whatting, or why should I care what xxxxx saysing is going to make this fact go away:
“As the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe into the extent of the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election garners more media attention, Morning Consult polling shows that Republican voters are taking a rosier view of Russia.
In a May 18-22 poll, 36 percent of GOP voters said they consider Russia friendly to the United States, and 13 percent said it was an ally. That 49 percent total is up 11 points from a survey in late March, when 28 percent of Republicans saw Russia as friendly to the United States and 10 percent of them viewed the country as an ally.
The shift comes after President Donald Trump, who has pledged to seek better U.S. relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the Oval Office on May 10 — the first time since 2013 that Lavrov was invited to the White House. The meeting came a day after Trump fired then-FBI Director James Comey, which the president later said was partially due to Comey’s handling of the investigation into whether any of Trump’s associates colluded with Russian intelligence officials during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Forty-seven percent of voters say they think Trump removed Comey from power in an effort to hinder the FBI’s investigation; only 17 percent of Republican voters share that viewpoint.
Republicans weren’t alone in taking a kinder view toward Russia. One-third of independents said they view the country as friendly or an ally, up from 24 percent in March. Democrats also registered a slight uptick, from 24 percent to 28 percent, although that’s within the surveys’ 4-point margins of error on party identification.
Americans who said they voted for Trump in 2016 are also taking a growing shine to Russia: Half of those voters said in the most recent poll that they view Russia as friendly or an ally, compared with 39 percent from March. Among voters who cast ballots for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in November, 26 percent characterized Russia as friendly or an ally, up from 21 percent in March.
Among all voters in the most recent survey, 36 percent view Russia as friendly or an ally, up 7 points from the previous poll on the subject, while 48 percent said the country is unfriendly or an enemy.”
https://morningconsult.com/2017/05/24/republicans-warming-russia-polls-show/
When I say the word denial, it ain’t day big river in Egypt. As well, 70% of voters have been consistently saying the trump is uniting America.
This is what I call living in an alternate universe.
I am still trying to get why you think any of this is important ?
You have painted changing views on a subject as “denial”
and you seem to be arguing that polls determine facts.
If a poll found 51% of people thought the earth was flat – would it be ?
I had a thesis: support for putin WAS a trend in the loony far right nationalists but not the GOP at large in 2014. That idea escaped from the confines of the far right and now has infected GOP voters at large. Support for assange has likewise infected GOP voters. Not all of them, but many.
The polls say my thesis has strong support.
Apparently I DO have a clue.
And, Yes, this is related to whether one believes that the Russian influence in the election had any effect and whether it is a valid political issue.
The same people who deny that GOP voters have strongly warmed to putin are the same people who say there is no evidence of serious improper contact between the trump campaign and Russian agents.
There is an investigation under way, its legal, appropriate, and necessary. When the fat lady sings we will know how much factual evidence there actually is. The circumstantial evidence is already clear to anybody who does not live in the fake universe where trump is uniting America.
No Roby, the polls you are pushing do not support your thesis or any claim that you understand the right – much less the left.
Mostly you are lobbing assertions without evidence.
The alt-right is so tiny and so whacky it is very hard to call anything in it a trend.
Yes, a few purported alt-right leaders I have never heard of before today seem to be in bed with Putin. But the only significant alt-right figure you have tied to Putin was Spensor and your tie is nebulous.
The way you are arguing Ivana was born in Czechoslovakia and Melanie in Yugoslavia – both part of the USSR, so by the transitive property of wives birth places Trump is a communist.
Next WikiLeaks is not Russia. And the left did not think that until they released the DNC emails. Julian Assange has a personal beef with Hillary – but that is understandable as she has been looking to take him out for a decade,
Regardless, Clinton made Assange her enemy. If Assange sought to screw Hillary in 2016 that would be perfectly understandable.
I do not hink that the evidence supports any claim that Russia was behind the DNC leaks to WikiLeaks – but even if they were – so what ? Clinton choose Assange as an enemy and he screwed her – with or without the aid of the Russians. Possibly with great glee.
WikiLeaks has been doing that for several decades.
Roby, I would agree that a dangerous strain of white nationalism has emerged on the right, and was active in the last presidential election, I don’t believe that there is a direct correlation between that movement and anything in particular having to do with Russia. I think that it was and is a natural outgrowth of identity hate politics, which is easily as powerful, and really more so, on the left than on the right. Just 2 days ago, the NYT, published an editorial by a law professor at Yeshiva University, that basically said that black children should be taught to NOT be friends with white children. That we are NOT all the same, under our skin ~
“I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. When they ask, I will teach my sons that their beautiful hue is a fault line. Spare me platitudes of how we are all the same on the inside. I first have to keep my boys safe, and so I will teach them before the world shows them this particular brand of rending, violent, often fatal betrayal.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/opinion/sunday/interracial-friendship-donald-trump.html
Of course, he blames this on Trump and Trump voters, and appears to have no sense of irony about it, as if he believes that racism never existed before 2016, or that MLK was dead wrong about everything. It is as ugly and race-baiting a column as I have ever read….far from making me ashamed to have voted for Trump, it makes me ashamed that we have allowed people like this guy to spew his political hatred and racist viewpoint, in what used to be a great newspaper.
Putin did not cause this (although, I have no doubt that he loves it).
“White nationalism” is just another term for “white racism,” just tweaked a little, so that the nationalist-populist platform of Trump could be called a racist platform. “Black nationalism” was accepted as necessary for blacks to develop a national identity and sense of pride in their heritage that was separate from whites….this racial separatism has become toxic, and the inevitable response has been the growth of white resentment, and the belief that whites must have their own political identify. Literally, it is identity politics, and has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin.
**Now, where you and I agree is that, in our overheated identity and hate-based political world, many voters will accept unethical and/or immoral behavior from a politician, if that politician has the right policy positions.** Most people on the right have come to believe that the left has benefited from this attitude over many decades, and that it is time for the right to stop playing by the old rules, and start defending those politicians who fight like the left does.
We see this in the Roy Moore controversy. Democrats were fine with putting the Clintons back in the White House, despite the decades of credible sex allegations and scandals that they would bring. To put it mildly, neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton has a shred of decency left to what good names they ever had. But, those very same Democrats (who are also refusing to expel Robert Menendez from the Senate, despite much more credible and salacious charges) are insisting that Republicans who support Moore are immoral.
Well, this is where the politics of corruption, years of tolerating leaders of bad character, increasing reliance on hatred and identity politics to drive election victories, political correctness and all the rest has gotten us. I am NOT saying that this is a one-party problem, but I am saying that it is dead wrong to blame Republicans ~or Russians~for what has created this situation.
I’ve probably said it a dozen times now….Trump is not the CAUSE of any of this. he is the RESULT.
I’m sorry Priscilla, the polling data I provided says otherwise; the change in attitude towards putin ( and Assange, a 77!!! point shift) has moved in some form to the general GOP voter population. Do I think that these general GOP voters go so far as the white nationalists? No. The further right or left one goes the more extreme the ideas are, the lower the level of objectivity or even living in the real world are, and the looser the grip on sanity (which ironically rhymes with Hannity) is.
I expect that for many GOP voters this is a temporary state and that they will return to their more normal historical state when a Democrat is president. But it does correlate with the opinion that the trump campaign contacts with Russian agents are nothing serious and that the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt.
As well, it supports my opinion that putin makes huge strategic errors, as is the inevitable result when one person has all the power in a country. In the long run putin has poisoned the attitude towards Russia in the US and probably Europe. The GOP voters will eventually go back to their historical Russian-fearing state and many Dem voters will very likely retain their attitude towards Russia, or at least the Russian leadership and policies. Unless a truly different and better flavor of Russian leader replaces putin at some point, we are going to be in a new cold war state and it will linger. All of that was inevitable when a KBG agent became the leader of Russia.
Still fixated on polling.
Polling is binary and extremely narrow, it is very bad at measuring what you are trying to measure.
Polling does nto typically tell you how strong ones view on an issue is.
Even where it attempts to do so – it is quite poor at that,
I would suggest looking at some of the work of Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
One factor he notes is that you can not measure peoples actual values unless they have “skin in the game” because what you are measuring is not their actual values.
You also keep trying to equate assange with Russia.
I do nto think the right has strong views regarding assange.
But I would agree that the view of the right has swung significantly towards him.
His involvement in taking down Clinton makes the right friendlier towards him.
But I would note, it has not gotten him an ambassadorship.
It has not even gotten him out of the equadorian embassy – which Trump could accomplish trivially – there are no swedish charges pending against him. Only the US is still seeking him.
You observe that this is a “temporary state”.
But fail to grasp what is really true is that the “support” for Assange is tepid.
You do not understand what Polls measure.
With respect to your future gazing. You are likely right.
But partly because even at this moment – for much of the US – Russia is just not all that important.
Absent very serious mistakes on the part of Putin, the US could swing from strongly postive to strongly negative without any policy change and with little real change in our assessment of Putin. But for nuclear weapons Russia does not matter.
“But for nuclear weapons Russia does not matter.”
Which is like saying that but for its teeth and claws a tiger would be a pussy cat.
As well, there are the Russian energy reserves, their conventional military, their physical size, their location, their alliances,…
They matter and will continue to matter.
No one in their right minds wants to take on North Korea – even in a conventional war.
That does not make North Korea much of a global power.
Russia’s energy resources are significant.
They are not enough to sustain Russia’s own standard of living.
As amazing as our military might be, it is not up to taking on a power Like Russia in her own backyard – which is why Clinton’s game playing in the Ukraine was incredibly stupid.
But Russia’s ability to project power – short of its nuclear capability diminishes rapidly with distance. Being capable of defending yourself and possibly threaten immediate neighbors does not make you a global player.
Since the collapse of the USSR Russia has been a bit player on the world stage,
Both China and the EU dwarf it.
I might agree with your internal assessment of Russia, but that does not change things externally.
Putin’s military adventurism has been good for him Politically, but they are harmful economically.
The USSR could not sustain the cold war.
Russia can not sustain economically an aggressively hostile relationship with its neighbors.
War is neither free nor profitable.
WWI bankrupted nearly all of europe.
But for the US WWII would have bankrupted the world again.
Regardless, you seem to think there are only two possible relationships with Russia, a return to the cold war and appeasement.
If republicans are letting go of their cold war view of Russia that is a good thing.
The world is not a Tom Clancy novel.
Well, ask Priscilla her opinion of Russian behavior and status in the Middle east, especially Syria and Iran. The israelis believe that Russia is a power in their region. The lack of democratic institutions makes it possible for putin to make whatever chess move he thinks is beneficial to his ambitions. He can make a hell of a lot of trouble by supporting authoritarian leaders.
Can they afford it, no, They can’t afford Donetsk, and the eastern Ukrainian rust belt either, which those people just may be figuring out by now, but putin will have ordinary Russians eating the fungus that grows in their basement just as lil kim will have his citizens eating bark, before they give up their ambitions.
I am all for engaging with Moscow on a solid professional pragmatic level, but not for the big wet kiss that W and trump have been going for.
The economic weapon and the threat of an arms race are the best tools we have.
As I have said, I have real personal connections in Russia and Ukraine, loved ones. This is not a game to me with no imagination of the personal costs to ordinary humans. Its sad, if that is not a word that trump has ruined on twitter.
I can find little in differnce in policy between Bush, Obama and Trump regarding Russia.
The 2014 Sanctions were the result of Russian invasion of Crimea the result of Clinton’s botched Ukrainian coup.
Obama actively sought to descalate arms races with Russia.
The primary military threat we should be spending money on is not Russia, but Iran and worse NK, as well as the other small nuclear powers that may follow.
Our most critical military related defense research need would be a space based ABM system that is capable of taking out small numbers of ICBM’s launched anywhere in the world. We can not and should not pretend to aspire to take out full scale lauches from Russia or China, but we could easily be able to deal with anything that any smaller power could manage.
If you can not use a nuclear ICBM, then there is no reason to develop one.
Priscilla;
The facts I am aware of contradict your conclusions regarding White Nationalism.
We constantly conflate changes in news coverage to changes in reality.
Police shootings of minorities have been trending down from decades – but the ubiquity of smart phones has made us aware of bad behavior on the part of police we have not seen before.
The behavior is not new, nor is it on the rise. But our awareness of it is on the rise.
We see the same right now with sexual misconduct.
We are suddenly being deluged with misdeeds accross decades.
We are seeing things that were hidden before.
But the nation has not suddenly become more hostile to women.
But it has suddenly become aware of decades of misconduct and supression.
Reality did not change – but our perception has.
The same is true regarding white nationalism.
Real NeoNazi’s the KKK etc are on the decline and have been for a century.
As ofal as Richard Spensor might be he is a pale shadow of former what nationalists.
In addition to being actually on the decline, White Nationalism is morphing.
There are but a tiny portion of people actually arguing for “white superiority”.
But there is a rapidly growing group essentially saying “white lives matter too”.
That is not the same as “white nationalism” – though the lies are blurred, and as far as the left is concerned anyone who does not bite hook like and sinker on intersectionality is a racist, homophobe, mysoginist.
There is a very real backlash against identity politics. It is long overdue. If the left keeps pushing, that backlash will grow. Further the “white lives matter too” crowd can be reasonably easily sucked into a white superiority position if the continue to see a threat from the left.
While I am worried about right racist nationalist, populism, it is not going to explode on its own. It will grow only as more and more of us perceive the left as a threat.
I think that we are past the point where a growing extreme left threat will be over balanced by a growing extreme right. But the scale of the extreme right is a reflection of the perceived threat of the extreme left.
If the left regained its sanity tomorrow the extreme right would fade.
Further this is true beyond the extreme’s.
While the Alt-Right is the consequence of the extreme left.
Trump is the consequence of the fact that the larger left is unhinged.
Not so badly as the extreme. but still Democrats seriously contemplated Bernie Sanders as a candidate. Clinton and Obama are not communists, but they are weak socialists in a way we have not seen since FDR.
You will notice that there is nothing in what I wrote above about Russia.
Because the reality is Russia has next to nothing to do with anything important going on in ther US – except that Russia has managed to buy space in the minds of those on the left looking for a reason to explain losing an election they thought they should have won.
When Hillary said “why am I not up by 50 points ?” She was echoing what nearly all the left beleived ?
Roby, Jay, Moogie are completely cluesless as to why Hillary was not ahead by 50pts.
In their minds this election should not have been close.
That inherently means they do not understand anyone outside their own bubble.
Your Yeshiva Professor is an example of this bubble too.
My kids are both minorities. Further, they LOOK like asians, they are expected to fit asian sterotypes, but they were raised by two white people – no tiger moms arround.
I am constantly surprised at the extent the world expects my son and daughter to play two instruments proficiently, be excellent in physcis and math and ….
My daughter constantly threatens to drop out of school – now college, because it is too hard, and she is just not that smart – while she comes homes with test scores and papers in the mid 90’s.
My point is that I am well aware of the way our world is for minorities.
I understand that we still have problems related to race.
At the same time my kids do not live in the same world with regard to race as I experience in the 60’s and 70’s.
My kids can be friends with white people. And I can be friends with minorities.
I am not sure that there is more than one or two straight white men in my entire circle of friends – and they have their own problems.
There is a great difference between not naively beleiving that Racism has gone away, and the perceptions reflected in the editorial you linked to, and all too heavily reflected throughout the left that this country is marinated in racism.
That view from the left – that is being echoed constantly, is actually driving us TOWARDS becoming more racist.
Trumps election is a reflection of the fact that the left – not the extreme left, but the core of the left – the Roby’s and Jay’s and Moggie’s – people who do not even think of themselves as left, have gone way too far.
Dave, I was probably unclear on this, but I do not believe that “white nationalism” and “white racism” are the same thing. Nor do I believe that the average right wing voter is either.
What I meant was that the media, in its agenda-driven dishonesty took the movement of working class white votes from the “D” to the “R” column, and chose to attribute that change to pervasive white racism.
Roby, I do not much pay any attention to polls these days. With rare exception, I find that polling has become politicized, just like everything else.
I can tell you that I know of no evidence (nor, apparently, does Robert Mueller) to link Trump’s victory to Putin.
HOWEVER (in caps), that does not mean that I am ok with Putin having any serious influence in our politics. And I am definitely NOT ok with politicians, on either side of the aisle, taking bribes to sell out US national security to the Russian state. And, I know a lot of Republicans, and, Trump voters or not, they feel exactly the same way.
Most Never-Trumpers who I respect were also “Never-Hillary-ers” Their position, most clearly articulated here by Ron, is that it is wrong to accept as our president, any person of bad character, even if that person shares similar policy positions to those that you support. In other words, just because Hillary is a corrupt politician that is married to a corrupt ex-president, who also happens to be a misogynist scumbag, doesn’t mean that Trump is any better, even if he did put Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
I find that an intellectually consistent argument, despite the fact that I did not see it that way. I believe that the election was a binary choice and I voted for the person that I thought would do the least harm to the country.
That said, I don’t think that we can continue to have “lesser of the evils” elections and remain the country that we want want to be. At some point, character and decency has to be part of what we see as necessary in a president, a senator, a congressman. If our society and our culture is so degraded, that we no longer care about anything but politics, then we are basically already screwed. Putin doesn’t need to do anythng.
“I do not believe that “white nationalism” and “white racism” are the same thing. Nor do I believe that the average right wing voter is either.”
I agree – but to the left “white-xxx” is all the same, all evil, all racist, as is everyone who voted for Trump or who does not vigorously condemn him.
I have opposed Affirmative action my entirely life – you can not combat racism with racism.
But if you oppose affirmative action today – you are by definition racist.
If you say “white lives matter too” you are racist.
I do nto share the views of most of the members of the “alt-right”
But I spent hours listening to interviews of the alt-right post charlottesville.
These were not people whose views I share. But their views were no more offensive than Roby’s or Jay, or Moogie’s or BLM’s.
These people were racist in the way that most of the people in my high school were racist, or that my grandparents were racist.
They were not lynch mob racist.
They were not jim crow racist.
These were not KKK or real Nazi’s.
They were dungeons and dragons Nazi’s.
Thy were cartoon carcitures.
They were broken people unhappy with their lot in the world
sure that the deck was stacked against them (and it is) and unable to get by.
If there skin was a different color they would sound like BLM.
And these are the EXTREME RIGHT.
I grew up with the “fairness doctrine” milque toast left press.
I am glad it is gone.
I do not have a problem with the overtly biased media of today.
Brietbart and CNN deserve each other.
I actually beleive that the media and information we have today is superior to any prior era.
I do not care much about the bias.
You can make your own mind up who you are going to trust, using whatever criteria you want.
The last thing I want is to go back to some controlled media.
I am absolutely furious with regard to this nonsense regarding Russia and social media.
This does not end well.
I do not give a crap if “russian influence” was 1000 times larger than it actually was.
I want real free speach. Lots and lots of voices. I do not want anyone deciding who can talk. I am really really pissed that congress is threatening social media with laws, and nearly as irrate that social media is self censoring.
I recently setup accounts on Gab – in the event I have leave to protest Facebook and Twitter. But I found even Gab’s terms of service bothered me – you are supposed to use your real name.
I am sorry, but Our founders did not use their real names. Ben Franklin wrote letters to the editor under a dozen pseudonyms The federalist and anti-federalist papers were written under pseudonym’s. there are very good reasons for anonymous speach.
Regardless, I care more about any form of speach restriction than I give a fig about Russians on social media.
Banning things does not ever work.
I do not care how biased the media is – so long as it is free, I can make my own assessments.
I care greatly how uncensored our speach is.
We can filter out the garbage on our own.
I do not think you can find a person in the US whose vote was changed by Russians in social media.
I am also tired of this “war on wikileaks”
I have been extremely glad they are there for a long time.
Has russia used them ? Maybe. But they have used Russia too.
So has the US.
Get a grip. We do not control the world.
The problem with polls is they are not the answer to every question.
They are good at measuring a few things and pretty poor at most everything else.
If you want to know what potato chip people like the most – should you:
Poll people regarding potato chip preference, or
get the data for the sales of each potato chip ?
The most accurate polling system in the entire world – is the free market.
You have to pay to vote, and you can vote as much as you want for anything you want.
But you only have so much personal wealth to vote with.
Further the more successful you are the more votes you get.
The market is able to fairly precisely gauge exactly how much we like big macs.
and carabean vacations, and energy efficient cars, and disposable diapers, and ….
It weighs accurately our relative preference for EVERYTHING.
It is not binary. and it factors in subconscious factors of our prefernces.
Putin’s “influence” in american politics – is a voice. Nothing more. Words.
Further it is not something you can actually do anything about without doing more harm than good.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/higher-educations-deeper-ailment-1510615185
Oh good, small print makes it easier top skip past your long comments.
Thanks, dhii.
Separately from the Russian influence issue, I can’t do anything about there being cranky lefty outraged college professors in the world. It is at best a tangent to putin etc. The NYTimes I am sure does not endorse that opinion and published under the “airing of the poison to bring it out in the open and address it” theory. I would still call that very bad judgement on their part in this case. Let cranks like that publish their bile in the ISO $1 magazine.
The idea that trump is not the cause of anything at all is hard to maintain. Surely he must be the cause of something? The “effect not the cause” idea can be overplayed. The chain of events that lead to bitter resentment between cultures and groups reaches back to antiquity. It is impossible to find its beginnings except in the dark side of human nature. We can take any dismal, or worse, horrendous, leader and say he was not the cause of what followed. This does actually fit in with my “Vast Impersonal Forces” theory of history. But individual leaders do have their own personal effects that would likely not have occurred without the force of their personality. trump definitely has had his own effects on America; they will reverberate for a very long time.
Yes, agreed, Roby, Individual leaders do have important, and often enduring, effects on our history. During the past week, even quite a few liberal commentators have looked at the negative effects that acceptance of Bill Clinton’s sexual behavior has had on our overall political landscape. (I might say too little too late, but I’ll say credit where it’s due).
I still recall the moment that I read this quote about Clinton, from “feminist” Nina Burleigh in the Washington Post:
“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Burleigh
I remember it because it was the first moment that I began to seriously question my loyalty to liberalism and the Democrat Party. ( I still voted for Al Gore, though!) But I was horrified that a feminist ~ which I considered myself, at the time ~ could say such a thing. And she was not the only one…Gloria Steinem was a big Clinton apologist too.
Both sides are having a race to the bottom. If we had an honest media, that is if publications like the NYT published editorials condemning the racism of that law professor, we might be able to slow the race down long enough to find some better leaders. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening.
Priscilla;
I think your Nina Burleigh remark denotes a fundimental difference between the right and left in this country.
Most of the political right in this country knows right from wrong. Plenty of them – particularly those in power become intoxicated with power and behave badly. But they know they are behaving badly, and usually when caught they are chagrined, the resign, they lose the support of republican voters, and quietly disappear.
And other republicans engaged in the same misconduct breath a sigh of relief because they have not been caught.
On the left there is no such thing as character. The ends justify the means.
Voting for the right laws and holding the right political positions is a get out of jail card for misconduct.
Look at Weinstein – he rushed to sex addition counseling, and gave millions to a bunch of the right causes, and expected to be forgiven – and in a different time, he might have been.
Bill Clinton is a highly respected democrat – and a likely rapist. Moore makes me want to gag, but Clinton’s misconduct is worse – and he is being fawned over by the left.
Character flaws, doing things that are actually wrong, are forgiveable for those on the left – if they just do the right penance or vote the right way.
Because those on the left do not care about character – at all.
They care about ends, not means.
I do not know whether there is more misconduct on the left than the right.
But I do know that there is a radical difference between how the left and the right address evidence of bad character.
Trump may be the first republican politician to ever survive serious questions about his character.
And a year later, he almost seems like a feminist.
Just another mere coincidence..
Does not matter if it was a coincidence or not.
WikiLeaks dumps dirty laundry of Podesta – and inform Trump Jr. hours later.
Trump Jr. Tells Trump.
Trump tweets about it .
If that is NOT what happened, I would question the Trump campaign.
Your thesis still seems to be the world is not allowed to find out that democrats shit stinks.
That if someone tells a republican “I just found a really stinky democratic turd”, that the republican is supposed to ignore it.
“if someone tells a republican ”
It depends on who the ‘someone’ is, dum-dum.
“It depends on who the ‘someone’ is, dum-dum.”
No, Jay it does not.
What is you are free to do does not depend on who you are.
You are literally arguing for the “rule of man rather than the rule of law”.
This analysis is endorsed by Glenn Greenwald – you know that uber conservative in Trump’s pocket.
Schlump Aligning With Schleps
http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/13/dc-cracks-down-on-harmless-goat-yoga-cla
There ya go, it’s stupidity, not sneakiness …
Why is it either ?
Please explain what laws or rules of moral conduct Trump Jr. Violated ?
And as you are struggling to do so – how are any of those violations even close to what was occuring in the Clinton campaign ?
Why is your desire to know what Trump Jr. and Wikileaks – if it actually was Wikileaks communicated, any of your business ?
Lets take this too the extremes. I have been trying to get you to understand that there can not be anything here – that is because even if you get what is possible of what you hope for, you still have nothing.
Don Jr: Julian, if you can leak the missing clinton emails from her homebrew server before the election, I will see if I can get Dad to do something about that ambassadorship – if he wins the election.
Julian: Right on that Don Jr.
Guess what – not a crime. Even if Wikileaks did subsequently leak emails from Clinton’s server, there is still no crime, and no corruption, and no quid pro quo.
There is not even a binding agreement.
You can not make a binding promise for one party to do something now, in return for something in the future absent some enforcement mechanism.
Trump Jr. could have promised Assange the moon, because he could never be forced into delivering.
The above fictititious exchange is LESS offensive and illegal than paying a US cuttout to pay a british cutuout to get Dirt on Trump from the FSB.
Hypocrite Republican Right.
If Moore’s accusers are credible, why aren’t Trump’s accusers credible?
Humm?
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/360336-mcconnell-dodges-on-if-he-believes-women-who-have-accused-trump-of-sexual
Because credibility is based on the witnesses and the quality of evidence, Jay. Not on whether the accused is a Republican or not….although I can understand your confusion, since that is apparently how you judge people.
Just accusing someone of something doesn’t make it true. The allegations against Roy Moore are credible to me for a few reasons: 1) the women making them appear to have nothing to gain from telling their stories ~ they did not come forward, they were contacted by the Washington Post, 2) their stories seem consistent, and there are additional witnesses, who have corroborated the general details of the stories that they tell, 3) Roy Moore has only denied one allegation, and weasel-worded his explanation of the others, saying things like he never dated a teenage girl, without her mother’s permission. Which, to me, is close to an admission that the allegations are true.
Basically, my belief is that this is a political hit piece that is probably also true.
The accusers of Donald Trump all had something to gain, usually money, and none of them, that I know of, could produce any witnesses or details that corroborated their stories. Even the Miss Universe that claimed that Trump “fat-shamed” her, was seen in videos telling people how helpful and kind he had been to her, after the media fat-shamed her. The reason these cases have been dismissed in courts as well as in the press, is because they’re most likely untrue.
There are myriads of differences between the allegations.
How serious do you take allegations that a Beauty pageant operate was demanding of contestants and expected high standards of physical beauty and performance of the other legitimate aspects of a beauty pageant.
Further unwanted touching and kissing makes Trump Biden – not Roy Moore.
And Roy’s best defense at the moment would be:
I am not Bill Clinton or Bob Menendez – which as revolting as he may be, he is not.
“Which, to me, is close to an admission that the allegations are true.”
But an ADMISSION of Trump’s groping BY him caught on an open microphone, and of trying to seduce a married news reporter (separately CONFIRMED by her) doesn’t penetrate your Trumpian Dysfunctional Denial?
You’re as hypopnotized as the Moore supporters.
Why is it you continue to FALSELY think you know what I think – particulaly when what I have said contradicts what you claim.
There is a huge difference between Trump’s conduct is the lessor Evil, and Trump’s conduct is acceptable.
I agree that there is an extremely high probability that Trump has “groped” women.
I have never defended Trump with respect to that. I voted against him specifically for that.
That would make the credible allegations against Trump about the same as the credible allegations against Biden – though there are more regarding Biden.
Regardless both are way too free with their hands. Their conduct is sexual harrassment.
Roy Moore’s and many of those recently identified from Hollywood is sexual assault.
Bill Clinton’s and Robert Menendez’s is Rape.
Rape is far more serious than sexual harrasment.
Separately, trying to seduce someone is not a crime, nor is it not sexual harrasment.
It can become harrasment or worse depending on how far it is carried.
The credibility of the claims against Trump are not the issue.
The significance is.
Moore is credibly alleged to have attempted to rape one woman.
Moore is credibly alleged to have attempted to have sex with a 14 year old – to the extent of both stripping to their underwear.
That is not “unwanted kissing or touching” – those would make Trump more like Biden not Moore.
Further many of the allegations against Trump do not even rise to the level of unwanted kissing and touching.
They are more on the order of he was a demanding judge or director of beauty pagents.
To my knowledge there are three serious allegations against Trump:
One that he took the “lolita express” to the carabean once.
If true that is disturbing, but it is not a high credibility allegation.
Clinton is credibly alleged to have done so about a dozen times, and less credibly almost a dozen more, Menendez purportedly did so many times.
One that he raped a 13yr old. This story has been raised on three separate occasions. There is a real accuser, but her story has changed every time it is raised. The event has purportedly taken place in 3 different parts of the country at 3 different times.
Trump has provided well documented alibis for each occasion – he was not even in the cities in question at the time. The case has been dismissed at a very preliminary stage for lack of foundation 3 times.
One is a “not here, not now” allegation that is very credible. It is by a woman he was having relations with, as well as in business with her and her husband.
The question is not whether they had sex. But whether she actually said no, or whether it was a charge to leverage a business deal. Regardless, the claim was dropped.
None of this is to the level of Moore, and Moore’s misconduct is minor compared to Clinton.
Anyway, I do not beleive the lolita express story,. I do not beleive the 13yr old rape story.
I beleive the woman in the real estate deal was having an affair with Trump and I think she got what she wanted.
I think otherwise Trump is much like Biden.
I did not vote for Trump – or Biden.
How about you ?
I posted about the hypocracy of the left regarding these issues.
Little did I know that an article elsewhere was litterally arguing – that republicans should be strung up but lefties should be pardoned for their other good intentions.
https://medusamagazine.com/why-we-should-believe-women-who-accuse-right-wingers-of-rape-more-than-those-who-accuse-liberals
Educate Thyself
“the allegation that Hillary Clinton transferred control of 20% of America’s uranium mining output to a Russian company, in exchange for substantial contributions to the Clinton Foundation from the executives of that same Russian company” is RUBBISH.
https://lawfareblog.com/unpacking-uranium-one-hype-and-law
While your lawfare article is not compelling,
That does not matter.
Because that is NOT the allegation.
There are actually multiple allegations.
1). Mueller, Rosenstein and comey slowwalked and covered up a russian bribery scheme in the US because it might lead to Clinton and because exposing it would have triggered congress to tank the deal.
2). That the Clinton’s egregiously violated their memorandum of understanding with Obama that was required for her nomination as Sec. State.
3). That the CGI and CF, and CF canada were used as a gigantic pay for play scheme trading access and favors from the Sec. State for contributions to CF.
BTW there is absolutely no doubt that CGI, and CF contributors received fast tracked access to resources at State. The Clinton emails document that thoroughly.
4). That the clintons and the clinton foundation profited off the U1 deal.
You seem to be under the delusion that there is a difference between a bribe to make something possible, and a bribe to make it happen.
Clinton did not have to make the U1 deal happen – the entire Obama administration was behind it. But she could have stopped it.
“But she could have stopped it.”
Didn’t you read the article? Or did you skip the part about the difficulty of any one agency stopping it?
And Schlump could unravel the deal now, according to the article – why isn’t he?
And the Clinton Foundation ‘profits’ from ALL donations given to it, and passes those profits on through their programs. You have ANY evidence ANY of the money donated to was used improperly?
Yes, I read the article. No I do not beleive that just because a journalist says something it is true.
Clinton could have stopped the deal at the very begining, She was heavily involved in initiating it.
Separately if government approvals are so automatic:
Why did KeystoneXL take over a decade ?
Why bother having them at all ?
Why hide the Russian bribery and corruption from Congress ?
Regardless, that argument is meaningless.
It is like a murderer arguing that they should not be convicted – because the victim would have died anyway – eventually.
You’re babbling phooey nonsense as usual. Borderline lies is more accurate. Where’s your proof Clinton worked behind the scenes?
Objective Conservatives know the Uranium story is Bullshit:
What rot Jay.
Clinton was not “behind” she was in front of the U1 deal.
The HARD evidence has been covered multiple times.
The first words in Smith’s “rebutal” take it completely off the rails.
The allegations are NOT predicated on Clinton approving the sale.
No bribery or corruption charge of any kind requires that the corrupt party “approve”,
what is required is that they facilitate.
While the claims against Trump are far weaker – even they recognize this.
Does anyone think that Trump personally “approves” of every transaction that his enterprises are engaged in ?
Are you atleast capable of applying the same standards to everyone – or must you have special Clinton standards.
The FBI investigation of the Clintons and the CF did not require Clinton “approving”
anything. Nor was it limited to U1.
If Clinton, CF, CGI, Tennex, or assorted Clinton affiliates made use of Clinton’s postion as Sec State to facilitate the wishes of donors, that would be corruption and bribery.
Even if a donor received an expedited denial – that still would be corruption.
Even if Clinton herself was not personally aware of the request, but it went from CF to Clintons State staff bypassing regular channels, and from their to some other part of state or to another government agency – it would still be public corruption.
This is why John McCain was in so much trouble over the S&L fiasco – he wrote a letter for a donor asking an executive branch office to review a decision.
McCain did not “approve” anything. But he was reprimanded by the ethics committee.
Sen. Menendez is before a jury right now for receiving millions in political donations and personal gifts and in return requesting various federal agencies reconsider decisions they were making regarding that donor.
Why is it we must continue to thrash out this nonsense.
CFIUS is a red herring. It is irrelevant.
If Clinton was one of 100 people who were required to approve something – paying her for approval is still bribery – even if the other 99 say no.
Even if the only things she does is get the deal infront of CFIUS – still requiring others to approve – still bribery.
Even if all she does is advance something in line ahead of other things – still bribery.
“Clinton was not “behind” she was in front of the U1 deal.
The HARD evidence has been covered multiple times.”
LINK TO THE HARD EVIDENCE!!!
There is no Schlump. Whether Trump can or should kill the deal not relevant.
It is not relevant whether the deal is actually a good deal.
It is still public corruption to take a bribe in order to go through with a deal that is good for the country.
I do not beleive that government should have had any part at all in the deal.
But that does nto mean that those involved are free to do so corruptly.
It is irrelevant whether CF uses the money “improperly”. All that is relevant is that this was a pay for play deal.
But addressing the CF – actually yes the CF has an abysmal record, The CF is NOT primarily a charitable organization. The Charity reveiew organizations initially reviewed it badly – because almost none of its money goes to direct aide. After a year or two of being strong armed by the Clintons they changed to refusing to review it, after more strong arming they created a new review scheme specifically for CF.
The FBI agents investigating CF thought there was more than enough evidence of Fraud to convene a Grand Jury – but DOJ refused to allow that.
Nearly All of CF’s money goes to:
Sallaries for staff.
Travel expenses for staff – including millions each year for private jets, meals and hotels for the clintons.
Running events where CF “teaches” other charities how to do charitable work.
CF does almost no direct charity. Of what they do – they have no effect.
Their big claims are Haiti and Aides in Africa.
Haiti remains the same hell hole it was immediate after the earthquake over a decade ago.
CF does NOT bear special responsibility for that – aide agencies all over the world have F’d over Haiti. But CF does not get to count it as a glowing success.
CF’s AIDES efforts in Africa – despite their claims have had no effect. The affrican aides mortality rate was trending down prior to CF getting involved. it continues to Trend down at the same rate. Again CF is not especially unique here – We have poured $1T in aide into Africa over the past 40 years with ZERO effect – in fact many argue we have made africa worse through aide.
This is just one of myriads of videos, discussions and papers on Aide to africa.
There are two sides to the debate:
The we have F’d up and doing nothing would be better than what we are doing side.
The we have F’d up and have a moral obligation to figure out what we have done wrong and do better.
No one is arguing that Aide has worked. When any NGO – including ones far better than CF claims they have done good in the world, they are either deceived or lying.
Regardless, atleast many of the others are good intentioned.
CF is primarly a sinecure for otherwise unemployed Clinton alcolytes.
Just to be clear – I do not care how bad a charity CF is – so long as people are voluntarily giving their own money and not expecting favors from the federal government in return.
If Russian oligarches and Saudi Oil Sheiks wish to slather the clintons with money directly or indirectly – that is their business.
How bad a charity CF is, is a tangential issue – what was going on with Clinton and State would be illegal and wrong – even if the money went to the Mennonite Central Committee or Catholic Relief Services – the two organizations with the best record globally.
Inserting a charity into a criminal scheme does not make it acceptable.
“Most Never-Trumpers who I respect were also “Never-Hillary-ers” Their position, most clearly articulated here by Ron, is that it is wrong to accept as our president, any person of bad character, even if that person shares similar policy positions to those that you support. In other words, just because Hillary is a corrupt politician that is married to a corrupt ex-president, who also happens to be a misogynist scumbag, doesn’t mean that Trump is any better, even if he did put Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.”
Absolutely!!!!!
Mysoginist scumbags seem to be coming out of the wood work at the moment.
I did not vote for Trump. I probably could not have anyway.
But after the access Hollywood thing there was not a chance.
But a year later Trump seems almost a gentleman compared to half of elites in this country.
Seems like nearly every politician in the country has been on “the lolita express”.
I find Roy Moore’s conduct reprehensible. It appears that at least one incident approximates attempted rape. But Moore ultimately did take “no” as “no” though he certainly went pretty far before he stopped. Bill Clinton is a rapist, and he was president.
I hope Moore loses. If he does not, I hope the senate does not seat him.
But as has been noted there are ALOT of Senators that have done far worse than Roy Moore. Menedez pops immediately to mind. Can’t we convict senators when they are being bribed with underage carabean hookers atleast ?
Bob Packwood is starting to look like a saint.
Democrats are starting to talk Biden in 2020 – Biden ? Gropy ?
Are there any politicians of good character ?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/exclusive-former-joe-biden-secret-service-agent-protect-women-weinstein-level-stuff/
More good stuff from Andrew McCarthy
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453721/sessions-hearing-theater-production-constitutional-illiteracy
This is true.
You Trumpsters will rationalize and argue your perfidy, but history will rightly condemn you.
Every single prior president since FDR has used our military to invade some other nation.
Has Trump started any new wars or military interventions ?
Is our military now somewhere it was not at the end of the Obama administration ?
I had hoped that on this specific issue the bannon wing in the WhiteHouse would have prevailed and we would also be on our way out of Afghanistan. But the Kelley, Mattis, McMasters wing prevailed – apparently over lots of anger from Trump himself, and we remain in Afghanistan with no expectation of accomplishing anything.
But not getting us out of conflicts we should not be in is far less dangerous than starting new conflicts.
Once again you place rhetoric about action.
I am not aware of a single instance in which Trump has specifically threatened world leaders with nuclear weapons.
The closest he has come is threatening to “totally destroy” North Korea if they actually used a nuclear weapon.
Most of us presume that should NK use nukes that we would respond with nukes.
While that may not actually be the case, very few of us are unwilling to use nuclear weapons against a nation that has used nuclear weapons against us.
This is just more left wing nut nonsense.
The left whigged out when Reagan joked about bombing russia as part of a microphone test. But then the left has no sense of humor.
Reagan’s great military offensive – sending the marines to rescue 29 US medical students in Grenada.
Thus far Trump has been cleaning up messes left by Obama and Bush across the world.
I wish he had left Afghanistan. But not leaving does nto even make him the war monger than Obama and Bush were.
We are almost a year into his presidency – and there has been no Trumpocolyspe
Except inside the heads of those on the left.
Trump is far from my ideal president, but thus far he is doing better than any since Reagan. There are atleast 3 years left, so that could change.
But thus far there is no basis to appologize to left wing nuts for their unreasonable fears.
Roby;
Here is just one more example of the corruption of science.
In this instance the IARC a research arm of the WHO produced a report claiming that the active ingredient in the weed killed roundup can cause cancer in humans.
This report was a survey of actual animal studies done by scientists.
Those studies universally found the opposite of the IARC report – that there was no statstical link to cancer.
The IARC creatively excerpt these studies – and in atleast one instance replaced the studies work with manufactered work of their own, selectively editing and omitting the actual conclusions of these studies and produced a report that concluded the exact opposite of all the work they cited.
WHO and IARC are no some fly by night groups. These are prestigious organizations that most of us trust. And yet their work is clearly corrupt and untrustworthy.
Lawsuits have been filed as a result of this report. Millions are going to be spent as a consequence of politically corrupt science.
This is not the only example of this. It is quite common.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-who-iarc-glyphosate-specialreport/in-glyphosate-review-who-cancer-agency-edited-out-non-carcinogenic-findings-idUSKBN1CO251
Well, this is boooorrrrring. There needs to be a fast forward button so I can find out how it all comes out, the next election, the Mueller investigation, NK. Talking about it and arguing about it gets no one anywhere but with their backs to the wall getting increasingly steamed and increasingly unreasonable in many cases. Some people start from unreasonable in the first place, its hard for them to get more unreasonable. That &*^%$ dduck and his/her extreme politics<— a little joke.
I do not see any reason why anything will change for the better in American politics, this is just our lot. One party won't be happy if they cannot drastically shrink government, one party won't be happy unless they can drastically increase government. Who would have guessed prior in 2000 that even with 9/11, Islamic terrorism, the financial crisis, the Iraq war, and Crimea the great fault line that would emerge to divide the nation would be the nerdy issue of health insurance? The Vast Impersonal Forces rumble along and do their work, deal out the cards, and the hand we get from this is that the US will decline into partisan chaos via a war between the parties over health insurance.
One of the Vast Impersonal Forces is that the Greatest Generation inevitably aged. The nation has been having an escalating partisan hissy fit ever since Clinton, who was the first post WWII president not to be a member of the Greatest Generation. FIrst it was an administration that was impeached over a blow job, then 9/11 and the Iraq war defined the basically decent W, who did not start his job expecting what he got, a landslide Dem victory produced Obamacare and then the tea party and defined Obama and now we have a blundering president who is totally inexperienced and, as Rick put it in a comment, a sociopath. Today, we have riots between the far right and left. What will be next, the Egyptian Revolution with all its shifts in power?
What can change? Does the future hold any kind of triumph of Dave's economic ideas on government and regulation? Clearly, No. Does it hold single payer? Clearly No. Does it hold an end to US being involved in military conflicts, us getting our forces out of anywhere? Unlikely. Detente with putin? Does it hold a unifying leader who will not be seen as the devil by the opposition? Yeah, right.
My feeling is that things will lumber along in steady decline until they suddenly get much worse. In the end Osama and Assange may get what they wanted with an assist from Isis, putin and lil kim. Ha, Not to mention increasing heat and extreme weather. It would be very helpful at this moment if the two parties, starting with their bases. would return to some semblance of functioning. Which in turn would require the sudden ascendancy of a huge crop of thoughtful media commentary aimed at calming partisan divisions. That is on the way, right?
I go now to Facebook to try to find some dancing penguins or funny pets.
CharityWatch – bonefides: formerly known as the American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP), is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization in Chicago,[1] created in the United States by Daniel Borochoff in 1992,[2] to provide information about charities’ financial efficiency, accountability, governance, and fundraising. (They) analyze charity financial documents to identify whether charities meet AIP’s standards of financial efficiency, and publishes its findings.
“AIP also investigates ethical issues surrounding charity spending, including salaries and payouts, financial reporting, telemarketing and direct-mail solicitation campaigns, and governance. AIP shares the results of its research with the media and government agencies and works closely with these parties to educate the public about informed giving. “ (Wikipedia)
From ChartyWatch Report On Clinton Foundation:
“In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative. “Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”
Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.”
Travel Expenses:
“For example, nearly 77 percent of the $8.4 million spent on travel in 2013 went toward program services; 3.4 percent went to “management and general expenses”; and about 20 percent went to fundraising.
As for conferences, nearly 98 percent of money spent was tabbed as a programming expense. And when it comes to salaries — which includes pension plan contributions, benefits and payroll taxes — about 73 percent went to program service expenses.”
The Foundation employs 2000 people world wide.
Upper echelon exec salaries are comprable to other similar non profits.
Lets start with the top of your list – Charity watch.
Initially CW gave CF a very poor rating – in comparison to other charity CF spends almost none of their contributions on direct aide. That was CW and most other ratings groups primary criteria for rating.
The Clintons get very pissed that CW (and several other raters) rated CF poorly,
and you do not want to Piss off the Clintons.
Some of the other groups rolled and gave CF a good rating.
But CW held out, and then switched to “refuse to rate” calling CF a completely different type of organization.
But that did not satisify the Clintons, and eventually CW got rolled and conconcted an entirely different system of rating charities.
The FACT is that CF is an abysmally poor charity. You do not need Ratings organizations to know that. All you need is to decide what the criteria for a good charity is.
One of the primary criteria that charity raters used to use, was the portion of contributions that is used for direct aid.
You may use your own criteria, but to most people that is a good one.
I for one do not want to give my hard earned money to the Mother Theressa Calcutta Children’s fund, only to find than 98% of the money is being spent on administrative costs in the US.
If you actually care what portion of any money you give to CF goes to direct aide.
Then You will not be happy with CF.
However, I suspect that the vast majority of people giving to CF do not give a damn what happens to the money they contribute.
They did not contribute to help anyone. They were buying influence from the Clintons.
BTW the reason for all the bizzare language in those reviews you were quoting – is because if you rate CF like every other charity is rated – from the information on their tax return – they get an F.
“Consolidated Audit” is another name for “cooked books”.
CF is known to play all kinds of games sluicing money back and forth between related entities to make the books in one look better.
I would note that the CW report you cite says 89% of money is spent on “programs”.
It does NOT say 89% is spent on direct aide.
Programs and direct aide are not the same thing.
One of the Big spending items for CF is on conferences where donors and other charities and NGO’s get together to get educated regarding Charity.
Again – you are free to decide what is important for yourself – but in my view I do not think sponsoring conferences for NGO’s and other international big whigs in Neice and Paris and Venice are where I want my charitible contributions going.
And that completely ignores the issue that Charity just plain does not work very well.
CF is INDIRECTLY involved in two main charitable efforts. Aides in Africa, and Disaster relief in Haiti.
Disaster relief in Haiti has been a catastophe.
It accomplished nothing.
CF takes great pride in its Aides work in Africa.
But there has been ZERO change in trends in aides mortality in Africa.
You got Charity Watch confused with Charity Navigator, dummy.
“Charity Navigator, no longer rates the foundation because its “atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology,” according to the organization. “Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity,” they write. In essence, the various, wide-ranging projects and federated nature of the organization didn’t properly mesh with Charity Navigator’s ranking methods.”
Your other criticisms are distorted and slanted, and full of propagandist 💩💩💩💩.
Take a mind enema, you need one badly.
No Jay, I did not.
There are multiple charity rating sources.
You picked one.
I used information from Charity Navigator – purely because it was the first to come up for both the Clinton and Carter Foundations.
You know what happens when you make assumptions.
As too the paragraph you quoted – read between the lines.
What they are saying is Because CF is a fraud, and we will get beaten by the Clintons if we say that, we are trying to get away from the Clinton foundation with our integrity intact and without Hillary coming for us with long knives.
What is an “Atypical business model” for a charity ?
Charities are pretty simple.
1) Collect donations,
2) administer money,
3) Use money to aide those the charity targets.
That is it.
Rating is simple – a good charity does as much of 3 as possible with as little of 2 as possible. That is pretty much it.
Clinton Foundations “atypical business model” is
1). 2),
And spend lots of money hosting events for wealthy donors and powerful politicos and NGO’s gathering them all together to “talk” about charity.
i.e. very very little money every ends up providing direct benefits to those purportedly the targets of their charity.
Charity rating is so simple – you do not need some elite ratings agency full of “experts”.
You can do it yourself at home.
Of the about 300M that Clinton foundation took in, How much of that went to direct aide to people in need ? The answer is very little.
But again none of this really matters.
I do not care if CF is a sucky charity or a great one. I am not giving it my money.
If I was – then I should care.
If the despots that CF gets its money from do not care how CF spends it – then I do not either.
The part I do care about is that when Clinton was Sec State CF donors were regularly getting special treatment by the State department, and that is a crime.
Fighting over whether CF is a worthwhile charity is completely meaningless – unless you or I a planning on giving them money.
There is not a chance in Hell I would.
I would suggest comparing them to the Carter Foundation – which is about 30% larger, and even using Clinton Foundations cooked books fairs much Better.
Carter spends 1/4 as much on administration as Clinton and delivers 40% more benefits.
The raters no longer distinguish between direct aide and “programs and services”.
But the Clinton Foundation does almost no direct aide.
Pretty much everyone knows that Jimmy Carter can be found out in the world actually building homes and counting votes in poor countries.
You can find Bill and Hillary at Charity suarees they sponsor hob nobbing with the rest of the worlds top 1% you know Russian oligarchs, Saudi Prices, and Africa despots.
If that is your idea of Charity – so be it.
I do not honestly care.
You and anyone else it free to give their money to whoever you please for whatever reasons you wish.
The Carter Foundation BTW employs 175 people.
The Clinton Foundation spends more on Travel as the Carter foundation does on ALL administration – and the Carter Foundation is larger.
BTW the Clinton foundation Travel does NOT include everything associated with CF running these conferences/suarees arround the world. That is much of their “program services”.
tRUMP IS A LUMP OF CRAP
Soon as he does something positive, he 💩💩💩💩 all over it.
And those who continue to defend him SMELL from proximity.
Bill Krystol should not be talking.
Still channelling neo-cons I see.
Krystol would just of nuked Beijing.
I’m channeling intelligent, balanced, objective thinkers.
Haven’t you noticed how many of those I quote are NOT Democrats?
I’m level headed.
You’re a sink-hole in the road.
Do you know what a Neo-Con is ?
Basically it is a democrat that left the democratic party because democrats were not warmongering enough.
Max Boot, Bill Krystal, Dick Chenney are 2nd generation neo-cons.
That is the crowd you think is intelligent ? Balanced, Objective thinkers ?
These are people that libertarians and many republicans had issues with when they were Republicans.
Read your own posts, you are not level headed, you are frothing and stomping mad far beyond anything reasonable.
Trump can not say “It was a clear day” without your spewing spittle.
Trump says plenty of stupid things.
But you whig out when he inhales.
If you want to be taken credibly, it would help if you did not sound like you were teetering on the edge of a nervous breakdown.
Take some Xanax. Trump is not going to nuke anything today.
“Do you know what a Neo-Con is ?
Basically it is a democrat that left the democratic party because democrats were not warmongering enough.”
You mean someone like Ronald Reagan, especially with foreign policy? – wasn’t neocon Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan’s UN Ambassador?
I tend to agree with the Neo neoconservatives. Don’t you!
Oh. Yes, Reagan what a war monger – he invaded …… Grenada!!!
But Reagan agreed with the neocons on Russia and China, correct?
Did you?
What about Moore?
You think the Democrat is preferable to Moore getting elected? Or not!
“But Reagan agreed with the neocons on Russia and China, correct?
Did you?”
Reagan was not a neocon, nor am I – but Neocons supported Reagan.
“What about Moore? You think the Democrat is preferable to Moore getting elected? Or not!”
I know nothing about the democrat in Alabama. But if he did not attempt to rape teens or worse, he would be preferable to Moore” I am not an Alabama voter so I have no compelling reason to try to find out about Jones.
If I was an Alabama voter and Jones was not too bad, it is likely I would vote for him even if none of this came out about Moore.
Moore was an abysmal choice BEFORE we found all this out.
You seem to think that everyone votes either straight red or Blue.
We just had an election in PA, I voted primarily for democrats.
My “team” or “tribe” is not Republicans or democrats.
I am interested in what is best for the country.
And you ?
No, I am happy that the neocons have returned to the democratic party.
There is a difference between walk softly and carry a big stick,
and beat the crap out of everyone.
While I am not quite with Ron Paul that the US would have no problems with terrorism if we were not so busy mucking in the affairs of other soveriegn nations.
We likely would have less.
We had no business getting into Libya, Syria, Iraq, and we should have taken out the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan and left.
We are not and should not be the policeman for the world.
Jay, come on. You only quote never-Trumpers, or link articles critical of Trump from Republicans. I have not once seen you post or link anything remotely balanced.
It’s ok. That’s what you do. But level-headed, you are not. At least not anymore.
President 💩💩💩 was just serenaded by his dictator merderous buddy.
Ain’t love grand!
Why Conservatives are Dumber than Dirt
Plus all that FREE ADVERTISING for them!
Watta putz!
Or maybe it is left wing nuts that are pretty dumb.
I do not care about Fox, or Hannity.
I do not care if Keurig pauses its advertising.
But unless I misread this it sounds to me like the loser in this was Keurig, not Hannity or Fox.
There were a number of Twitter meme claiming stupid conservatives smashing Keurigs is good for Keurig.
Keurigs primary source of revenue is NOT the machines, It is the Keurig cups that they use to make a cup of coffee. No machines, no one buying the coffee cups.
As I noted I do not follow Hannity at all.
But from what I can see – he is smarter than you.
http://www.businessinsider.com/keurig-ceo-apologizes-taking-sides-sean-hannity-conflict-2017-11
Because Sean Hannity supports free speech and opposes boycotts intended to shut down his show or anyone’s else’s. And, because he endorses Keurig products.
Keurig had a kneejerk response to a Media Matters astroturf campaign to drive Hannity off the air. MM claimed that Hannity was “supporting” Roy Moore, merely because he interviewed him.
Media Matters was begun by the Podesta’s and the Clinton’s. They pull this crap all the time.
Anyway, Kuerig apologized, most of the other advertisers have now deleted or withdrawn their initial responses, and Hannity had a gracious response.
I know very little and care even less about Hannity.
But what is readily apparent is that however smart he and his audience are, those calling them dumb are quite clearly much dumber.
I would strongly recommend that Jay as well as all those he likes to source tweets from read some Bastiat.
He is the Johnathan Swift of economics. He died young and did not write much. But the several essays he did write as incredible, they are humorous, easy to read, and very good at debunking just about every stupid idea of the left – including this quite dumb criticism of smashing Keurig machines.
The Essay below “that which is seen and that which is not seen” is a lesson on critical thinking – or a critique on the shallow thinking of those who do not understand how scary to Keurig people smashing their machines on twitter, and you tube must have been.
But there are several other essay such as “the broken window” “the negative railroad” “the candlemakers petition”. that are both fun to read and offer incredible insight.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
Priscilla, American people are not dumb or stupid. That does not mean they are not ignorant of facts and issues and don’t do stupid things sometimes. But in the end, most of the time the ignorance to facts become apparent to them and they don’t repeat many of the stupid things they did in the past.
So I see a time in the not too distant future that all these PC idiots, liberal media idiots and extreme far right idiots (ie Bannon) no longer have the influence they have today. People, especially the younger ones that get bit by something on the internet enough will begin to question most of what is written or broadcast. And when that happens, these special interest groups will no longer have the impact they are having today. They will still have some, but not as much.
One can only hope that individual thinking will come back like it was in the late 60’s and early 70’s when younger people questioned everything that was communicated by anyone over 30 year and stop being like the Star Trek alien collective Borg where every individual was a component of the collective and thought in one collective manner.
Which of these advertisers has changed their minds?
“Monday, Hebrew National, Volvo, Hubble Contacts and Reddi Wip joined the DNA testing service 23andMe and Nature’s Bounty, who said they were withdrawing ads from Hannity’s primetime Fox News show, in addition to the previously announced moves by Keurig, Realtor.com and the plus-size fashion label Eloquii. Meanwhile, two other advertisers, HelloFresh and TripAdvisor, clarified that any ads that run during his show were done in “error.”
Another one-time Hannity advertiser, E-Trade, also issued a statement insisting that it has not run ads on the show in months.”
If advertisers are actually fleeing – that is how things work.
Keurig clearly backpedaled. That strongly suggests the harm they expected or were seeing was greater than the harm they expected or were seeing from staying.
I do not care much. As I said I am not a Hannity fan.
But I highly doubt you will be able to hit Hannity/Fox in the pocket book so long as he has 4 million viewers.
Advertisers like NFL coaches and owners are in the middle of the rope, not the end.
They get yanked arround by consumers. Each of these companies has to weigh the value of Hannity’s audience against the value of the customers that might be angered by their support for Hannity.
Regardless, so long as Hannity has an audience he will have advertisers.
Ah, Jay, Jay, Jay…..you have to try and keep up! It’s Wednesday.
“But by Tuesday, those companies were clarifying — or even deleting — statements they had made on the platform that indicated they had pulled ads from Mr. Hannity’s show because of comments he made about Roy S. Moore, the embattled Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama.
“It’s pretty unusual to see companies like this handling an issue so poorly,” said Kara Alaimo, an assistant professor of public relations at Hofstra University. She said it was especially surprising to see companies like Realtor.com and Volvo delete widely circulated tweets.”
Thank You Priscilla;
I should have known that since it was coming from Jay it was unlikely to be accurate.
I checked his original Keurig post, because I already knew he did not understand why conservatives were bashing Keurig machines.
I was just looking for a comment I knew I could find – saying it is about the Keurig Cups not the machines.
When I tripped over Keurig CEO apologizes.
I should have figured that the other Hannity advertisers followed Suit.
Even Brietbart managed to give Kellogs a scare a while back and Brietbart is tiny compared to Fox and Hannity.
Further conservatives are much more serious about their boycotts than progressives.
Progressives can not even figure out for sure what they are boycotting.
Meanwhile conservatives have not only quit buying products, but they have sold their stocks and directed their IRA and hedgefund managers to divest.
Priscilla, Priscilla, Priscilla… it looks like the boycotts worked, and it’s Hannity who is backtracking:
Ron, I’m hopeful that you are right.
And you make a good point about the internet…particularly as it applies to social media. As time goes on, people are more and more likely to consider the source of the information that they’re bombarded with.
When I was a HS teacher, I used to teach AP American History…the AP exam always included what was called a DBQ ~ “Document Based Question.” Students had to answer it, based on 15-20 primary source documents, with which they were provided. They had to evaluate each one based on who wrote it ~ was it a biased source? ~ when it was written, and why it was written.
It really encouraged critical thinking….I hope ETS is still encouraging that type of thinking.
Human IQ’s are slowly rising over time.
This is not always apparent – because 100 is the norm for the time.
I have actually been encourgaged by ObamaCare.
There was sustained opposition to it for a very long time.
Even now, though it is hard to repeal, there is not enough support to save it as it fails.
We have learned. We know that what we had before PPACA had alot of problems.
Many caused by government. But we also understood that a new “entitlement” at a time when the existing entitlements are failing is a bad idea.
Social Security and medicare remain untouchable.
But more people than ever understand they were and are a mistake
Just not an easily fixed one.
The left has won the culture wars – that is a good thing.
It also means the left has won the issues it should win. The right has lost the issues it should have lost, and the pendulum appears to be swinging towards the right.
But in both cases – the pendulum swings toward freedom.
The right is no longer trying to persecute Gays, Trans, ….
They are just looking to be left alone and not have to bring things they do not beleive in, into their personal lives and incorporate them into their values by force.
The left is now on the wrong side of Freedom.
The left is the intolerant totalitarian force.
The internet fosters far greater diversity. It increases the number of “extreme” perspectives. But it also clarifies what parts of our values are core to all humans and which are purely cultural.
The greater the diversity the better. Whether cultural diversity, or political diversity or any other form of diversity.
More diversity demands greater freedom. We can not exist in an ever more pluralistic society with myriads of rules demanding conformity to a narrow norm. That just can not coexist with increasing diversity.
The left idolizises European Social democracies – but those quasi socialist states can not exist without extreme homogenity, and those nations are tearing themselves apart as a consequence of their increased diversity.
They will either adopt racist nationalist governments as that is the only way to preserve their nanny state or they will become more diverse and the nanny state will fail.
The US is better placed – we are ahead of the curve, we are more experienced with diversity, We are far less likely to degenerate into nationalist racism.
But just like europe you can not have both a diverse population and a large benovolent state.
The young are the oddest cohort we have had in generations – possibly ever.
They poll as more anticapitolist than ever. They poll as more socialist than ever.
But they have no real clue as to what these mean.
They also poll as the most libertarain ever.
They poll as the least supportive of the welfare state ever.
Mostly they are the victims of a horrible education – that an enormous portion of them seem to comprehend was crap. They are somewhat more of a blank slate than prior generations. They mostly do not really beleive in anything yet – except that what is, is wrong.
I do not expect libertopia tomorow.
But I think that Freedom is actually winning.
We are learning that government just can’t deliver.
That we will have to count on ourselves.
That we have to learn to live and let live – that is what liberty is about.
It is what the left will not allow us to do.
“I have actually been encourgaged by ObamaCare.
There was sustained opposition to it for a very long time.
Even now, though it is hard to repeal, there is not enough support to save it as it fails.”
If the idiots in congress can get their heads out of the asses and pass a tax bill, it could be that Obamacare is taken down with one short paragraph in that bill. The individual mandate is reversed, people are free to chose if and when they want healthcare coverage and when that happens, most of the rest of the bill will die on its own. Then maybe a realistic bill to fix some of this issues with people not being able to get coverage for preexisting conditions, etc can be addressed in a manner of a more free market environment and not dictated coverage.
Also:
“Social Security and medicare remain untouchable.
But more people than ever understand they were and are a mistake
Just not an easily fixed one.”
In this regard, i will agree with this comment after disagreeing, because you are 100% libertarian and have little sympathy for anyone that may be in need, while I am slightly more centrist and know there are some people that need assistance and help. And that was the case after the recession when thousands of people who may have saved enough for retirement had nothing left after the recession that lasted more than 10 years. So a system was put in place to provide some assistance and was a workable plan until future generations f’ed it up. As for Medicare, the thought of coverage for seniors was a good, the plan they came up with was full of problems and allowed for providers to game the system and allowed criminals to go undetected for years with fraudulent claims. Even today, it can take years for someone to mess up and get caught.
But had social security been tied to life expectancy, the economy and the amounts deposited into employee accounts been handled like investments as an individual handles their own retirement account, social security would be fine, loaded with money and there would be no fix required. The amounts deposited would have been larger, the returns would have been hundreds of times larger and the withdrawals would be taking place much later than they are today. More like 70 or 72 than 66. That alone, the increase in value of the investments for another 4-5 years would be huge. And when someone comes up with a fix today, it impacts a large number of individuals negatively and no politician is going to go out on a limb unless the tree is about to fall on them such as a complete collapse of SS, like will happen in the mid 2030’s.
I have plenty of sympathy for people in need.
I am also cognizant that government does not even do those things it is supposed to do well.
SS and Medicare are an actual drag on our economy. They take wealth out of the economy and they waste it.
Any half way decent economist will tell you that all of us would do much better if the money we put into SS and medicare was invested – even badly.
I have great sympathy for those screwed by the GOVERNMENT CAUSED recession.
I desparately want to make sure that can not happen again.
There is a compelling argument that every single recession, Depression and panic in US history had monetary – aka GOVERNMENT causes. During the 19th century the primary cause was congress dicking with the price of silver ad gold, though flooding the nation with greenbacks during the civil wars was a really big problem.
Since 1913 the errors at the Federal reserve are responsible.
The Fed was supposed to end recessions, depressions and panics.
Arguably little has changed.
The Fed is typical of govenrment action, put in place to solve a problem,
that it has had little or no impact on, it has grown huge and now no one even thinks about te fact that we have this huge thing that does not actually accomplish any significant purpose.
Anyway imagine what the economy would be like if the trillions that have been wasted by SSA had been invested in the economy over the past 70 years.
No the thought behind medicare was not good.
There has been not change in the trend of life expectance as a result of medicare,
no change in the trends or overall health of seniors as a result of medicare.
But a massive increase in consumption of medical services by seniors with the result of massive increases in healthcare costs.
US Healthcare cost was lower than Europe prior to medicare.
The reason that Europe can provide some form of universal healthcare is that European care is all rationed in some way.
Either you just can not get as much medical care as you wish, or the copays are high enough to discourage overuse.
Medicare has serious fraud problems – but they are not what is bankrupting the system
Regardless, government is horrible at detecting and preventing fraud. Government actually incentivizes fraud. There is little you can do about that.
Fraud detection and prevention is hard. Those who engage in it are constantly changing their approaches. Privately businesses must balance the cost of fraud prevention and the cost of fraud. But privately there are good incentives for everyone to prevent fraud.
Probably the worst problem of nearly all government programs is that the incentives are screwed up.
Social Security did not need to be “tied” to anything.
It just needed to be invested in something that ACTUALLY produces a Return on Investment. Rather than wasted on government – which the failure of SS proves is NOT an investment.
The easy test for SS is if it were voluntary – would you still participate ?
Even if it was manditory but you could invest privately what would you do ?
Not a Hannity fan or a Fox viewer so I really do not care much.
But Hannity seems to be saying something different.
https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/930515550731632640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.al.com%2Fnews%2Findex.ssf%2F2017%2F11%2Fsean_hannity_gave_away_500_keu.html
“Because Sean Hannity supports free speech and opposes boycotts intended to shut down his show or anyone’s else’s.”
Expressing one’s views while working for a media corporation is not Constitutionally protected free speech any more than a student telling their teacher to F*** off is. A boycott on a company, right or left or any other brand of speaker, is completely within limits. Dave will tell you that. But you already know it.
Lets see, yesterday you were disgusted by a (disgusting) New York Times opinion piece on race. Today you think that being disgusted by Hannity defending Moore is “pulling crap.” What exactly do you think we should do about Moore and Hannity’s comments, applaud them?
“Keurig had a kneejerk response to a Media Matters astroturf campaign to drive Hannity off the air. MM claimed that Hannity was “supporting” Roy Moore, merely because he interviewed him.”
Barf. No, actually, because any reasonable reading of Hannity’s comments would show that initially Hannity Was supporting Moore.
“OK, so now you’ve got the swamp, you’ve got the sewer, you’ve got the establishment — they hate Roy Moore. Roy Moore, to them, is another Ted Cruz, another Mike Lee, somebody they can’t control. Rand Paul, they can’t control those guys. The last thing they need is another one of them that actually believes in the promises they make, et cetera….
…How do you possibly tell, know the truth, except — OK, so the two other girls were older in this case. He was apparently, like, 32, and he dated — one girl was 18, one girl was 17. They never said he did — there was no sexual — there was kissing involved, and then they’re saying this one encounter with a 14-year-old —
MCLAUGHLIN: And it was consensual —
HANNITY: And consensual, that’s true…”
Sure, Priscilla, we need More of Hannity’s style of “free speech.” Its so extremely helpful to the political situation in America.
Yesterday I said that in my opinion the NYT made a mistake in publishing that opinion on race that you hated. Today its clear to me that Hannity made a mistake in initially defending Moore. The MSM is the target of your endless wrath but Hannity is a defender of free speech? Hannity is a defender of Hannity getting rich pissing people off and dividing them. Who can listen to this right-wing nut garbage without gagging?
Roby,
Hannity or anyone else is free to say what they want – on a Fox show, in a classroom , or in a house with a mouse.
AND Fox, Viewers, advertisers, are free to make choices based on that speach.
Fox can choose to fire Hannity.
Viewers can choose to go elsewhere,
Advertisers can choose not to advertise.
Or as in this case – viewers can chose to respond to the choice of advertisers.
One persons right to free speach does not bar another person free response to that speach – so long as that response is not violent.
It is only government that is barred from responding to speach.
We are free to be disgusted by some NYT article, or to see it as godspell.
We are free to be disgusted by Hannity’s remarks regarding moore or to salute them.
Hannity, Fox, Keurig, and NYT all depend on the patronage of others.
Each of their success or failure is dependent on the reaction of their consumers to what they say and do.
Advertisers boycotting Hannity is their right. Atheletes kneeling for the national anthem is their right.
Hannity viewers expressing their displeasure with either hannity or his advertisers is their right. Team Owners, the NFL and ultimately fans expressing their displeasure or support for atheletes knelling for the national anthem is their right.
This is how freedom works.
Government may step in to punish the use of force, but otherwise our speach outside of own home is constrained by what we are willing to lose as a consequence of the free choices of others in response to our free speach.
Whether you applaud something or are revolted by it is a choice you get to make.
You, I, Priscilla, Jay, … are free to try to persuade you to applaud or be revolted by whatever we wish.
I do not support moore. If Hannity was supporting Moore then I do not support him.
But I have never watched him, so my support is nothing he cares about.
I did not like Moore before I became aware he was a perve.
As to what is the Truth ? As numerous people have pointed out – elections are not courts of law. The standard is whatever people believe. I beleive Moore’s accusers. I beleive Bill Clinton’s accusers.
If Hannity defended Moore – I think that was a mistake.
Keurig apparently thought it was a mistake.
Hannity’s viewers apparently think that whatever Hannity did it was not a mistake, and they think Keurig made a mistake in “pausing” their advertising.
Overall contra Jay and his links, Hannity seems to have faired the best.
And apparently nearly 4 Million People listen to him every night without gagging.
I beleive that is more than any other talking head.
I am not a Hannity supporter, but I am aware than 4 million people listen to him every night, not because they are zombies, or victims of evil conservative dog whistles and programming, but because they like what he says.
These are real people – not cardboard cutouts. Hannity did not succeed by teaching them what to think, but by saying what THEY wanted to hear.
What you and the left have not grasped from the past election is these are people – real people. people who think for themselves – just as you do, even though what the think is different from what you think. Their rights count as much as yours, their vote counts as much as yours. They are as entitled to a government that does nto trample their rights as you. They are not entitled to a government that tramples your actual rights – just as you are not entitled to a government that tramples theirs.
In the past election – they won. In doing so they are empowered to do – what they should not have needed to win an election to do – reduce the infringements on their rights by the left – a task that should not require a majority.
To the extent that is what they and Trump are up to – I support them. Even though I do not agree with them on many things.
Well, Roby, I can understand your gagging over Hannity, but, to be fair, you don’t agree with a thing that he says. I don’t find Hannity particularly interesting ~ he tends to hammer the same points over and over in his monologues.
As an interviewer, however, he is often quite good. His interview with Moore was not a whitewash or softball interview at all. The questions were fair and straightforward…Moore was not able to answer them straightforwardly, and that’s one of the reasons that I do not believe Moore. I assume you read farther up that my opinion is that Moore is not credible.
Up until Gloria Allred (talk about barf!) showed up with a late breaking accuser, all of the women, to my knowledge, say that their interactions with Moore were consensual. I don’t think that Hannity was “supporting” him by saying that, he was simply acknowledging that that is what has been alleged.
Doesn’t matter to me. I understand that it may have been consensual, but I don’t believe that 14 year olds are capable of giving informed consent.
But free speech is free speech, even when I don’t like it. Or even when you don’t.
WRONG SIDED
A few more accusers, and he’ll have caught up to Schlump.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/360612-two-more-women-accuse-moore-of-unwanted-advances
So jay, you have re-posted almost every article there is about women accusing Moore of sexual misconduct years ago. Just what do you want everyone else on this site that does not live in Alabama do about it? And how many articles do you need to post to make your point.
Moore is a sleazy slime ball that should have been arrested, tried and if convicted, put in jail years ago. The people in Alabama will make their decision as to who they believe is a better senate candidate. If a liberal democrat from Alabama (look at his website, looks like Chuck Shumer positions) can defeat Moore and today he has a 12 point lead in the polls, then the people have spoken and Moore can go back to being the slime ball he still is in Alabama.
The women who he allegedly molested made their decision, They kept quite for more than 30 years. One can only guess at a number of reasons why they did not speak up after they got older and wiser, but when Gloria Allred gets involved I see a book deal coming down the road for one or more of them.
I find Moore illuminating.
Most people beleive these accusations. Moore is being accused of conduct that includes attempted rape and statutory rape.
Moore does appear to “take no for an answer” but only if the victim is persistent.
Moore’s conduct is far worse than anything alleged about Trump.
It is slightly worse than alleged about Weinstein.
But it is not as bad as the allegations against Bill Clinton.
Moore should not be elected.
But alot of democrats are now questioning their own role in enabling Clinton.
It should not matter whether those doing this are republicans or democrats.
It should not matter if they are otherwise “good persons” with the right political values.
We should not be electing Roy Moore.
We should not have elected Bill Clinton.
Democrats should not have run Hillary Clinton.
Bob Menendez should be out of the senate.
And If you think that Trump is disqulaified for his past treatment of Women, than So is Joe Biden, who apparently continues the same misconduct.
Jay can not seem to get past the Roy Moore is a republican and this is bad for Republicans. And he keeps equating Moore to Trump, completely ignoring that decades of sexual misconduct are being exposed at the moment and most of it is from the scions of the left.
I do not care about the left right aspect – except that it is far more hypocritical conduct for those on the left.
Regardless, it is misconduct and demonstrates bad character.
I am male and I have never done anything remotely like the most benign of this in my life.
But I wonder whether I am alone ?
Dave, the problem in this country today is the brain dead voters! Who the hell would ever vote for an older male candidate that was banned from a shopping center for harassing teen age girls.
You say “But I wonder whether I am alone ?” ( in regard to inappropriate behavior .
No you are not alone. I coached my kids soccer teams. When I subbed in on my sons team, before sending in the player I would sometimes place my hand on their shoulder, tell them whatever I wanted to say and then when they entered the game, I would pat them on the back and tell them to enter the game. On the girls team. I would never touch them in anyway,ever! No matter how innocent the touch might be, I had a double standard as no one gives it a second thought when males are touched as I described, but for females, the standard is completely different.
Ron
I understand the double standard I have a boy and a girl and I there are things I just could not do with my girl that I could with my Boy.
But that is not what I am talking about.
What I am asking is, whether it is just me, or does it seem like almost all males are pervs ?
Or is it just all politicians ?
We are not talking about innocent mistakes here.
Everything we are hearing about is intentional unwanted sexual contact.
Not accidental hand brushes.
I mean for god sakes the secret service had to change the schedule of their family xmas party so that Biden would not be there.
I am not looking to make this republican.democrat.
There are differences – until recently a republican was dead if they got caught.
Now that might not be so certain. Democrats seem to get more of a pass.
Regardless, I do not care what party you are, if you are stripping 14year olds to their underwear, or terrorizing kids at the mall – you probably need to be in jail – certainly not public office.
Nor am I talking about age/generational things.
Biden is getting up there – but apparently he has always been this way.
My father died of vascular dimensia, and for the last three years he was kind of free with his hands. It was disconcerting, because he was doing things openly with caregivers that he would never have done a decade before in public with my mother.
But again that is not the same.
Many women/girls, even today, just tolerate it and are deathly afraid of going public. And, 40 years ago in the deep south. Wow.
I believe that that’s true, dd12. And, we are, as a society, undergoing a reckoning, based on many, many, many years of inappropriate, manipulative, vile, and sometimes criminal sexual behavior on the part of powerful ~ and even not so powerful ~ men.
I believe that Roy Moore is a lying creep, and I feel for the voters of Alabama, who have to make a choice between a lying creep, who is also a grandstanding phony, and another late-term abortion supporting Democrat.
But, we are also seeing a level of hysteria that is creating the conditions of a witch hunt. I don’t believe everyone who is accusing Moore, and I don’t believe everything that they say, because some of it is beginning to sound embellished and phony.
Witch hunts can often find real witches, but the hysteria that they cause results in a lot of false accusations, and ultimately a loss of all perspective, that is immoral in itself. Think of the Salem Trials, McCarthyism….there were, in Salem, women who practiced witchcraft, there were, in the US communists who infiltrated the military and the government. But, many more people, swept up in the witch hunting hysteria, who were innocent, or guilty of far lesser crimes, who ended up burned at the stake, or having their good names ruined.
So, while I agree that Moore has not been credible, and has lied about his past, I don’t think that that means that every woman who now comes forward needs to be believed, just because his original accusers are believable.
Priscilla, “and another late-term abortion supporting Democrat.”
Please, someone please explain for me why the life of the unborn is more important than the life of the born? Why does the argument against all democrats start and stop with abortion, when we have millions of young kidsbthat are being screwed by liberal democrats that are moving this country toward socialistic entitlements that are not paid for and are going to bankrupt this nation. Look at the democrat’s positions on issues and he is far left on most issues, not just abortion.
Guess what, Priscilla – I agree with everything you said…
Once accusations start flying, Witch Hunt Fever percolates through the system.
Some Moore accusations may prove phony; but other new ones may not. Like Kevin Spacy’s Obnoxious exploits (new charges from England today) a mother lode of truthfulness can follow the initial accusations.
But by the same rule of thumb, some of the tRUMP gropings and tongue-shoving accusations may not be true, but to suggest they’re all phony as you continue to do is mind numbing.
Dump Schlump!
Abhore Moore!
As to charges against B. Clinton and A. Franken (née Frankenstein) I’m perfectly willing to overlook them – for as Moore supporters have been saying, partisan party loyalty is prominent: Bill and Al are patriotic Democrats, and a grip on the issues is more important than inappropriate grips on buttocks or breasts.. 😇🙏👍
“As to charges against B. Clinton and A. Franken (née Frankenstein) I’m perfectly willing to overlook them”
And that is the problem.
Nor does it apply to just this.
Roy Moore thinks he is as patriotic as Bill Clinton thinks he is.
The rule of law – means the SAME law for all – for the people you like, and for those you do not.
There are differences in the alleged conduct of various people.
Nearly all the allegations against Trump are about the same as that against Franken.
That is bad enough for me not to vote for either – how about you ?
Or do you have to factor in some other idiocy ?
Harvey Wienstein immediately donated money to a bunch of left causes.
Kind of like the buying of indulgences that Martin Luther decried.
More and more democrats are now coming out and saying – we should not have given Bill Clinton a pass.
This is not about politics – or it should not be.
If you think that you can turn a blind eye to bad conduct – because the person doing it is a patriotic democrat – you are the problem.
If there are republicans in Alabama who are willing to turn a blind eye to moores conduct – because he is a “patriotic republican” – that is equally disgusting.
Moore either did this or he did not, I beleive he did. By the standards applicable to voting, I can not vote for him. Or Franken or Clinton or …..
“Nearly all the allegations against Trump are about the same as that against Franken.”
How do you come to that ignorant conclusion?
By reading the allegations – you should try it.
Franken is alleged to have grabbed a womans breasts and to have tried to kiss her without consent.
There is now another allegation regarding Franken.
I would also note the allegations against Franken are for relatively recent conduct.
The allegations against Trump are for much older conduct.
The access Hollywood Tape is not an allegation it is bragging. It is very disturbing, but to judge conduct we need actual conduct.
The allegations against Trump are mostly with regard to his tenure as a Pagent director or judge and few of those amount to more than I did not like him as a judge, or he expected high standards of physical beauty at a beauty contest.
Beyond that the credible allegations are unwanted kissing and ass grabing and pinching.
There are 3 more serious allegations – two have almost zero credibility and the one is “not here, not now” inside a consensual relationship.
Maybe you imagined something more serious.
You really are an inaccurate annoying pain in the ass.
You CONSTANTLY distort and exaggerate the facts.
EXAMPLE: “Franken is alleged to have grabbed a womans breasts and to have tried to kiss her without consent.”
He admitted to the groping, in a photo, which was was openly taken, as a bad joke. It’s unknown if he actually touched her – as she didn’t wake up or remember the incident until he showed her the photo. And with the amount of clothing she’s wearing in the photo, it’s unlikely she could have feel anything but a hard squeeze. In other words, it was a sexual Grope, just a dumb obnoxious one. AND He didn’t try to kiss her without consent – the kiss was part of a skit they were rehearsing, to which she reluctantly but finally agreed – but she strongly objected to him shoving his tongue into her mouth during the kiss. He didn’t kiss her forcefully out of the blue ( as Schlump admitted he had done numerous times to numerous women). Both Franken acts were gross and inappropriate, but not assaultive. Nor does the woman now feel that aggrieved.
“In an emotional interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Los Angeles morning radio host Leeann Tweeden said Franken’s initial apology Thursday morning sounded as if it had been issued “hastily” by a staffer. But the senator’s second, longer apology, she said, seemed sincere.
“That one did seem heartfelt. And I believe it, and I believe him, you know,” she said. “And I honestly do believe him. I wasn’t waiting for an apology from him, but I gladly accept it.”
tRUMP admitted his assaultive and obnoxious behaviors with woman unsolicited, they just poured out of his mouth as proudly as him talking about his golf scores. Here they are verbatim:
“I did try & fuck her. She was married. I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. I just start kissing them. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything—grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
The first part of the comments above, about “moving like a bitch on her” have been authenticated by the woman as true. Why would #TrumpSexPredator be telling the truth about that but fabricating “locker room” tales about what smoothly follows without pause in his narration? What kind of rationalizing moron accepts the first but refutes the second?
It’s possible that more incidents of inappropriate sexual behaviors will surface about Franken (as Priscilla noted, it’s Season of the Witch) but you havent any evidence of it on which to base your distortied babbling accusations. So 🤐.
Franken: Not being as graphically detailed as you wish is not inaccurate or misrepresentation.
Franken’s admission came AFTER the allegations, and AFTER the photo surfaced.
You are really going to go with the “it was a bad joke” defense ?
Or the “she had so much clothes on she could not feel it” defense ?
Or the “she was asleep she did not know it ” defense ?
I guess that you think it is not rape if you drug the woman with GHB and she does not remember ?
What part of any “skit” requires sticking your tongue down someones throat ?
There is no sense in which she consented to that .
You are making yourself more repugnant than Franken.
The allegations against moore are very disturbing – but they are also very old.
To this point there does not appear to be anything in the past 30 years.
The allegations against Franken are recent – while he was a Senator.
I beleive there is a 2nd one now. They are less serious than those against moore,
They are more serious than most of those against Trump.
Doing something to someone who CAN NOT consent is worse.
With respect to Trump what matters is NOT what he says he may or may not have done.
Just as what matters regarding Franken is NOT what he says.
We can not know whether either is bragging – as Trump clearly was in the Access Hollywood tape, or trying to diminish as Franken is.
An apology years later is better than none at all. But I am far less concerned about any of these apologies, than the fact of the conduct in the first place.
What matters is what those involved say.
The women involved with Franken say the conduct was not consensual. The circumstances strongly support that and I believe them.
I am very disturbed by what Trump has said. Which is why I did not vote for him.
But I am not going to compare what Trump says to what Franken did.
In terms of actual conduct that is verifiable, Their behavior is similar.
We can trade bits back and forth comparing Franken and Trump and they end up about the same. Disturbing enough that neither should hold elected office, at least not in a country where character counts.
And both are small potatoes compared to the flood of allegations against others, that go beyond, boorish, crude, many beyond sexual harassment, some beyond assault, and some as far as rape.
We do appear to be in a moment in which the floodgates have opened and these long held back stories are getting out.
I suspect that some are false or exaggerated, but most are not.
And those against Clinton are not new.
” In other words, it was a sexual Grope, just a dumb obnoxious one. AND He didn’t try to kiss her without consent – the kiss was part of a skit they were rehearsing, to which she reluctantly but finally agreed – but she strongly objected to him shoving his tongue into her mouth during the kiss. ”
Ugh.
I absolutely consider this to be sexual assault and harassment. The parsing and rationalizing that you have to do in order to make this something else, something innocent or funny, is exactly what happens when everything becomes political.
And, when an apology is made, after 10 years, and only when his gross and unfunny behavior is exposed, with pictorial evidence ? Evidence of insincerity. When the photo of Trump comes out, showing him grabbing an unconscious woman, and grinning ear-to-ear about it, I’ll say the same.
“I absolutely consider this to be sexual assault and harassment.“
In my younger years, at a Xmas party where I worked, a woman I barely knew came up to me and insisted on a kiss under the mistletoe hanging by the makeshift bar. She didn’t interest me physically, but tradition and a drink or two too many induced me to agree to a quick peck on the lips, or so I thought. She shoved her tongue into my mouth, and took handful squeezes of my buttocks. I didn’t think: SEXUAL ASSAULT. I just laughed it off, thinking it was too bad she didn’t appeal to me so we could explore future possibilities. If she had taken a photo of my snoozing, pretending to grope my testicles, would I have been horrified? Would I have insisted years later to have her fired from her job? He’ll no. And I dont know any NORMAL red blooded American male who would think differently.
Do you really believe every unexpected ‘soul kiss’ is sexual assault? Really? If while kissing one person grabs the other’s private parts, is that sexual assault too? REALLY? Do you read a lot of bodice tearing Victorian novels wth Horror? Is it alright for me to laugh at your grandmotherly predispositions? I guess I will without an answer: HA HA HA HA HA!
Not Sexual Assualt.
But it is sexual harrasment.
Regardless, if these are your standards – why are you complaining about Trump ?
I would also suggest you consult the law in your state.
My wife did a primer for the teens at her church.
Actually grabbing another persons genitals without atleast their implicit consent, is sexual assault – atleast in my state.
And it will probably get you labeled a sexually violent predator, and require lifetime sex offender registration.
I have noted before – my wife is a public defender. She does appeals.
Probably 2/3 of her cases are sex offenders.
Touching another persons genitals without permission will ruin your life.
Yes, it happens alot without consequences. But if someone makes an issue of it,
You are SOL. You are likely going to jail, and you are going to have to register for life.
About the only good news is that if that is ALL you did and you stopped when you were told no – you will likely get a chance to plead down to something less consequential – unless the DA is running for election or otherwise wants to make an example of you.
Sorry, my bad, I left out the ‘don’t’ as in I don’t consider it assault… that was my point, the Franken brouhaha is a lot of noise.
Still trying to get this straight.
You think that grabbing the breasts of an unconscious woman is NOT a crime ?
Clinton was Arkansas
Biden was Scranton and then Delaware.
Menendez was NJ.
Apparantly all of purportedly enlightened hollywood has been doing this through to today – not 40 years ago in the deep south.
http://theweek.com/articles/737817/al-franken-just-beginning
Is he an ex Dem Neo Con too?
Jay, I agree that the GOP has become an embarrassing spectacle. I think that the Democrats are an equally embarrassing spectacle.
Both parties have degenerated into power mad corruptocrats, who have lost all sense of their role as public servants, if they ever had it.
I am not saying that politicians of the past have not been immoral or corrupt, nor that all of today’s politicians are corrupt ~ what I am saying is that the current Democrat Party tolerates sleaze and corruption on a grand scale, and glorifies sex abusers like Bill Clinton, as long as they could raise money and win elections (now that the Clintons are dried-up has-beens, they’re getting thrown under the bus). And the current Republican Party has sold out to crony capitalist donors, lost it’s moorings from fiscal as well as social conservatism, and seems to believe that tolerating immorality is necessary to keep up with the Democrats.
Moore is creating the sole spectacle right now, not only because of his past immorality and his lying about it, but because the corrupt media has been silent about Bob Menendez, who is accused of much worse crimes and perverse sexual behavior, but would have his successor appointed by Chris Christie, if the Dems threw him overboard. I’m presuming that they’ll ditch him after the new, Democrat NJ gov takes office in January. Until then, you’ll hear about only GOP reprobates.
As best as I can tell Hayes is a neo-con too.
All neo-cons are not “ex-dems”.
Neo-cons started as a group of Dems who left the democratic party over its foreign policy positions.
Hayes, is associates with Chenney, Wolfowitz,
His work on cursory review sounds like that of neo-cons.
I have not been able to find how he self identifies.
Today the Republican party is moving away from Neo-cons.
Almost every Republican presidential candidate was either non-interventionist or very lightly interventionist. The entire GOP field fought over who would bomb the shit out of ISIS and get the hell out of the mideast the fastest.
Hillary was by far the candidate most closely aligned with neo-cons.
In 2016 Neo-cons likely voted democrat, while blue collar whites voted republican.
Many neo-cons are and were nevertrumpers.
But all never trumpers are not neocons.
Will is not a neocon, nor is goldberg.
There are alot of republicans who were and are not never trumpers
But are not Trump cheerleaders.
I have no idea how Andrew McCarthy voted. But I would be surprised if he voted for Trump.
There are also a few democrats who oppose Trump and still see what is occuring as both dangerous and stupid.
Alan Dershowitz, Johnathan Turley, Glenn Greenwald
Schlump need to release his taxes NOW, to insure the public he’s not going to unduly benefit from his proposed tax law changes.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/360607-irs-plans-to-keep-trumps-tax-returns-in-a-safe
Jay, that is a great idea, but I want it to cover everyone in congress if it covers Trump. Remember he is not a dictator and nothing happens unless congress votes for it and then he signs whatever they sent to him. I want to know if Darrell Issa, worth just under $800 million, or Mark Warner worth $100 million what impact the tax reform will have on them. If your paying attention, there were only two red lines set by Trump. 20% corporate rate and it must cut taxes for the majority of individuals in the middle class. Other than that, he has had little input into the crappy plans that have been released.
I found Orin Hatch’s response to McCluskey remarkable since it brought back memories of the Obamacare legislation. A committee which Hatch is chair is reviewing the senates plan and McCluskey was asking for a delay so they could “read the over 100 page legislation” and she was unable to read all of it since they had just received it the night before.
Hatch response, “that’s the way it works around here”. (Nancy Pelosi’s, we have to pass the bill so you can know know whats in it”)
AND YOU WONDER WHY LIBERTARIANS HAVE AN ALMOST COMPLETE DISTRUST FOR GOVERNMENT?
Would you sign a financial agreement that significantly impacts your financial net worth without reading what is in it before hand? I would not.
I doubt anyone but left wing nuts cares much.
Trump is unlikely to release his taxes unless it is politically advantageous to do so.
That is unlikely.
There is no reason to provide left wing nuts myriads of bread crumps to mine for idiotic tin foil hat conspriacy theories.
And again, I should trust government to do the right thing , WHY?
http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_c5ad2f20-ca20-11e7-8e2d-e3f477e6b847.html
If you dont want to read all of this scroll down about 2/3 rds of the way and read paragraph beginning with “October”
Jay, say it aint so.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/931190075177791488/photo/1
Al Frankin accused of groping and inappropriate behavior. How will you survive this accusation on one of your liberal minions.
The story is already withering on the vine. The accuser accepted his apology. If more gross stuff comes out he’ll have a problem. If not it will be a nothing burger by next week.
Bet you dont let off Trump and no one has come forward about his conduct you think he did, but your giving Franken a bye on this. Just like all liberals, double standard.
There are 8 stories just this morning on the main page of RCP about the Franken incidents.
This is not “withering on the vine”.
So if the victim accepts the apology – the misconduct just goes away ?
I suspect that the Franken story might fade – to be replaced by some other Pol getting caught with their hands where they do not belong.
Apparently 1 in 6 aides on Capitol hill indicate they have been sexually harassed or worse.
You also seem to think this is somehow Red/Blue.
The only part of this that is Red/Blue is that Democrats have been in denial that they too have a problem with sexual harrassment and sexual preditors.
That seems to be changing.
“There are 8 stories just this morning on the main page of RCP about the Franken incidents.”
Get back to me on how many stories there will be on it in RCP next Friday.
Do you really think Franken’s simulated Grope (notice the shadows under his fingers in the photo) is that serious an infraction? Jimmy Kimmel once had girls on his show pretend to grab his penis… does that disqualify him from future political office?
And Ron, do you for one second believe tRUMP was lying when he admitted serial groupings and forced kissing and pussy grabbing? Do you believe that Moore didn’t persue high school age girls in his 30s? Are you really giving them both the benefit of the dubious doubt?
Jay “And Ron, do you for one second believe tRUMP was lying when he admitted serial groupings and forced kissing and pussy grabbing? Do you believe that Moore didn’t persue high school age girls in his 30s? Are you really giving them both the benefit of the dubious doubt?”
Seems to me you might be putting words in my mouth. Did I say he was lying? Its not proven if he was or was not, but I would think there is a better possibility he was not. However, there is no proof and there is no one accusing him of inappropriate behavior. If it is not inappropriate, then it was consensual until someone accuses him of something different. Did he say (and I don’t know exactly what he did say) that the women were unconscious? If not, then unlike Franken and the sleeping woman, they knew what was happening.
As for Moore, please read my previous posts. I called those voting for him brain dead. What more can I say???? Why is he even the candidate when it was well known he was banned from a shopping center years ago for this same behavior. How did he ever get to be their highest judge in Alabama if they were not brain dead?
So I bet if Franken was running today in Minnesota he would most likely be the choice of brain dead liberal voters just like the brain dead voters that are supporting Moore.
And go back many months and review my comments about Trump. The voters that put him in as the GOP candidate were also brain dead when they picked him over someone like Rubio, Bush or Kasich. But when it came time to choose between a Clinton or a Trump even the smart voters who did not realize there was a third choice had to become a zombie and pick the best “worst” candidate and they made their choice.I DID NOT DO THAT AND VOTED FOR JOHNSON!!!!!!!!!. They both sucked and I will not vote for anyone as bad as those two.
So again I asked you this question that you keep ignoring. You keep posting over and over “tRUMP” stuff Jus what do you want people on this site to do about Trump? If I read most peoples comments correctly, non of us are really a Trump supporter and most likely woul like someone else (except a far left liberal or a clinton) as president. We all seem to want a moderate left or moderate right president (except maybe Dave). So what can we do about it?
Ah yes, we are now mentally photoshopping the photo.
You are right Franken will likely not be in the news next Friday.
The next perv amoun our public servants or the elite will be.
Jimmy Kimmel was not “simulating” grouping of people who were not conscious, who he had at the bare minimum engaged in sexual harasment of earlier.
Maybe this was a joke, maybe not.
But it was also more than a joke.
Defend Franken all you want – he is not the worst – thus far.
But do not expect me to take you seriously when you go after Trump having defended the same kind of conduct on the part of Franken.
I beleive Trump was bragging.
To know for certain what he did we need to hear from the women.
Those stories are mostly like Biden.
I do not think anyone is defending Moore.
Many of the allegations regarding Moore are substantially more serious – rape, attempted rape. But they were long ago – which does not diminish their significance, but it does bear to their precision.
Regardless there is far more than enough to note vote for Moore.
In fact there is enough to not vote for Moore, Trump, Franken, Clinton, Clinton, Biden,
Need I go on ?
Yeah, that good ol’ Democrat “withering on the vine” tactic. Works for all of them, no matter what. Certainly worked for the Kennedy’s ~ Ted was able to “wither” committing manslaughter by drunkenly driving off of a bridge, saving himself and leaving a young woman in his car to die.
Robert Byrd was able to “wither” being an Exalted Cyclops in the KKK, filibustering the Civil RIghts act,and being the only senator to vote against BOTH black SCOTUS justices. Hillary called him a “friend and mentor.” I’ll bet.
And, of course, Bill Clinton…”withering” sexual assaut and rape allegations, harrassing women in the Arkansas governor’s mansion and the White House….
Jay, you must only wear one shoe, and you never put it on the other foot.
For Jay it is not the bad conduct that matters,
it is whether people notice,
and whether the perpitrator is otherwise a “good person”.
Genocide would be acceptable – if by an otherwise “good person” or with “good intentions”.
“Just like all liberals, double standard.”
Jeez, Ron, thanks so much.
I totally disagree with Jay’s comment on forgiving Bill and Al. In fact, I ‘m shocked by it. I have also been shocked for about a year now with Priscilla’s take on trumps behaviors and her ability to make it into nothing. And Dave’s willingness to go with her into denial, never having heard trump lie, etc.
Rather than me coming up with some liberal counter artillery fire in the form of Just like all conservatives… attack, here is a better rule than your “just like all liberals, double standard”:
just like all over the top partisans or ideologues, beating the other team comes first before principle.
Why do I come here for this daily liberal bashing stew? This is another swamp that needs to be drained, useless verbal political warfare between irreconcilable ideological opposites that is just weakening the country.
OK Roby, I never placed you in the “liberal” camp. I always considered you moderate left, but I could be wrong. So here is a test to determine where you may fall. For 2020 lets pretend these are your choices for the democrat party nominee. Who would you pick in the primary in these four races. Please pick one from each. All of these are current (D) senators. Two are considered as leadering candidates for 2020.
1. Warren (MA) v Manchin (WVA)
2. Warren (MA) v Mark Warner (VA)
3. Booker (NJ) v Manchin (WVA)
4. Booker (NJ) v Nelson (FL)
I put Jay in the Warren-Booker-Pelosi camp. LIBERAL+. And I loose it with him because he posts something, I asked questions, and most times he will not answer the question, He just keeps posting the same liberal agenda stuff that generated the “liberal” comment I made.
I put you moderate left until proven otherwise.
I put myself moderate right until someone proves me wrong
Let me know the outcome if you feel free to do so.
Roby;
Many on the left have come out against Franken and way too late Bill Clinton.
Better late than never.
If I have accused you of hypocracy on that specific issue – I apologize.
More broadly I apologize to you and all those on the left that are starting to grasp that sexual misconduct is not an issue with an ideological constraint.
I would still note – it is far from all of the left, and quite a number of them are confessing to their own hypocracy.
Absent the support from the left in the 90’s Clinton would have been forced to resign.
Had that happened Hillary would never have been elected dog catcher much less senator,
and Trump probably could not have been elected.
Hopefully we do not need to see Moore elected to continue this nonsensical “ballancing of scales”.
Regardless, without pointing fingers specifically at you.
The left is WAY late to this issue.
No one is denying that many on the right have poor character,
nor that too many on the right have defended them.
I wrote letters to my senator opposing Clarence Thomas.
While he has proven to be a good justice, I beleive Anita Hill, and I belieive that if the head of the EEOC can not avoid verbal sexual harrassment he should not be a Supreme Court Justice.
I voted against Trump – because of the access Hollywood Tape – as well as many other things.
I opposed Roy Moore before we knew he was a perv.
Where were those on the left regarding Ted Kennedy, (or RFK and JFK), Clinton, Franken, Biden, and numerous others ?
They have had their knives out – and rightly so, when Republicans engage int he same misconduct, but we have had decades of those on the left defending the misconduct of their own.
If that does not include you – great. You get kudo’s from me for having ordinary human decency on this his. In case you are not clear – that is NOT high praise.
It is reprehensible to defend the people who do this.
It is not a show of moral courage to stand quiet, or even to speak out when nearly everyone is.
Finally, I do not take it as personal bashing – when you attack libertarians.
You seem to think I should take it personal when you attack conservatives or the right.
You should not be so thin skinned. Every generalization about the left does nto explicitly mean you too. Nor are such generalization false, because you might be one of the exceptions.
One of the huge areas of conflict between us, is that YOU take most everything personally.
While I DO hold you personally accountable when:
YOU step onto a moral soapbox condemning others.
When YOU speak hypocritically.
When YOU advocate for reducing the liberty of others by force.
Much of what I argue is about ideas – good ideas, and bad ones, ones that are stupid and ones that are not.
We end up at each others throats alot – because you will not allow anyone to attack a stupid idea, as stupid, without taking it deeply personally, if that is an idea that you share.
It should be clear by now, I do not share your ideas. Those ideas are bad and immoral, and I am going to say so. There should be nothing offensive about saying that a bad idea is bad. Just as there should be nothing offensive about saying that sexual harrassment is bad.
Just because you hold an idea dear, does not protect it from criticism, nor make criticism of a stupid idea or value into a personal attack.
Every attack on the left, is not an attack on you personally – unless you own it.
Every attack on a bad idea, is not an attack on you personally – unless you take it personally.
And every criticism of an ideal or ideology – is not ad hominem – infact none of them are.
Ad hominem is an attack on the PERSON.
You can not seem to distinguish between yourself as a person, and the ideas you hold.
I take actual personal attacks on me personally.
Jut because I will also defend my own ideas – or defend others – even those I do not like, like Trump against false attacks, does not mean I take those things personally.
“Many on the left have come out against Franken and way too late Bill Clinton.”
On the Left, Franken has come out against Franken. The difference (so far) is that he’s not a serial abuser, like tRUMP and Moore and Cosby, or a serial masterbator like Louis. And what Franken is accused of (and partially admitted) doesn’t offend me that greatly. The best people sometimes commit boorish blunders- and that’s MY assessment of Franken’s behavior. Unless more of it comes out.
As to B Clinton, when it was obvious he had gotten a blow job in the White House (and lied about it) I wanted him to resign. That act besmirched the Oval Office, and lying was disrespectful to the presidency. It would have been much better for the nation if Gore had become president – with that experience under his belt he probably would have defeated Bush – how much better In so many ways that would have been for all of us.
As to other charges of sexual misconduct against Clinton, I don’t find them persuasive or relevant in present time. He has little to no influence on the political events now effecting me. And I wouldn’t give that much of a damn about Schlumps sexual indiscretions if he was a private citizen, smoozing up to Howard Sterm with narcissistic recollections of moving on various ‘bitches’ while still married. But I don’t want a Lying Groper like him with the brain of a debauched Lecher having his grubby fingers on the levers of government power.
If this is the only instance ever where Franken has done something like this – then yes, he is not as bad as Trump.
Thus far there is only one other allegation regarding Franken and I have not heard the details – aside from what was purportedly said writing an SNL skit which I do not care about.
At the same time I find it extremely difficult to believe that in 2006 during a USO tour Franken suddenly took up sexual harrasment.
The people who do this – do it alot.
As to Moore, Clinton, and Louis CK – there conduct is actually criminal.
You seem to want to lump it all together as if Sexual harrassment, sexual assault and rape are all the same.
They are all bad, but not nearly equally bad.
Ron, I would choose the most moderate Democrat in a demo primary. But, it doesn’t matter much, my state will likely choose otherwise. So, its a theoretical question. I do not want a very liberal Dem nominee or president.
There is big problem with ideological labels, they have no one fixed meaning for all people. I consider anything left of center at all to be liberal, someone can be a little liberal, definitely liberal, or Very liberal. When it gets further out, like Bernie Sanders, its my idea of progressive. further than that there is the far left and the farther left.
You have other ideas than I do about the political labels like word liberal. Which is natural. My Parents are liberals, but moderately liberal, but more liberal than me. My kids are liberals, most of their friends and probably more than half of my friends are some flavor of left of center. There is plenty of real estate in the left of center that is honorable. Any type of “All Liberals…” statement is going to appear to me to be aimed at my parents, kids and many of my friends, and me too. No we do not all have a double standard any more than anyone else does. I doubt if I have ever met anyone who had no double standards. I respect the people who come close to that ideal.
I suspect that Jay, who arrived here at the time when JB, Dave, and Priscilla were long established and quite vocal, has chosen his style of presenting his views here to be combative with first JB and Dave and then Priscilla. He is going to present the opposite point of view to the conservative or extreme libertarians because he is irritated by them and he is pointy, like JB and Dave and not mostly mild like Priscilla. I don’t think Jay is actually very left of center, he is just counter punching. I could be wrong.
Sometimes I also feel like just saying to hell with it, dropping my wimpy moderate attempts at objectivity and being whatever the the opposite is of the GOP, conservative, and and extreme libertarian views of the day are here. So, I would be lying if I said that I don’t enjoy Jays feisty counters to the trump defence, partisan GOP views and Dave’s ideas. There, but for the grace of God, go I.
My theory is that this kind of conversation gets everyone’s back up and they become more partisan or ideological than they would be otherwise. Too much political battling makes things worse, it drives people to extremes.
Roby, I try my best to not be obnoxious in my comments. I try to ignore many of the comments made by our more vocal members, but sometimes its hard to ignore when all that is being posted is other website information and its the same stuff over and over. Then when a question is asked, the is complete silence.
But at least we do not take it this far…………..(YET)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/11/16/alabama-fan-reportedly-shoots-auburn-fan-following-argument-over-which-team-is-better/?utm_term=.b391856a5e49
“. I don’t think Jay is actually very left of center, he is just counter punching. I could be wrong.”
You’re correct.
I’m just as combative on liberal sites with the PC Left.
I do not think Jay is a hard lefty either.
He is just poor at critical thinking and prone to lob grenades that blow up in his face.
He beleives whatever appeals to his emotions without thinking very much.
He is the most virulent anti-Trumper here.
He beleives absolutely every bad thing anyone says about Trump or anyone close to trump no matter how stupid or implausible.
He is so rabid and bad at it he actually drives people to defend Trump.
He does not seem to grasp that I do not think anyone here would not like a better choice than Trump. We may not agree what a better choice is, but I do not think anyone is actually pro-trump.
But that does not mean we all think Trump is Satan. That every word from his mouth is a lie. That anything Trump says – the opposite must be true.
For Jay, in all circumstances Trump must be not only wrong, – but the MOST evil of all.
Trump should keep his mouth shut about Franken in particular.
That does not mean Frankens conduct is acceptable. Only that Trump’s is not distinguishable. Trump is Franken.
But Trump is not Moore or Clinton.
Yes, Roby, debating the things we disagree about is likely to lead to disagreement.
You bemoaned in a prior post our least common denominator culture.
I would ask you to think about that seriously.
Diversity is an important value of the left.
One that I strongly share.
But diversity inherently requires greater tolerance for differences.
It can not exist without greater individual freedom.
If we want a country full of blacks, whites, hispanics. indians, muslims,
christians, jews, athiests, gays, straights, trans, men, women, ….
that inherently means less and less that we agree on.
It means society – government particularly must rest on our least common denominator values.
When we look at those countries the left celebrates as examples of successful left policies, what they all share is strong cultural homogenity.
There is quasi serious talk of the US litterally dividing on red/blue lines, or atleast becoming more federalist so that blue parts of the country can pursue left polices that the can not do at the national level.
That is what happens when you try to force your ideas onto a diverse country.
You can not have both diversity which requires great individual liberty and the kind of government you want.
We are divided as a country. We are divided in myriads of ways.
I think that is good rather than bad.
What is bad is those of us who think that they can force conformity onto the rest of us.
Our diversity – which I celebrate, requires that our government limit itself to our least common denominator.
I don’t think I’ve ever played the woman card here, not in all these years. Hopefully, I won’t have to do it again, so listen up.
If I were married to a man like Jay, who considers it a ‘nothingburger’ to have a powerful, repulsive, and unfunny man like Al Franken grab a married woman, shove his tongue in her mouth, and then grope (or “pretend” to grope) her breasts while she slept, in the presence of others taking photos and, no doubt, laughing at her humiliation and his horribly unfunny “joke,” I would seriously wonder what kind of man I was married to. Not to mention, I would wonder about his own behavior and judgement.
Perhaps Jay prefers the kind of women who line up with their “presidential knee-pads” on, to thank politicians for keeping abortion legal, or the kind of women who will attack the victims of their powerful sex-predator husbands, so that those husbands can win elections, and become more powerful? Or maybe he’s just counter punching because I’m such a big ol’ meany?
Roby, the fact that you equate my VOTING for someone who I considered less dangerous to the country than his opponent, to the moral hypocrisy of saying that Franken is A-OK, funny ha-ha, for doing that (Would any of you guys be A-OK with Franken doing that to your wives??? No, I didn’t think so) is shocking to me.
And, I’m not easily shocked.
Was she married? Like the woman Groper confessed to trying to f*ck on the audio tape?
That doesn’t repulse you?
And LeeAnne isn’t really the kind of woman who would be devastated by a joke photo of her breasts being squeezed. In fact, she likes to call attention to them, as the shot of her ample bosoms with tRUMP’S leering face shows (oh, yeah, turns out she’s a gun toting tRUMP supporter… just stating the facts… )
https://twitter.com/belairviv/status/931385471187472385
Really Jay ?
So do you think it would be OK if she were raped ?
After all she is just “asking for it ” ?
If I buy a red Mustang does that mean you can paint a penis on the hood ?
Because I was calling attention to something ?
And your argument is that it is OK to sexually harrass Trump supporters ?
Do you want to join Hillary on the altar of Slut Shaming women ?
“Roby, the fact that you equate my VOTING for someone who I considered less dangerous to the country than his opponent to the moral hypocrisy of saying that Franken is A-OK, funny ha-ha, for doing that (Would any of you guys be A-OK with Franken doing that to your wives??? No, I didn’t think so) is shocking to me.
And, I’m not easily shocked.”
No, no, no! I doubt if you can find even one case of me saying something to you about simply voting for trump. I have said dozens of times that I do not care that you voted for trump. I care that you find him heroic in spite of his women issues but attack democrats for their women issues. I care about your response when I posted the list from wiki months back of all the 16? women who have accused trump of molesting them. You did not believe the women, not one case was believable to you, all just a big media conspiracy, last years fake news, why couldn’t I just get over it and why was I expecting you to care. That is what shocked me.
I care that for a year you have been arguing that people like me who don’t accept trump because of his attitudes and behaviors towards women are having some kind of insane overreaction, not your exact words but your point many many times.
And now you are pulling “the woman card” over Franken over 1 case (so far) where he acted like a jackass. I’ve never been a Franken fan. I read one of his books and found him creepy and sex obsessed with Halle Berry. And If I was Franken’s wife I would wonder, yes. But if I was trumps wife, well, I would have no illusions left at all. But, having been hired in the first place for being a young hot piece of ass I guess that goes with the territory. Some Hero.
Hopefully it is close to universal here, that Trump’s treatment of women is unacceptable, that it is no better than Franken or Biden.
I am not aware of anyone trying to justify Trump’s conduct – as Jay is trying to do with Franken’s.
At most we are trying to clarify it. Thus far – and my guess given Trump’s scrutiny that nothing new is likely, the credible allegations regarding Trump are about the same as those regarding Biden and Franken.
Moore’s conduct is older but more serious.
What has become obvious in recent months is that alot of powerful males have behaved very badly – I would say towards women, but then we have Spacey and Takei both of whom I admired.
What has also become obvious is that there is no ideology divide on this reprehensible conduct. That mistreatment of women is atleast as common on the left as the right.
‘The Only Position for Women in SNCC is Prone’ Stokely Charmicheal.
And, before you start claiming that I ignored the fact that you said that Jay’s defense of Franken shocked you, too….No, I didn’t ignore it.
“I care that for a year you have been arguing that people like me who don’t accept trump because of his attitudes and behaviors towards women are having some kind of insane overreaction, not your exact words but your point many many times.”
Roby, I have NOT argued anything of the sort, either in exact words or otherwise. Have I mocked Jay for his hysteria and his extreme hypocrisy? Hell, yeah. Anyone who blames the victim of sexual assault and harassment and makes excuses for a pig like Franken, is in no position to lecture anyone else on morality. You have to be blind to see that Franken is no better than Trump, but he can’t see it, because he is blinded by politics.
And, absolutely, a similar hypocrisy was on display during the 2016 election when allegations of Trump’s sexual misbehavior surfaced. The fact that those allegations didn’t destroy Trump is evidence of how far we’ve come from expecting a certain standard of behavior from our presidents. Democrats cheered for Bill Clinton, Republicans have begun to sink to that level.
Winning is all that counts. Everyone thinks that the other side is sending the country down the drain, so character becomes a secondary concern. Just beat the living daylights out of the other side, call them war criminals, racists, woman haters, child molesters or what have you. Just WIN, damn it. Screw the voters, just win.
As I like to say, Trump is a result, not a cause. No one wants to be the first to say “stop the insanity!” But, consider this ~ we all have to live in the same country beyond the next midterm elections, beyond the next presidential election.
Is this how we want it to be?
Priscilla, Your recent comment and reply to me above this one I like parts of, particularly this:
“And, absolutely, a similar hypocrisy was on display during the 2016 election when allegations of Trump’s sexual misbehavior surfaced. The fact that those allegations didn’t destroy Trump is evidence of how far we’ve come from expecting a certain standard of behavior from our presidents. Democrats cheered for Bill Clinton, Republicans have begun to sink to that level.”
I can hope that this paragraph reflects a changing perspective on your part. Up till now you have been an example of the behavior you just complained about.
Jay surprised and shocked me by defending Bill Clinton based on the bald-faced argument that no matter what kind of pig Bill and Franken are at least their politics are rational. But your line of defence on trump and your disbelief of both all of trumps accusers and and the sincerity of people like myself up until now has been no less shocking.
I did a search for some of the comments you made that shocked me. I just went to the Rick posts for the time periods that I remembered the conversations happening and used keywords in the find function of chrome. It was easy.
Based on the keyword “piece of ass” that I knew had to be part of a post I made on some of the disgusting things trump has said about women I found your reply, and it Still shocks me.
“Oh, stop already. Roby. You glorified Hillary during the election, and she is married to a man whose deeds are far, far worse than anything Trump has said. And she stuck by him, defended him and defamed and persecuted the women whom he abused and raped. Not to mention her dearest and closest aide, Huma, now reconciled with her pervert husband, the husband who had access to all of Hillary’s deleted emails.
Cherry-picking some crude language from years ago, really?”
Now, I could repost those same comments trump made about women and see if you would say the same thing today.
Based on a keyword from the list of all of the allegations of sexual misconduct from the wiki article I posted many months back I found this reply of yours, and it also still shocks me:
“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”
This is what I call zealously defending trump for the indefensible. You’ve done that repeatedly by minimization of his behavior and by whataboutism and all kinds of irrelevant (and usually erroneous) tangents to the fact that the POTUS is a well-known proud and loud pig and sexual predator. You have scoffed quite a few times at my opinion of the meaning to our country and culture of trump’s sexual attitude and the opinions of people like me who do not accept trump and are furious that a man with his attitudes towards women somehow became president.
Now, If I said something like this to Dave I know what kind of denialistic answer I would get. Lets see how you can do. More whataboutism? More tangents about Huma and Melania? Or an actually changed perspective and some kind of new found understanding for why people like myself believe that trump’s behaviors towards women are unacceptable in a POTUS?
Roby;
Is your logic in your Micro-biology work this off ?
You are pulling a bunch of Priscilla’s comments from all over and trying to pretend there is a conflict.
I would be surprised if any of us could maintain perfect non-contradiction for 10 years.
You can’t manage it for two posts.
At the same time there is no contradiction in Priscilla’s posts.
Clinton is a sexual predator
Trump is a sexual harasser
They are not even close to the same.
The credible allegations against Trump are similar to those against Franken and Biden.
The credible allegations against Moore are similar to those against Clinton.
There is a world of difference between them.
Further Priscilla’s critique/observation that Clinton’s conduct and his getting away with it made Trump’s (and possibly Moore’s) election possible.
That statement is a statement of fact, no of values.
It is what happened. It is not the way things should be.
I would have hoped that Democrats would have been better than electing Clinton,
I would have hoped they would have demanded that he resign.
I would have hoped that Republicans would have been better than electing Trump.
But all those hopes have proven false, and the acceptance of democrats of Clinton’s conduct has lead to the acceptance of Trump’s conduct by republicans.
That is not a good thing. but it is how it is.
Priscilla is not contradicting herself or abandoning her own values by noting that the democrats willful blindness to Clinton’s conduct made the republicans blindness to Trump’s possible.
All Priscilla is noting is that both parties are in a race to the bottom.
If you want you can claim that Clarence Thomas made Clinton possible,
There is some truth to that – but it is small. Thomas’s misconduct is trivial compared to Trump’s much less Clinton’s.
I would further note this “race to the bottom” is not just limited to sexual misconduct.
It is inherent in the nature of politics and government.
Each Congresses breach of the rules, make a further erosion by the next possible.
Republican threats to go nuclear, made it possible for Reid to go nuclear, and that made it possible for McConnell to go further, and I have no doubt if Democrats ever regain control, they will take things further still.
Obama’s grabs of executive power make limiting Trump’s hard to impossible.
We can play this “tit-for-tat” game back through to the founders.
But the result is the same – growing government power, growing abuse of that power, growing lack of character, growing corruption, growing unaccountability of govenrment.
Less and less freedom, and nothing in return.
History – even the history YOU provide confirms that the trajectory for government is growing, power, corruption, and lack of accountability.
There is lots of blame to go around for that. I have no problem with your attributing some of it to Republicans.
What I do not understand is why you do not grasp that.
I can beleive that Trump is the lessor of the two evils between Trump and Clinton.
You can feel the opposite.
But the fact is democrat or republican, growing government means growing corruption and declining accountability and less freedom, and less wealth.
But despite this slapping you in the face, you can not seem to see it.
Today’s best laugh:
MORE RIPPING OFF THE MIDDLE CLASS FOR SELF INTEREST
“Trump and his family could stand to save more than $1 billion under a tax proposal passed by House Republicans on Thursday, according to an analysis commissioned by NBC News.
Most of the savings Trump and his heirs would see would come from the measure’s repeal of the estate tax – the tax levied on property transferred to beneficiaries after an individual dies.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/360743-nbc-analysis-gop-tax-plan-could-save-trump-and-his-family-more-than-1
You seem to think that the money that other people made is yours, and that their keeping it is somehow a crime.
If you think that the Trump family is paying estate taxes regardless of whether this passes you are deluded.
Where is it you think the money that Trump and other rich people do not pay in taxes goes ?
Do you think they are going to spend it on more steak ?
There is a reason that even Christine Romer found that upper margin taxes do $2 in economic harm for ever $1 in taxes levied.
Even the purportedly evil Bush Tax cut – the upper margin tax cut – the cut in taxes for the “Rich” Far more than paid for itself. Unfortunately it did not pay for the much larger middle class tax cut and thus was only barely net postive after about 5 years.
The current GOP plan has much the same problem.
What do you want ?
A growing economy ?
Or a middle class tax cut ?
If you want to boost economic growth – increase jobs, increase wages, increase wealth for everyone – and yes the rich more than the rest, then you eliminate corporate taxes, eliminate business taxes, and reduce upper margin income taxes.
Wow, Jay, you’re in favor of not allowing people to pass their property to their children? Money and property that has already been taxed?
Haha, you’re turning into a communist!
“Because of all available exemptions, only the largest 0.2% of estates in the US will have to pay any estate tax.[7]”
( Huang, Chye-Ching; DeBot, Brandon. “Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax”. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.)
And estates of $1 Million or more are subject to a max Fed estate tax UNDER 40%. And those 0.2% millionaire-billionaires aren’t paying what they should be paying. Why do you think there are so many rich tax lawyers?
What kind of math are you using that equates inheriting 60% OR MORE of millions or billions to ‘nothing?’ You need to get remedial mathematical help with that kind of faulty thinking.
Tax Those Rich SOBs!t Trickle-Up Taxation!
You really are completely clueless.
If you are moderately wealthy it is relatively easy to transfer your wealth to your children without paying taxes.
The estate tax is almost never paid by actually wealthy people.
It is paid almost entirely by small businesses and farmers and the like.
People who have made enough during their lifetime to have something to leave to their kids, but not so much that they can afford the sophisticated estate planning necescary to avoid estate taxes entirely.
But beyond that – why is government entitled to confiscate the wealth I made AND PAID TAXES ON during my life time ? Why can’t I give what is ming and has already been taxed to whoever I please ?
What kind of idiot thinks that what others have produced belongs to them ?
Why is it you think that dying, means the government gets to step in and decide what happens to what was yours ?
If my children only get 60% of what I attempted to give them – the other 40% is called THEFT!!
That you are advocating for it makes you a THIEF!!
I do not care how F’ing rich someone else is – there wealth is THEIRS – not YOURS!.
You do nto get to steal it, you do not get to steal it and give it to others.
If you want to be wealthy – produce something other people value highly.
Stealing it makes you nothing more than a criminal.
You are no less a criminal, if you use government to do your stealing for you.
An interesting perspective that I think has merit. Nor do I think it is limited to Republicans.
Voters do not care much about policy right now – they want blood.
http://theweek.com/articles/737508/republican-voters-dont-care-about-policy-just-want-political-blood
New Yorkers Know The Mind Of The Beast
Jay, I see many postings on line where Trump is accused of sexual misconduct. All of them are jsut in the last few days except one from CNN in October 2016. If that were true, why was it not a bigger story in 2016. Damn, he was running for president and it gets a day or so coverage and some dumbo southern hick is running for senator from Alabama and its no-stop news coverage? Why? Does not make sense to me? Oh how my chice for Johnson just looks beter and better everyday until someone accuses him of sexual misconduct while smoking pot.
“why was it not a bigger story in 2016.”
You’re kidding, right? It was a HUGE story, carried in every MSM newspaper and TV for weeks!
Google Trump Groping for Sept/Oct 2016.
We’re you snoozing those months?
Republicans IGNORED it, just as Moore’s constituency is ignoring him stalking teens.
Jay ” You’re kidding, right? It was a HUGE story, carried in every MSM newspaper and TV for weeks”
Nope, guess I had checked out by that time since I had already decided he was unqualified and was voting for Johnson. I did not warch much news in the fall of 2016. In fact, still dont. Most of what I get is from local NP where I skim articles and read the ones I am interested in.
Fox is showing Moore to have lost about 18 pts.
RCP has him having dropped 11.
This would be likely worse, except Jones is aparently really far left for Alabama.
Dave “This would be likely worse, except Jones is aparently really far left for Alabama.”
Look at his website. He is more than just far left for Alabama, I would say he is going to be in the top 15% of the left democrats. Nowhere close to Nelson or Manchin in his views.
I would agree that Trump would be wise to keep quiet about this – for once.
Regardless – sexual harassment, Sexual Assault, and rape have actual meanings.
Trump’s known conduct is about the same as Frankens, but farther in the past, and possibly with more instances – but who knows what tomorow may bring.
DRIP, DRIP SPLASH
Schlump’s decision to reverse Obama’s hold on Keystone Pipeline:
It leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota
Jay read the article. That the old pipeline that has been there for years!!!!!! Trump had nothing to do with that one.
Thanks for the correction…
The fallacy of big numbers.
Oil Pipelines are far less dangerous and far cheaper than any other form of transport.
Delaying the KeystoneXL was and remains one of Obama’s most ludicrously stupid acts.
It wasted money for no purpose, increased the cost of energy and drove the Canadians to seek other markets besides the US.
Leaks can be fixed.
Leaked oil is typically recovered – it is valueable.
Most of what leaked from the Deep Water Horizon was recovered.
Other that dduck (and Mike Hatcher, who escaped), you guys are ALL crazy.
Does this daily shit throwing accomplish something?
Or is it just an addiction?
It beats physically bashing my head against the wall… 😊
Jay, you often just do what I would be sorely tempted to do if you didn’t do it first in the face of the trump denialism here. That is, just say F**** it, I’ve had enough partisan denial from the right, I’m just gonna give them the straight partisan line from the opposite side. You are like that bumper sticker, “I teach high school, so that You don’t have to”.
I realize that having had your ass grabbed by Ayn Rand (and apparently others sexually precocious women) makes you more of an authority than me on sexual assault. I judge trump as the disgusting unfit to be president sexual predator he is and natural insult my daughters and women everywhere who want to be judged on something other than their looks. trump is even proud and up front about it, that is the kicker on his unfitness. In an ongoing political conversation like this Its a damned good thing for me that I have always loudly judged Bill Clinton harshly as well. Not that stops the twisted absurd rationalizations about trump, but at least I know that I am being objective.
God, 21st century America, land of the Jerry Springer show dung heaving lowest common denominator mentality in every facet of our lives, that is our “culture.” And, our future.
This is just sick, all around.
As I’ve gotten older both my memory and my butt have deteriorated. If I had a choice of recovering only one, I’m not sure which one I’d opt for. 😎
Again with adjectives as a substitute for facts.
Not agreeing with you is not “denialism”.
I think that pretty much everyone here agrees that Trump’s conduct towards women is bad – about the same as Franken’s and Bill Clinton’s.
Few of us voted for him – atleast partly because of that.
Few of us voted for Hillary – for many equally bad reasons.
Trump won. I do not think that is the prefered choice for any of us.
But just because regardless of how we voted most of us grasp that as Bad as Trump might be, Hillary was worse, does not mean we are in “denial”.
Some of us are trying to make the best of what we have.
Whether we like Trump or not, we do not disagree with him on everything,
and even where we disagree, we are still striving for the best.
None of that is any different from when Bush or Obama were elected.
Working together where there is common ground and in opposition where there is not is the norm.
The “denial” is from the left. From Noc. 2016 on the left has been in shock, unable to accept the results of the election.
Rather than try to move forward – the left is STILL challenging the election.
The meme has become Trump won because Stupid voters were influenced by Russian/Trump collusion.
Since the before the election the basic facts have not changed. We have added tiny bits of mostly meaningless details, but no new substance.
The russians did try to influence our election. The same as they have tried for decades.
Their actual efforts were miniscule, and inconsequential. They were targeted at discrediting the process rather than favoring any candidate, and in this instance they succeeded beyond their wildest beleifs, because the left is unable to accept that they lost to Donald Trump because their candidate and their platform were deemed WORSE by the american people.
But with a year of this relentless drive by the left to find what does nto exist, has uncovered that the Trump campaign had minimal interaction with the Russians at the lowest levels and that none of these resulted in anything – yet the left remains convinced – there must be more. The objective is to “get Trump” if not through Russia and the election – then by any means necescary. The left must be vindicated, It is not acceptable that they lost. Meanwhile this relentless investigation into Trump turns up ever more real malfeasance by Clinton, and by the Obama administration. That we are all supposed to ignore.
Sorry Roby, but the denial is yours.
The hyper partisans here are on the left.
I am not happy that Trump became president.
But I am very happy that Clinton did not.
Your constant efforts to persuade everyone that we must “dump Trump”
rest on the unspoken premis that Clinton should have won.
You do not grasp that as disliked as Trump is Clinton and Democrats remain even more disliked. Just as on election day – we do not want Trump, but we want Clinton even less.
Roby;
With respect to your remarks regarding Trump’s treatment of women.
Though “sexual preditor” has a meaning that would fit Moore or Clinton better than Trump, otherwise I would agree.
I am disturbed that conservatives who in the past have found sexual misconduct an absolute disqualifier for public office, have lowered their standards. That character no longer seems to matter for Republicans.
But I can not help but note the hypocrisy of the democrats on this issue.
Clinton’s known bad conduct towards women during the 1992 election was as bad as what was known about Trump in 2016. Subsequently we have learned more of Clinton is it only gets worse. Today – 20 years too late, leading democratic voices are saying – Clinton should have resigned.
You bet he should have, and had he lost your support – he would have to have.
In nearly every way Trump is the product of the failures of the left.
Conservative acceptance of Trump’s treatment of women, is nothing more than conservatives accepting what Democrats have been selling for decades.
A politicians treatment of women, or their wives does not matter.
You set the stage, you defined the rules, now with Republicans playing by your rules and winning, you are not happy.
The same with identity politics. That is from the left not the right. It has been an increasingly important facet of democratic campaigns since the 60’s.
2016 was almost entirely about indentity politics.
Though the democratic platform was horrible – no one really noticed or cared.
The election pivoted on the left sliming half the country as hateful hating haters,
and was shocked when they did not vote democratic.
Post election there is nothing left of the democratic party.
While Republicans are having trouble figuring out how to govern,
democrats have no message nothing to tie them together except hate.
Hate for Trump, Hate for those who voted for Trump, Hate for whatever has ticked them off today.
The left and democrats have become the party of hate.
You say you have loudly judged Bill Clinton badly. While I am not sure I beleive you are one of the few loan democrats who did so, if so Kudos.
Were you there demanding his resignation when he lied under oath and lied to the american public ?
Or were you among those saying “this is a private matter about private sexual conduct, and not the public’s business” ?
Maybe you are the lone non-hypocrit on the left.
If you you should be joining the rest of us in blaming the left for destroying our standards of decency such that candidates like Clinton and Trump are acceptable.
Finally I would note with respect to the growing gap between the left and right – the data is showing that it is the left that has moved ever further left.
The root of our polarization is the unwillingness of those on the left to live in a pluralistic society.
The left celebrates multi-culturalism – as do I, but is unwilling to grasp that diversity in race, religion, national origin is inseparable from diversity in politics, and myriads of other things.
You bemoan Lowest common denomiator society – but that is what greater diversity inherently means.
You can only govern in those core areas where we nearly all nearly completely agree.
Government is inherently least common denominator.
If you want to change the world – you change people, not govenrment.
Ahem, Roby, I am also crazy, but I think the Franken thing is a nothingburger, or at least a little chicken (the Reps) nugget. Jeez, they Dems would be better off just sticking with Bill’s bungles, then even commenting on Al, who I am neutral on as a Senator, BTW.
Most guys would be accused of sexual “harassment” (do they have a legal definition for that word) that are over 25 years old, and even more for us older Romeos.
I am NOT defending these offensive, in my view, acts, I just wish they were not so politicized out of proportion.
I am 59, and I have never:
French kissed anyone besides my spouse.
I would not dream that is acceptable because a “skit” includes a “kiss”.
I have never held the hands of a woman I was not dating – much less grabbed their breasts.
Further the only people I know – including those my own age who have done any of this nonsense, are politicians, criminals and a few demented old men.
Congratulations to your wife – she must have a strong stomach …
Jay: too nasty!
I forget, I-Forgot, I’ve Forgotten.
All I can say is 2019 and 2020 is going to be one hell of a couple years when the Democrats have control of the senate and house and he chickens come home to roost. Sessions getting charged with perjury, Trump getting impeached and who knows whoever else is going to get charged. And JAY dancing in the streets in whatever town he lives in overcome with happiness and excitement for the good things happening.
I think it might be time to take all retirement funds out of any investment other than gold as the stock market is going to crash more than 2008, the country will be paralyzed with nothing other than hearings and trials and the division now in the country will be childs play compared to what it will be like for the next national election.
You certainly are an optimist…
If tRUMP is gone I’ll dance allright, like someone who has a poisonous splinter removed form his foot
The congressional attacks on Session are meaningless.
The requirements for perjury typically are:
The testimony has to be deliberately false.
It must be of sufficient consequence to alter the outcome of the proceeding.
Not recalling a casual encounter at an embassy is not close.
It is not saying I do not recall 30 times that is perjury.
It is saying “I do not recall” ONCE over something no one beleives that you do not remember, that is important enough that you would not have ever forgotten.
Dave “The testimony has to be deliberately false.
It must be of sufficient consequence to alter the outcome of the proceeding.”
I am not saying there is any “there” there. It is the fact that the democrats will say there is “maybe” there and then begin their investigations.
WHY? Not to indict anyone. Not to impeach anyone. TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE in 2020. To have complete control with President Warren, Shumer and Pelosi running the country. To jamb down peoples throats government “everything” like Obamacare. Universal Healthcare, end of right to work states, increased regulations taking more landowner rights from them and a host of other things that are detrimental to the personal rights and the country in the long run.
You keep saying there is nothing that will lead to impeachment or any indictment. But the long play is not the outcome, but it is the play itself. Why is it that Benghazi has disappeared now that the election is over? They NEVER wanted to indict Clinton on this issue. They never wanted to get to the bottom of what happened. The desired impact was to defeat Clinton and Benghazi and those that died that night were a tool to make that happen.
Jeffriese examination of Sessions is a typical opposition lawyer trying to cast doubt on the credibility of a witness.
Prosecutors and defendants do that all the time. That it is occuring in a partisan context is not surprising.
What matters is whether there is any substance to it.
There is nothing wrong with not remembering things people do not ordinarily remember or that are not of consequence.
There is also a great deal of difference between the standard expected of volunteered testimony and elicited testimony.
When Franken questioned Sessions the first time, Sessions had no reason to expect those questions and no reason to prepare for them.
The 2nd Time Sessions testified, he came and started his testimony by going over all his contacts with “russia”. He had prepared that testimony. It will be held to a much higher standard.
If the House requested Sessions to testify and specifically told him what material to prepare to be questioned on – “I do not recall” is not an acceptable answer – you are expected to review your own records when you know what you are going to be asked.
Most of this questioning – particularly when done by the minority party is typically far afeild from the subject that the witness was brought to testify about.
Impeachment is a political question – not a legal one.
I do not think Trump will be impeached. I think Democrats have actually decreased the odds of that by going full throat way too early.
But I am not making impeachment predictions.
If Trump’s popularity amoung republicans slips significantly or democrats take over the house in a large way – Trump could easily be impeached.
Indicted is also a different standard. I do not beleive Trump can be indicted as president.
Skipping that the standard joke is a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
The post indictment analysis I have seen of the manafort/gates indictments is that they are significant over-reach. It is unlikely given their actual weakness that Manafort will roll.
And he probably has nothing to offer anyway.
When I say this leads nowhere, what I am saying is that if you look at what evidence we have and imagine the worst case for Trump that remains consistent with what we already no – there is no case. Both as a matter of law, and as a matter of public oppinion.
Jay and the left keeps this “drip-drip” meme as if each new incosequential revelation moves things forward in some significant way.
But they do not.
What we have is pretty close to nothing – and it makes the collusion timeline nearly impossible.
Benghazi was a case of political not criminal malfeasance.
The administration lied to the american people.
There is some very offensive crap their,
But there is no crime – or atleast none that is serious.
Benghazi is dead because the election is over.
What does proving that Clinton and Obama handled the mideast incompetently accomplish ?
The lost emails, the private server, the unmasking, the possible wiretapping and surveilance of Trump and surrogates, the leaking, the U1 mess – these all may involve crimes, and they are not dead.
Speaking of conveniently forgetting, here are the allegations about Prez Grab Em By The Pussy his apologists are forgetting to remember.
They singularly match or exceed the Franken charge; cumulatively they are damning to all but Grab Ems apologists
Keep in mind he was BOASTING about this behavior.
Still confusing adjectives with facts.
Worse still playing this bizarre Transitivity game.
We have a story claiming that another reporters story about Trump is “brutal”
Not that Trump’s actual conduct was brutal.
At the bottom of this we have a demanding judge and promoter in a beauty pageant expecting that participants in a beauty pageant understood why they were there.
Did you actually read your link ?
It is all about Trump’s conduct as a judge and promoter at Beauty pageants.
And it all claims Trump is evil because he expected contestants in a beauty pageant to meet the standards of the pageant.
.
The link was all “about Trump’s conduct as a judge and promoter at Beauty pageants” ??
You’re a despicable selective liar. How deep up your butt did you have your head when you dismissed the full content of the video?
You ignored the opening, of trump’s audio confession, you ignored the 14 explicit charges of women detailed on screen, with quotes about the nature of the sexual harassments, and then – like the lump of rationalizing CRAP you are – dismissed the final few charges of SlimeBag trump barging into dressing rooms where teenaged girls were undressed.
I have no use or respect for you or your opinions. You’re a shameful distorter. Go **** yourself.
Jay;
When you call some one else a “despicable liar” you bet your integrity against theirs.
No I did not ignore anything.
I followed the link you posted.
Actually I beleive you linked to a tweet and the tweet linked to an article.
My comments were directly related to that article.
The access hollywood tape is NOT a confession. It is bragging. It does nto reference specific incidents.
If there were a specific charge of that specific conduct it would be admissible as evidence, but it is NOT a confession. And infact absent a specific allegation of a specific crime and actual other corroborating evidence it would not be admissible at all.
The tape is damning – not so much because it tells us what Trump did, as it tells us what he thinks about women.
Back to your “14 charges” and “specific allegations”.
I read the article linked to. The “specific allegations” in that article, were that Trump was a Pageant organizer and judge and that some contestants thought beauty pageants were about something besides physical beauty.
I find the whole realm of beauty pageants annoying,
But in the end it is still a beauty pageant.
Are you saying that judges and organizers should not carefully examine and critique participants in a beauty pageant for ….. Beauty ?
There are other allegations about Trump, those where not detailed in this article.
Those about Trump from Beauty pageants that read “that Evil Trump, he was an organizer and judge at a beauty pageant, and the evil pervert, actually examined us and critiqued us for physical beauty – the pervert” I am pretty much going to discount.
You made the argument regarding Franken that Leeann Tweeden should expect to be groped and french kissed because she is a model.
Both of those are false. But if Franken was actually interviewing her for a modeling gig, then QUESTIONS and critique of her physical attributes would not be harrassment – DURING THE INTERVIEW.
If you put yourself into a meat market, you can expect that the inspectors at the market to grade the meat. But outside the meat market the same conduct might be harrassment.
👎👎👎👎👎
Still pretending that if the word “russia” shows up in a sentence it is “collusion”.
I do not agree with Sessions on policy.
But he is a person of impecable integrity.
He is quite justifiably offended by left win nuts claims that he perjured himself.
There is absolutely ZERO evidence that has been produced so far of “corrdination” or “collusion” with Russia.
Actually look at the specifics regarding Sessions.
Sessions was at a party that he and Kislyack were both at.
They apparently said hello.
Are you suggestion that in a few seconds at a large public party Sessions and Kislyack exchanged the plans for a coordinated attack to disrupt the US election.
Many false allegations have been made regarding Carter Page.
But the few facts that are known true do not result in Page meeting with Russians about the election. He was in russia on business and met with russians that he had business with.
Papadolous was not even in contact with actual russians. So the entire nonsense regarding him is a claim that he colluded with fake russians.
What contacts we actually have we KNOW were meaningelss.
Further the time line for all these contacts, makes the entire collusion meme nonsense.
With respect to Sessions “I do not recall”.
Sessions is being asked about details of dozens of events spread over a year.
Approximatly the equivalent of asking him what he bought at the grocery store on each trip in the past year.
Clinton was asked about her private mail server, and her 30,000 missing emails.
Many of the questions she could not recall were about facts no one beleives that she can not recall.
There is a difference between I do not recall the weather 90 days ago, and I do not recall my daughters name.
You have to establish that there is a reason that Sessions should recall.
And there is not. The few things he has subsequently supplimented his testimony with,
are the result of his chosing to review his own emails and diary.
These are things so incidental one is not expected to recall them.
I am so thankful we have such outstanding people running our government or wanting to run our government Really confirms my thinking about government involvement in my families life.
http://ntknetwork.com/ohio-dem-discloses-sexual-relationships-with-50-very-attractive-females/
Well, I guess he figures he’ll get it out there before one of the 50 attractive females does 😉
It is quite amazing that we have all of these lowlifes in the government, and people want the government to have MORE power over them.
Are all of the 50 Beauties who engaged in casual sex with him low lifes too?
What century are you living in?
The fact that these individuals would run for these offices knowing what is in their background is hard to believe for me. When one thinks about the choices, there is no good choice. They are all bad.
On one hand, you can vote your political positions and put someone in office that is going to support the conservative or liberal agenda depending on your political thinking, but you are then voting to put into office slime balls that you would never have dinner with or even a drink at a stripe club.
On the other hand, you have a choice of what may be a outstanding person morally but supports every political position that you hate. For conservatives, they would be voting for someone that would support progressive SCOTUS justices, increased social programs and government supported organizations like planned parenthood that they loath. For progressives, they would be voting for conservative justices, decreased social program spending and less emphasis on organizations that support the progressive agenda.
Based on the choice in Alabama between Moore and a very left wing democrat, I am sorry to say my first choice would be to stay home and not vote at all. But if someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to vote, I would end up voting for what I want the future of the country to look like and there would be no way I could vote for political positions that are going to undermine the direction I would want the country to move in for the next 30 years. Just one SCOTUS judge with thinking like Sotomayor or Thomas with decision making 100% opposite mine could be the decision maker on many decisions leading this country in a vastly different direction than I would want. If the democrat was a “Blue Dog” democrat, then I would be more inclined to vote for that individual, but that is not the case in this situation based on positions listed on his website.
If government is limited – it does not matter so much who wins.
Dave”If government is limited – it does not matter so much who wins.”
Government is not limited. Obama proved that with EO regulating much of the actions of the country.
SCOTUS proved that with their interpretation that a fee was a tax because it is on your tax return.
Should I go on?
Good god, whats happening when I have less trust in government than you do?
We are miscommunicating.
I was marking an argument, not stating a fact.
Government is not, limited.
But another reason it must be, is because then getting bad politicians matters far less.
Point of clarification, my previous post was written from a neutral position until the last sentence. I know Sotomayor and Thomas are totally different compass points.
Sotomayor and Thomas are an interesting contrast.
Mostly I think Sotomayor is a decent person.
I do not think she is all that left wing, but she is inclined to find no constitutional impediments to government doing as it pleases.
BTW that is not distinguishable from the “democratic originalism” of Bork, and little distinguishable from that of Scalia.
I beleive Anita Hill and I beleive that someone who engaged in verbal sexual harrasment as head of the EEOC should not be a supreme court justice, and I wrote my senators stating that.
At the same time – though I do disagree with some of his decisions.
Thomas is by far the most libertarain on the Supreme Court,
and I am more likely to agree with him than any other justice.
Our founders deliberately limited the powers of government BECAUSE,
They knew that men were not angels.
Read Federalist 51.
Democracy alone is not sufficient a control on government.
One of the many critical reasons we must have limited govenrment, is that it is inevitable that we will be governed by the Franken’s, and McConnell’s and Schumer’s and Trump’s and Obama’s and Clinton’s of the country.
I guess Sarah didn’t hear the tRUMP audio tape ….
Once in a while I can agree with you.
Though I think the Access Hollywood tape is more locker room bragging than admission, and you can not take it alone as confirmation of facts,
It does lend alot of credibiltiy to allegations that are similar.
Hey guy, only 50 consensual acts over fifty years, keep it to yourself and instead give us your recipe for corn dogs or how you treated foot fungis when you were in college.
Lol. My guess is that he’s a little worried about how he may have treated a couple of them.
“Hell hath no fury like a very attractive female scorned.”
Women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct: ‘We were forgotten’
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/360909-women-who-accused-trump-of-sexual-misconduct-we-were-forgotten
Trump’s conduct is the same as Franken’s and Biden’s.
I agree.
The women cited – I beleive.
I did not vote for Trump.
dhii: “same”, no way. I disagree. There are several shades of grey with so called “sexual misconduct” and Trump trumps Biden and Franken, at least at this point, due to more accusations against Trump.
Plus, Trump is a bull+++ artist, we all have met these guys that can’t get l___ in a whore house as the saying goes.
There are far more allegations against Biden and they date back atleast as long as those against Trump and reach to the present.
Most(not all) of the allegations against Trump stem from his involvement in beauty pageants , and most seem to be more sour grapes that actual claims of harrassment.
We are not ranting at hollywood, because Weinstein criticised some actresses beauty, or because a director wanted to see what an actor who had to appear in a scene naked looked like naked before casting them.
We are ranting because they masturbated in front of them, or forced them to have sex, or did things that had nothing to do with acting and the movies.
I have no idea what Trump can get at a whorehouse.
I know that he has three wives who were/are extremely attractive.
He cheated sexually on all three
He did – though that is mostly between them.
Or because that is quite difficult and Moore is quite stupid.
It is virtually impossible for a public figure to win a defamation lawsuit.
I am fine with that. But I do not presume because and allegation has been made against a public figure that it must be true.
BTW some more extreme libertarians than I beleive in absolute free speach – that includes defamation and incitement to violence.
Walter Block makes an excellent argument that defamation should not be something you can sure for – in hos book “defending the undefendable”
It is not that long, it is a very easy read, and it is available for free.
https://mises.org/library/defending-undefendable
You should read it, it will probably give you several strokes, and cause you to blow a gasket, and then we will not have to listen to the crap where you claim every argument you do not like is a rationalization, or distortion.
Take his money away and Trump is an obnoxious braggart. I think most women with half a brain would then avoid him. Biden and Franken seem to have pleasant personalities at least.
“Take his money away and Trump is an obnoxious braggart.”
Likely true – so what ?
“Biden and Franken seem to have pleasant personalities at least.”
So did Ted Bundy, Albert DeSalvo, and Jeffrey Dahmer.
So did Jesus, Budda, and Johnnie Appleseed have pleasant personalities.. you suggesting they were secret serial killers, Dave?
“So did Jesus, Budda, and Johnnie Appleseed have pleasant personalities.. you suggesting they were secret serial killers, Dave?”
I am not “suggesting” anything.
I am stating flat out that a pleasant personality is no assurance that someone is not dangerous.
I do not personally find Franken all that pleasant.
A wise person would not leave their daughter alone with Biden regardless of personality.
Aparently the secret service schedules their family get togethers to deliberately avoid biden.
This is the CORRECT assessment
Exactly, Jay.
Look up Senator Robert Packwood.
Something is not correct merely because you say it is.
Serial Sexual Predator has no defined meaning I am aware of.
In my state Sexually Violent Predator has a meaning – Franken does not meet it.
As far as Apologizing goes – no, not really.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-al-franken-has-not-admitted-what-his-accuser-alleged/article/2641150?platform=hootsuite
I have no idea what his relationship with his wife and kids is.
but no he is not “a lifelong champion of women’s rights.”
What you do matters more than what you say. I know the left can not grasp that but it is still true.
Why is Tweeden grabbing the guitarist’s ass on that USO Tour?
And that kiss she complained about, she seems to be enjoying it!
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/11/18/1716798/-More-Photos-Emerging-From-Franken-Tweeden-s-USO-Tour-They-speak-for-themselves
Here she is kissing another guy, guess if it was Franken’s birthday she wouldn’t have minded his tongue…
So atleast you linked the picture this time.
1). Does not look like a french kiss to me.
2). AGAIN are you saying that women do not get to choose who they kiss ?
Some pertinent background on Tweeden?
She has appeared on the political discussion series Hannity in 2011 and 2012.[1] She was a member of the “Great American Panel” and also occasionally appeared on the panel of Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld.[5][6]
Why is that “pertinent” ?
Are only democratic women allowed to claim they were sexually harrased ?
You don’t know why it may be pertinent?
Try to think it through; try hard; strain that brain!
It is not pertinent.
If you think it is, then your ability to think critically is seriously impaired.
It would not matter if Franken’s accusers were Hitler.
What is true is true – regardless of who says it.
We are addressing a question of fact not analysis, or oppinion – did Franken do as he is accused ?
We have a fair amount of corroboration, and we have Franken’s semi-confession
“You don’t know why it may be pertinent?
Try to think it through; try hard; strain that brain!”
Horribly bad ad hominem.
“What is true is true – regardless of who says it.”
What is exaggerated is exaggerated, particularly by who says it.
Let’s examine the ‘evidence.’
Did Franken ‘grope’ her in a sexual manner, in the way we normally interpret a sexual Grope? No. It was a staged simulated Grope, not to get a ‘feel’ but for burlesque. If the photo is the only evidence of the Grope, it exonerates Franken from actually touching her, evident by the shadows under his fingers, indicating SPACE. And if his hands brushed against her chest, did they squeeze against breasts? Doubtful, she was wearing a Kevlar Flak Vest, which generally have ceramic inserts to protect the wearer from flying explosive debris and artillary granades,etc. it’s bascally bulletproof, protecting her chest and breasts more effectively than a suit of armor – If she was wearing Valkyrie breast plates, her breasts wouldn’t have been more insulated from finger squeezes.
Franken, a professional comedian back then, was guilty of a rude joke gone bad. Variations of the same grinning lecherous delight on his face can be seen in numerous old comedy movies from the 1920s and 1930s (the Marx Brother films for instance) through the 1970s on TV shows like Laugh In. Was Franken belittling her, using her as a prop? Probably. And he has apologized for that. Is that sexual harassment? If you’re living in the politically correct double standard Victorian mindset of 1950s TV censorship, you’d see it that way. I just see it as dumb crude behavior, and other than that, no big fucking deal.
And as to the ‘kiss’ that caused LeeAnn to suffer “memories of helplessness and violation for a long time,” I find that totally unconvincing, especially coming from her. Her remembrances of that UFO tour are inaccurate and incomplete. Even after the kiss that she says so revolted her, she admits she performed the kissing skit numerous after Franken’s unwanted tongue in her mouth: “I performed the skit as written, carefully turning my head so he couldn’t kiss me on the lips.” But photos of the tour show her exhuberently kissing him flush on the mouth. If she was really that disturbed she could have demanded the skit be changed: Franken was not her superior or boss; he was a performer like her.
Other photos of the tour show her kissing soldiers flush on the mouth as well. My point being that her claim the soul kiss so disgusted her that it left a lasting memory of being violated and humiliated is persiflage. And her charge that he “forcibly kissed me without my consent,” is false. He soul kissed her without consent. Baaaad Boy! Sexual assault as she claims – Bull Dodo.
Add to her charges the fact that she’s a tRUMO supporter who posted internet social media photos of his face superimposed on her naked breasts, and her appearances on Hannity, anyone without suspicions of her motives and assertions has their heads up their tRUMP.
(CAN YOU HEAR ME IN THERE?)
How interesting the debate about Trump, Moore, Frankin. Both sides will rationalise the continued employment in whatever position they may set. While Trump needs to go, Jay rationalizes why Franken should stay.
Just keep in mind that any one of us who did what these individuals have done would be terminated with cause from any employer other than government if we did the same thing. No employer wants a sexual harassment case facing them
I agree, shoving your tongue unwantedly into another person’s mouth is gross.
Show me any law that criminalizes it during a kiss that wasnt forced.
I agree, the simulated Grope wasn’t funny; point to any law or legal president that would result in a successful law suit against the individual or employer for taking a photo of doing it. Franken’s behavior in both instances was juvenile. The outrage over it is outrageous.
Well I am not an attorney, but I would say posting a picture of someone with their hands on your breast, even through a flake jacket on the internet would be creating a offensive work environment as defined in the following. In fact, I would say posting this crap on the internet is way worse than posting it on a bulletin board.
“The U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) defines workplace sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances or conduct of a sexual nature which unreasonably interferes with the performance of a person’s job or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Sexual harassment can range from persistent offensive sexual jokes to inappropriate touching to posting offensive material on a bulletin board. Sexual harassment at work is a serious problem and can happen to both women and men.”
But you keep rationalizing what Franken did was perfectly fine and nothing should happen to him. Where do we draw the line? Two hands on the boobs are fine, but one hand lower is not? A forced kiss is fine, but a forced french kiss is not? Telling a dirty joke once a day is fine, but more than one is not?
Hopefully you are not in a supervisory position and a female employee never comes to you to complain about a inappropriate sexual encounter with a male employee. Your handling of the situation based on your comments about Franken would be just like the years of actions taken in the past when women complained about sexual harassment. We need people with more morals to insure that does not continue.
And forget the issue with Trump. Remember, I did not vote for him and already called him a slim ball. I would not have any problem if they found a way to remove him from office based on previous encounters with women. If Moore wins, then I would hope they could find a way to not seat him and let the governor put someone in that seat until another election could happen.
Maybe when congress begins living under the laws they place on everyone else this crap will stop. But right now they can do it and get away with it.
You’re off the tracks, Ron – very Dave-Like
I never said what Franken did was OK,
I said his behavior in both instances was obnoxious.
But neither instance is sexual harassment.
The staged photo was juvenile.
Do you want to condemn the photographer who took it for harassment too?
And Franken didn’t release the photo for Internet distribution- Leanne did that.
If Franken was photographed giving her the middle finger (symbolic of intercourse) would that be sexual harassment too? If he gave her the sign of the Devil would that be Religious harassment?
Real sexual workplace harassment is a serious issue. By the EEOC standards you posted, Franken isn’t even close to violating any of them. None of what Franken did interfered with the performance of her job. As to persistent sexual jokes, the SIMULATED groping was one time. And LeAnne engaged in highly raunchy sexual jokes onstage with Franken during the tour.
As to the tongue kiss, on a scale of 1 to 10 of inappropriate sexual behavior, it’s about a 2. If teenagers are making out in car and one sticks their tongue into the other’s mouth without asking permission is that molestation or assault? You need to put the Franken kiss in PERSPECTIVE. If it was as disturbing and offensive to her as she claims, why did she continue to kiss him in the skit? (She claims she didn’t kiss him on the mouth, but that’s incorrect). And what was the purpose for Franken writing that kiss between them into the skit? So that she could rebuff him, and kiss a soldier from the audience.
Here’s a video from the first performance: put it in context…
I do not beleive the EEOC should even exist. must less that its laws and regulation as relevant.
You fixate over bad definitions of terminology.
Actual sexual harrassment, does not involve the use of force, and is not the business of govenrment – any more than racial, or sexual discrimination is.
Though it MIGHT be a tort.
Regardless, it is conduct we find morally offensive and punish outside of govenrment.
i.e. by condemning, firing, not hiring, avoiding, scorning, denouncing, those who engage in that conduct.
Sexual assault involves FORCE. When you initiate FORCE against another that misconduct falls into the scope of government.
Arguably inserting your tongue into anothers mouth or grabbing their breasts is FORCE.
In the scale of offenses involving force it is probably small. But it still would barely fall into the perview of govenrment.
I am not particularly interested in debating whether something is illegal or not – in our screwed up legal context. I am more interested in what is generally acdepted as SHOULD be illegal – the initiation fo force against another.
With respect to the rest of your remarks.
You continue to send like my wifes clients. Guys who say that after they broke their girlfriends nose – the subsequent sex was consensual.
In fact most of your defenses of Franken was made constantly by rapists, and other thugs – though they rarely make it into court – because no sane defense attorney is going to argue that kind of nonsense.
I do not think the claims that the photgraph are “simulated” are that strong.
I also do not think it matters much.
The behavior is reprehensible no matter what.
You seem to be trying to argue that Franken is a donkey, not a mule.
So what ?
BTW this is “real” workplace sexual harrassment.
As noted I do not think if actual force is not involved government should be involved,
But using you “interfered with the performance of her job standard – of course it did.
Are you going to be able to do your job well if you are concerned that a coworker might insert their tonuge in your mouth ?
Did it “interfere with the performance of their job” when women minors were being spied on by male coworkers using a peephole into their bathroom ?
How is a forced tongue in the mouth less interferance in your performance of your job, than grabbing you but, or calling you a slut or any of the other things that you would accept as workplace sexual harrassment ?
Ultiamtely you seem to be trying to make the “you can not rape a prositute or your wife argument”.
Those failed sometime ago. They do not work any better today.
If Tweeden had done a prior spread in Hustler, if she had “soul kissed” a dozen GI’s
that does not alter the fact that Tweeden still gets to choose whether Franken can stick his tongue in here mouth or grab her breasts.
Jay;
I am sure there is law, that is not particularly relevant. It is also rarely enforced, or more likely enforced as part of a larger assault claim. Though I would oppose the laws criminalizing the specific conduct in question.
The point is not whether the conduct is illegal.
Franken’s conduct, Trump’s conduct, and Biden’s conduct based on credible allegations are not going to get any of them prosecuted.
But all of them should approximately equally be subject to our scorn.
In all cases their conduct is sexual harassment – that is not typically a crime. It is a tort, and it is reprehensible. It is worse than just not funny, or juvenile. It is deliberately demeaning to women
The outrage is not only appropriate – it is essentially free people outside of government expressing their values and punishing unacceptable, but not illegal conduct.
Franken will likely survive as a Senator, but he has been severely harmed.
AND THAT IS APPROPRIATE.
Everything that is wrong is or should not be a crime.
We have effective means of punishing many kinds of wrongdoing that do not involve government.
This is essentially free markets self regulation in action.
While the actually criminal conduct that is prosecutable, should be, the rest should be punished by public scorn and opprobrium.
Many – unfortunately not all men may think twice before doing similar things.
“But all of them should approximately equally be subject to our scorn.”
Right. And shoplifters should be subject to the same scorn as child molesters. Good to see you continue to think so clearly. 👎👎👎👎
Child molestaers and shoplifters are not engaged in similar actions nor of equally offensive actions.
A child molester can easily be jailed for life.
A shoplifter will not likely go to jail until a 3rd offense.
Most of us grasp the difference between sexual harrassment, sexual assault and rape.
Trump’s conduct is a reason he should not have been elected.
Absent an allegation that is both credible and criminal, we have unfortunately elected him.
Though I would prefer that those maligning him keep their smears consistent with what we know, they are otherwise entitled, and Trump deserves their scorn.
That is also relevant because we have alot of sexual harrassment, sexual assault and rape allegations out there right now. These acts are all bad, they are not all equally heinous.
I am not taking a position on whether Franken “must go” – he is an elected senator from another state. Whether he remains in the Senate is no more my choice than Roy Moore, or Bob Packwood.
My GUESS is that will hinge on whether more women come forward with similar claims.
If not he will likely skate, and that is probably appropriate.
There is a difference between exposing Franken as a pervert and hypocrit, and demanding his removal as a senator. The former is my right, the latter is not.
Jay is not “rationalizing” why Franken should stay.
Jay is making himself look evil and foolish.
He is rationalizing sexual harrasment, and possibly sexual assault.
Replace Franken with Trump and Tweeden with say Faith Hill and see if Jay is saying the same things.
You are correct regarding employers. But all the people we are talking about were elected and all of the allegations are for acts prior to their election.
“Lets examine the evidence”
When you say “we” you mean “you”.
Your claim that it was a staged simulated grope is a conclusion not actual evidence.
It is unclear that is the case from any of the images I have seen.
There is an assertion that there was not contact.
Here is the image – your claim is not at all clear, Nor do the shadows indicate what you claim.
What they do indicate is that there was a strong light coming from nearly the same direction as the camera – that is all.
Separately, even if true that does not improve things.
The alternative to publicly groping a sleeping woman,
is that Franken deliberately sought to publicly sexually shame a sleeping woman.
The fact that Franken did this knowing he was being photographed is damning no matter what.
This was not a USO skit that Tweeden consented to. This is not “burlesque” – everyone in a burleque show participates voluntarily and knows and consents to what happens to them.
This was an act of public sexual humiliation of a woman.
You think that is better ?
Yes she was wearing something, Whether is was a flak vest and whether the ceramic inserts were in place is unclear. It is also irrelevant.
You seem to be trying to claim that the inability to succeed eliminates responsibility for the action.
You sound like the idiots claiming that women can not get pregnant when they are raped.
Do you like channeling the nonsensical claims of idiots and rapists ?
Is she was wearing Valakrye breast plates this still would have been sexual harrassment.
It is not the 1920’s. It is not a marx brothers film. this was not a scripted staged event.
Tweeden was asleep and traveling. Not an actor in a skit who had agreed to this.
Your assertions regarding the unwanted tongue in the mouth are both irrelevant and wrong.
At no time did Tweeden consent to being tongued. That is not an expected part of an acted kiss,
All your other nonsense about it is both irrelevant and wrong.
The photos do NOT show her exhuberantly kissing him – you linked to the photos – bother to actually look at them.
She did demand that Franken not tongue her again – and to Franken’s credit he did not.
Regardless, much of what you claim as fact, is both irrelevant, and purely speculation on your part.
And you continue to channel the stupidity that rapists tend to claim.
Lets presume – absent actual evidence that on subsequent occasions Tweeden “exhuberantly” kissed franken – are you saying that any women who gives consent once is presumed to have given consent forever ? Or that if she refused consent once subsequently giving consent means that she actually gave consent when it was previously refused ?
Further Tweedon and Franken were purportedly professional actors on stage – their job was to convince an audience, you seem to be saying that you can get away with assualting a woman onstage if she behaves like a professional and “acts” as the audience and the job expect – rather than slapping the crap out of the pervert on stage with her ?
I have no idea what the photo’s with other soldiers show – nor do you, nor is it relevant.
Tweeden is free to allow whoever she wants to french kiss her.
She can grab one of the soldiers from one of these photo’s take him back to a tent and F his brains out. That does not change whether she consented to be tongued by Franken.
Nor is her politics or support for Trump or other subsequent conduct relevant.
You are really completely clueless regarding sexual harrassment and sexual assault.
Every single argument you have made has been made before – by rapists.
You are badly damaging my already low impression of you.
Do you really think this kind of conduct is acceptable ?
You do not have the right to force yourself on someone else without their consent.
What they have done with others – does not change that.
Their politics – does not change that.
Prior or subsequent consent to others or even to you – does not change that.
Acting in a skit – does not change that.
Wearing a flak jacket – does not change that.
Not immediately slapping the shit out of you – does not change that.
Franken apologized for the groping gesture, and for the one time tongue kiss. She accepted his apology as sincere. There’s no evidence surfacing of similar incidents from Franken. So, again, his obnoxiousness with LeeAnne, compared with that of tRUMP &Moore & Clinton & is NO BIG DEAL!
If years old photograped sexual behavior of breasts being groped suggestively is cause to terminate present employment, shouldn’t Leanne be fired from her Fox News job?
https://twitter.com/rollercaste/status/931893872036327424
Of course the fact that she suggestively plays with her breasts in photos meant to arouse passion – her job – doesn’t mean I believe it gives men the right to grope them without permission. But if Franken was hired to grope her breasts in a photo shoot and he pinched her nipples erotically while doing it, would he be guilty of sexual harassment?
Franken’s appologize is wise and welcome and far narrower than you claim.
It is a good step, but it does nto change what he did.
There is another allegation of stalking. But thus far no further allegations,
Though I find it really hard to beleive that Franken’s misconduct was a once or twice thing. Very few people do this only once.
But if so – that is to his credit.
Yes, actually this is a BIG DEAL. But it is NOT as big a deal as Moore and Clinton, and probably less of a BIG DEAL than Trump and Biden.
“#LeannTweeden — you can’t do this and later whine about the #AlFranken photo- another example of #PoliticallyCorrect insanity”
Actually – yes, you can. The one was her free choice – and yes, Fox can choose to fire her or not over it. But what Franken did to her was NOT her choice.
You do not seem to grasp what free choice means.
You continue to make the rapists argument that “she was asking for it”.
Franken was not hired to grope her breasts in a photo shoot. More importantly she did not consent to that.
This is not about PC, this is about free choice, and having that choice taken from you by force.
Picture must be missing, regardless
Are you saying women do not get to choose who they wish to kiss ?
Again you are channeling the things that rapists say.
Are you saying that if it was Franken’s birthday that Leeann was obligtated to French Kiss Franken ?
Franken has fortunately not been that stupid yet.
You should follow his lead.
I would think before you post.
Why should I place any weight in an article that starts
“As the ratfucking Republican operatives try to weaponize the MeToo movement and use liberals’ decency against us,” ?
Guitarist – Is she grabbing his ass ? Or is she just behind him – look at both hands.
As to the kiss – she is enjoying it ? How can you tell ? Because she has her arms arround him ?
Duh! – This was not a unscripted romantic kiss – that is one thing both Franken and Leean agree on.
It is from a script that Franken wrote. She was supposed to appear to be kissing him and enjoy it. That was the script. What was not in the script was Franken inserting his tongue into her mouth.
All you have done is confirmed the kss took place. Franken is not clear on that.
We still do not know where Franken’s tongue is.
“she seems to be enjoying it!”: Really Jay ?
Does it make you feel big parroting what Rapist nearly always claim ?
Do you actually read the crap you write before posting ?
Refer back to my quote at the top from YOUR article.
People who say “she appears to be enjoying it” to victims have no decency.
I do not think Franken is the scum of the earth.
I am disturbed by his conduct. Absent further instances I am unlikely to want him run out of washington on a rail. Though a senate ethics investigation is appropriate.
At the same time conduct matters more than words – so cut the crap about being an advocate for women.
The sum of our lives is not the worst thing we have ever done.
Franken is not satan, and thus far he is not Moore.
He is also no angel.
If you see the clip of the sketch you know it was written for her to rebuff Franken and kiss a soldier from the audience on the mouth
“If you see the clip of the sketch you know it was written for her to rebuff Franken and kiss a soldier from the audience on the mouth”
Which does not change a thing.
You can not seem to grasp that Tweeden gets to choose for herself.
I would further note that Franken wrote the sketch.
Tweeden is probably a Rep so she may be trying to steal his wallet.
Bill Maher says: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-maher-al-franken-roy-moore-kevin-spacey_us_5a0fe154e4b0dd63b1aa8bba
While not as overtly sexual as the Leeann Tweeden story, it is still Creepy Franken behaviour.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/go-second-woman-accuses-al-franken-stalking-harassing/
Puhleez, have you Dem haters no shame?
Are you saying Franken’s conduct is acceptable ?
We debate here. Would it be acceptable for Rick to give me your home phone number and me to call you constantly until you threatened to call the police ?
Have YOU no shame ?
Exactly right…
Well, I can block all your calls so line up plenty of phone booths and get a good lawyer.
And, instead of cops, I would send Franken to harass you, so please wear a skirt and a bra so you will enjoy yourself.
I think my ‘exactly right’ comment was posted out of sequence.
It was in agreement with one of your comment’s DD.
So I’m not sure what your response to me was referencing?
FBI Agents belive that Lynch struck a deal with Bill Clinton to not indict Hillary
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/07/13/new-york-post-yep-lynch-and-clinton-struck-a-deal-on-that-plane-n2192337
It’s not often that I agree with Maureen Dowd, although I think that she is pretty much right on target, here (again, piling on the Clintons twenty years too late, but better late than never, I suppose).
She begins by writing that liberals have long blamed Republicans for the divisions that began during the Clinton presidency, but comes around to this:
“And what they did instead — turning their party into an accessory to Clinton’s appetites, shamelessly abandoning feminist principle, smearing victims and blithely ignoring his most credible accuser, all because Republicans funded the investigations and they’re prudes and it’s all just Sexual McCarthyism — feels in the cold clarity of hindsight like a great act of partisan deformation.
For which, it’s safe to say, we have all been amply punished since.”
Jay is still in “smearing the victims” mode, at least for any woman that has been abused by a Democrat.
Otherwise, in so many words, Dowd apparently agrees that Trump is not a cause, but a result .
Oops, sorry Dave, I see that you posted this already. Nevertheless, it’s very much on point.
That is ok, you provided a much better introduction and others here are more likely to read something if it is not posted by that “extremist libertarian”.
Separately – though you have spoken some, I would really like to hear your thoughts on this secual harrassment stuff.
My Daughter is extremely attractive, and small – 4’10, fortunately she is also a Martial Arts Black Belt. She is constantly sexually harrased. She has had a friend try to rape her.
I do not want to get into details, but my wife was brutally attacked for 3hrs 6 months after we were married.
I had a Gay dum threaten to mace me if I did not give him Sex when I was in college.
But aside from that all this is alien to me.
I was an awkward geek as a teen. Even asking a girl out was a terrifying experience for me.
I can not conceive of doing the things that apparently are quite common.
I would not do either of the things Franken did to my wife of 35 years without her permission in some form. I can not grasp that anyone would do so to an acquaintance.
We need to get beyond a world in which women are constantly harrased by men (of men by Gay men).
But we already have more than the laws we need, and the law is a fairly blunt instrument.
My wife has had several cases of consensual relations between a teacher and a student.
In all of these – the teacher should have been fired. But it is actually easier to criminally convict a teacher of sexual misconduct than to fire them.
We had the recent Obama Department of Education Title IX fiasco, which we do not need to repeat.
At the same time we have a problem/ I think the answer must be outside of government – because government has not worked, and we already have plenty of laws on this issue.
Further all the conduct is not criminal.
Anyway I would like to hear your thoughts.
Dave, I agree that, for the most part, the current laws regarding sexism, sexual harassment, and rape are sufficient, if not, in the case of Title IX, over-the-top damaging to the rights of boys and young men.
The stampede to accuse men of sexual misconduct has turned into a witch hunt, and, as I said in an earlier comment, witch hunts can find real witches, but they inevitably destroy many others as well, based on wildly exaggerated and unfounded accusations.
Complicating all of this, is the very rotten politics of what is going on right now with the Moore and the Franken accusations. And, of course, the inevitable attempt to bring down the president, based on the “he did it too,” argument.
If I were the sole judge of what should happen with Moore and Franken, based on what we know now, I would say that both of them seem to be icky creeps and phonies, but, in neither case is there enough real evidence to destroy their careers by demanding that they step down. There is the pictorial groping by Franken, but, as disgusting as it is for him to have tried to humiliate a woman in this way, it does fit in with his style of creepy, oversexualized humor. The allegations of forcible kissing, which I believe, are he said/she said, and, in my view, not sufficient to kick him out of the Senate. In Moore’s case, ALL of the evidence is he said-she said, so it should be up to the voters of Alabama to decide who is more credible.
I agree 100% with your statement that “the answer must be outside of government .” In a democracy, the people have great accountability for the morality of their public figures. Jay and Roby have accused me ceaselessly of being a Trump “enabler” (actually, they’ve accused you as well), for voting for him, and for defending his actions as POTUS. They seem to believe that my support of Trump is unconditional, which it is not. So, they are making the point about accountability, but only from one side, which renders it useless. Jay will defend any Democrat, no matter what, and condemn any Republican, no matter what. So, ok. I get it, but it doesn’t further the discussion.
If, as a society, we are fine with the objectification of women and the sexualization of children, fine with the kind of violent, misogynist lyrics that we hear daily (well, we may not listen, but our children and grandchildren do, e.g. “Slob on My Knob”) then we are pretty much doomed to the ongoing degradation of girls and women, as well as young boys, regardless of the meaningless partisan political blather of ideologues.
I am not in favor of censorship, but it’s one thing to talk about the days when 13 year old boys could sneak into their father’s closet and read his Playboy magazines, and another to realize that today’s 13 yr olds have 24/7 access to hardcore porn on the internet. It’s one thing to talk about Roy Moore’s immorality in having sexual contact with teenage girls, and another to realize that the 14 yr old who is now accusing him, is now considered old enough to obtain an abortion without parental consent, or to decide that she is a boy, and begin taking massive amounts of hormones. And, if that 14 yr old girl were living in a sharia community, her parents would be encouraged to kill her.
So, I am not optimistic about our culture wars ending any time soon. Here in NJ, just this week, the HS sports association (NJSIAA) has declared that a transgender boy or girl does not have to provide any proof of gender, in order to complete in HS sports. My kids were all swimmers ~ all of them won individual HS championships. But the record setting times that my daughter swam, were nowhere near the times that my sons swam, even when they were in middle school. So, basically, birth gender has ceased to be relevant in NJ HS sports, and it will be to the detriment of girls, despite Title IX.
https://whyy.org/articles/njsiaa-says-transgender-student-athletes-no-longer-need-prove-gender-identity/
And, I am not optimistic about our political leaders being held to reasonable standards of decency and morality, as long as voters continue to ignore those standards themselves.
(Jeez, I’m a regular Debbie Downer, here!)
Thank you for your comments.
While I get ALOT of input from the female perspective – from my wife who is both a victim and in a proffession where a large percentage of her clients are engaged in secual misconduct, and from my daughter, who is small and attractive and seems to draw perverts like flies, and on occasion make guys I though were decent behave badly.
I am still male, and I do not share the same perspective on this.
And frankly I find Roby, Jay and I debating what constitutes acceptable miscondut with a women disturbing.
Past that I am much more optomistic than you are.
Being libertarian means constantly telling others what is wrong with government, missing but inherent in all those complaints about government – is that free people on their own get most everything right – or atleast more right than when government dictates.
To be libertarian you must beleive that we do not need laws for every little thing, that we can resolve our conflicts, disagreements, etc. without force, without government.
It does mean accepting that sometimes some things will go to hell – atleast on an individual level.
No one wants to see people die of overdoses – particularly friends or someones adult children.
It is little comfort to note that no amount of laws would likely change the total amount of harms – particularly to someone who is sure that with different laws their kid would still be alive.
Greater freedom means that bad things will happen – but lessor freedom does not prevent bad things either it just means a greater false sense of control.
I am not so upset as you are about the “witch hunts”.
As we have both noted there is a difference between what government does, and what the rest of us do. The Title IX changes that Obama foist on colleges – were the most dangerous form of witch hunt – one using the power of government.
Roy Moore’s misconduct is very disturbing – but it is old. There is a reason why crimes have statues of limitation, his conduct 30-40 years ago is unprosecutable.
I am bothered that there is nothing more recent. Generally those who engage in this kind of conduct, continue until caught.
Regardless, the judgement of Roy Moore at this time falls within the realm of public opinion.
He is likely t be remembered as a perv and I think that is appropriate.
There is the separate problem that the people of Alabama now appear to have a choice between being represented by a perv or someone pretty far left of their views for the next 6 years.
Anyway, I am happy about the public witch hunt for those engaged in sexual misconduct.
No one is going to jail for something they have not done.
But many are going to get their reputations destroyed. That is fitting, and the standard is not the same as the law. We need not know a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to refuse to hire them, to cross the street when we meet them, to not vote for them.
I did not vote as you, but I am no more critical of your vote than that those who voted for Clinton.
We had some very good choices in 2018 particularly on the Republicans side, but on both the democratic and republican sides the worst choice won.
That I could not vote for either does not mean I do not understand those who voted for either Trump or Clinton.
But the election is over and Trump won. I am happier about that, than Clinton winning, but not happy.
I have zero problems with the left/democrats opposing Trump or Republican policies.
That is how that is supposed to work. But I have major problems with the challenges to the legitimacy of the results. There is no evidence of actual voting fraud favoring Trump.
Despite allegations – even the FBI and IC claim that voting machines were not successfully hacked. The entire argument is that voters changed their minds about how to vote because of some improper influence. While I think that claim is false, it is also as irrelevant as the claim that peoples minds are changed by corporate advertising, or union advertising, or political action by te wealthy or the media. I am not sure those are as effective as we beleive – but if they are SO WHAT? The argument of the left ultimately is one of censorship. That what voters are exposed to must be carefully controlled – otherwise stupid voters will make a choice other than the one the left wishes them to. If Russian social media activity actually altered the outcome of the election, and/or russian exposure of the DNC emails did so – SO WHAT ?
In fact even if the results were changed by FALSE information, ultimately either voters are free to make bad choices – choices you do not like, or why do we have elections ?
The means to limit voters is to limit the power of govenrment, not to censor what voters can be exposed to – not even limiting Russia.
Regardless, I am no more critical of your vote than Roby’s, or anyone else.
I accepted before the election that no matter what the elected president – like every other elected president in my lifetime, would be someone I partly agreed with and partly disagreed with.
This is where I think you and I and Ron are in sync and Roby and Jay are in the wind.
I wished the best for Obama – and Trump. I oppose each where they are wrong and support them where they are not. Further I try to keep things in context. I think building the wall is idiocy. But I am prepared to see the country spend 8B on a useless wall if that will get us somewhere on other issues.
There are myriads of aspects of immigration we are not discussing or are discussing stupidly.
While I support broad ability to come to this country, and I fully support birth right citizenship.
I do not beleive because you cross a line in the sand, you are suddenly entitled to all priviledges of citizenship. I am distinguishing between privilideges and rights – because we all have the same rights, by virtue of being human. Overall I would prefer we had less priviledges of citizenship – Social Security Medicare, and I think immigration makes clear that we have tried hard to create “rights” that can not be rights.
Regardless, we are not having much of a discussion about what crossing a line in the sand means.
I do not personally care if becoming a US citizen is hard. I do not see the need for a “path to citizenship” for dreamers or others who manage to cross a line in the sand.
Being unwilling to chase them out is not the same as assertting you have touched US soil you are or eventually can attain full rights of citizens.
Nor do I have a problem even with people who have been here for a very long time being at risk of deportation if they commit crimes. I think there are wise reasons for being reasonable about that – not deporting people for jaywalking. I also think alot of our crimes should not be crimes.
Your observations regarding schools and “transgendered” are astute and are the near last and most difficult issue of the culture wars.
People do not marry until they are adults. We should not care much who marries who – especially if we can not be forced into participating. Most of the right has come to accept the right of people to be gay and still have all the same rights as the rest of us. If you feel homosexuality is wrong – it is a wrong that is outside the scope of government.
Both the right and the left need to grasp that much of morality is “outside the scope of government”.
The big problem with the transgendered issue is that it quite often involves kids.
I really could care less whether someone is Gay, Trans or myriads of other shades.
They are entitled to the same respect for their rights from me – and no more, as anyone else.
I do not think many would care what bathroom they used – but for that public restrooms are also used by kids.
We get very wacky when kids are involved.
Outside of the extreme Anarchocapitalists like Walter Block even libertarians become somewhat paternalistic when Kids are involved.
You whig out that a 14yr old can get an abortion without a parents consent.
I find that 30 yr old Roy Moore was stripping to underwear with 14yr olds very creepy.
Our laws and any principles underpinning them go to hell when kids are involved.
Not even most libertarians want the same standards to be used for kids as for adults.
No one, not the right, not the left, not libertarians sees issues involving kids the same as they do involving adults.
And the most problematic issues involving Transgender involve kids.
I do not have the answers to these. I do not think anyone does.
The only “principled” approach is that of extreme anarcho-capitalists like block and as logically compelling as his arguments are, I am just not ready for parents pimping their children as prostitutes.
The closest I can come to principle would be that if we got govenrment out of education, each school could decide many of these things on their own, and parents would have the loudest voice.
“Jay and Roby have accused me ceaselessly of being a Trump “enabler” (actually, they’ve accused you as well), for voting for him, and for defending his actions as POTUS. They seem to believe that my support of Trump is unconditional, which it is not.”
I posted your previous defences of trump on both his language towards women and his alleged sexual assaults.
Your replies to my post on trumps treatment of women changed my opinion of you.
“So, they are making the point about accountability, but only from one side, which renders it useless. ”
Me, only from one side? Really? Sorry, that is total BS and you know it. No one has outdone me for years and years on the subject of Bill Clinton’s sexual predator nature.
“Jay will defend any Democrat, no matter what, and condemn any Republican, no matter what. So, ok. I get it, but it doesn’t further the discussion.”
Yeah, that makes him the mirror image of you. Good god, its is boring isn’t it? I’ve had ten years of it from you. The voice of GOP central.
Roby,
I do not recall “No one has outdone me for years and years on the subject of Bill Clinton’s sexual predator nature”.
But I will take your word for it.
I would further note that you are not knee jerk and stupidly defending Franken in the way Jay is.
I also do not recall Priscilla defending Trump’s conduct towards women.
Those of us “defending Trump” on that issue have for the most part been more focussed on assuring that Trump’s conduct was measured as comparable to that of Franken and Biden rather than Clinton and Moore. While Jay is wrong – Franken’s conduct is a BIG DEAL.
It is not nearly as bad as Moore’s and Clinton’s.
Regardless, you do seem to grasp that even if we do not completely agree on details.
This particular issue is not one in which your posts are hypocritical.
Except that what you say is not factually true, Roby
I have on many occasions been critical of Republicans, even most recently of Roy Moore. So, you are merely attacking me because you don’t like me. I do not post tweets and articles from biased sources, call Democrat politicians childish, insulting names, etc. I understand that you and Jay are very much on the same page ideologically, consider yourselves moderates, and believe that anyone who disagrees is an extremist.
I have, on many occasions, been open about my own biases, but I have also noted that everyone is biased in some way other, and we need to be able to discuss politics openly and honestly, if we are to get past them. I have seen you do that, I don’t ever recall Jay doing it.
You are entitled to your own opinion, about me, Trump politics, or anything else, But, as the saying goes, you’re not entitled to your own facts.
I admit it – I’m biased. Toward the moderate center.
Im biased against PC excesses in Race, Feminism, Immigration.
Biased in favor of abortion laws as they exist now.
Biased against stacking the Supreme Court with Conservatives or Liberals.
Biased in favor of the Death Penalty.
Biased against Gay Marriage (I prefer extending domestic partnership laws to fully cover them).
I’m strongly biased against having IDIOTS like Schlump as President.
Strongly biased AGAINST foreign governments meddling in our elections, on either side of the aisle.
STRONGLY BIASED AGAINST people who rationalize ether.
What are your moderate stances, Priscilla, other than minor shifts in traditional Conservative territory? Your middle ground is substantially Right of center. Which is why you constantly tip Trumpward.
“I admit it – I’m biased. Toward the moderate center.”
Nope, just a raving anti-trumper. If Trump said the sun will rise tomorow, you would respond he is a fool. You are not even a real leftist, your life here seems to be “Arrgh, Trump!!”
“Im biased against PC excesses in Race, Feminism, Immigration.”
Take an actual position on any of these.
“Biased in favor of abortion laws as they exist now.”
I am not expecting a major change to the laws, but the core logic to Rowe is flawed and would ultimately lead to a prohibition to abortion if followed.
“Biased against stacking the Supreme Court with Conservatives or Liberals.”
The role of the court is to check the power of government.
There is really no other purpose to the supreme court than to say no to expansion of govenrment power beyond that which the law or constitution allow.
That is not a “liberal” or conservative position.
“Biased in favor of the Death Penalty.”
I do not have an “ideological” position. I have encountered a small number of criminals in life that ought to be executed for the good of humanity.
But as a practical matter the death penalty is an expensive failure, and the efforts to preserve it have cost us other civil rights that are precious.
“Biased against Gay Marriage (I prefer extending domestic partnership laws to fully cover them).”
Marraige is a contract, like any other. Government may not make one contract different from another. If you favor demostic partnership for gays – then the law can not recognize a different contract only for heterosexuals.
“I’m strongly biased against having IDIOTS like Schlump as President.”
We have gathered – opposition to Trump gives meaning to your life.
Listening to you, you would think that he can not put one foot infront of another without help,
that anything he says is wrong merely because he said it.
“Strongly biased AGAINST foreign governments meddling in our elections, on either side of the aisle.”
In otherwords you are in favor of censorship, because you can not stop the free expression of a foreign nation without seriously infringing on that of citizens.
And are you opposed to the US fomenting Coups in say the Ukraine ? or encouraging revolutions in Libya ?
Are voters free to vote for the most handsome candidate ? the one with the shortest name ?
or whatever other criteria they wish ?
Meddling in our elections – as defined by the past year, seems to mean persuasion – are you saying that you are entitled to decide who might persuade who ?
If an insider leaked the DNC emails to the NYT and they ran with them – would that be meddling to you ?
“STRONGLY BIASED AGAINST people who rationalize ether.”
I speak for individual rights. I do not give a damn about russia, or Trump mostly,
But I fully grasp that there is no way you can accomplish what you want without severely restricting our freedom.
I do not want government deciding who can and can not post what on social media
And I do not want social media self censoring in fear of government regulation.
“What are your moderate stances”
Your stances are not moderate.
Many are “extremist”, most are not very well thought out.
Roby, in my response to Dave, I tried to make a point about accountability, and said that we are all accountable.
But, I meant that we are all accountable for looking at the fact, and evaluating them honestly and, to the degree that it’s possible, dispassionately. I am just as acccountable as you are, you are just as accountable as I….for our OWN behavior, and our OWN decisions.
I do not blame you for the misdeeds of Hillary Clinton, despite your defense of her during the election. You are accountable for your choice to vote for her, and I have said before that you made the best choice that you could. I am accountable for my vote for Donald Trump, and I made the best choice that I could. We make choices ~ we don’t agree on them, but people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions.
BLAME is not the same as accountability. It is not my fault, nor is it any voter’s fault, that the election turned out in a way that many don’t like. In, fact, elections always turn out badly for one or more sides, don’t they?
That was my point. If I was not clear, perhaps this clarifies it a bit.
I would disagree on one point – and that point separates libertarains from the rest – and today particularly from the left.
When you advocate for the use of force, you share in the responsibility for that use of force.
That is true whether you are4 republican or democrat.
There are few instances in which force can be justifiably initiated against another.
Advocating for an unjustifiable use of force may not be as bad as actually using that force.
but it is still wrong.
Those who advocate for the rape of women in the mideast who do not wear a hijab are not as culpable as those who actually rape them, but they are still morally culpable.
Culpable does not always mean subject to government punishment.
Franken’s actions teeter near the edge of what government may forcibly punish.
But the absence of punishment by government is not the absence of culpability
Once facet of this sexual misconduct discussion is that it makes clear that all misconduct is not punishable by government. That some things that are wrong are not criminal.
“So, you are merely attacking me because you don’t like me. ”
Priscilla, I like you, by which I mean the part of you I know here outside of your politics, which I infer from your tone, your manners, your ability to forgive and sometimes admit having got something wrong. I don’t like your conservative and GOP partisan political viewpoint, at all, no. It makes my teeth itch. Its a first rate example of the problem that independent moderates could be a part of the solution to if they would ever solidify themselves into something..
“I do not post tweets and articles from biased sources, call Democrat politicians childish, insulting names, etc. I understand that you and Jay are very much on the same page ideologically, consider yourselves moderates, and believe that anyone who disagrees is an extremist.”
I believe that Dave is an extremist. Not for no reason. Hannity, Coulture, Limbaugh, extremists in my book. Bernie Sanders and company too.
I believe that the GOP has been hijacked by extremists and the Dem party as well. You will likely join me in only the 2nd half of that. You have talked about the extreme views of the democrats many times. It is OK to call extreme extreme. Dave calls his own views extreme.
You evade me on the substance of what I am saying and instead keep repeating the same accusations. I believe that I have made myself beyond reasonably clear but I will try one more time. The fact that you voted for trump is not the source of my arguments with you. Most of all the source of my arguments with you rests on the fact that you lump the opposition to trump together as being something more or less monolithic that is an bad taste and is without much foundation and just unreasonable and destructive. Why are we all getting so upset, has anything unusual happened? Seems not, in your world. the opposition to trump is simply hysterical.
Your reaction to trumps life long series of insulting and wildly sexist comments on women was, again, “Oh, stop already. Roby. You glorified Hillary during the election, and she is married to a man whose deeds are far, far worse than anything Trump has said. And she stuck by him, defended him and defamed and persecuted the women whom he abused and raped. Not to mention her dearest and closest aide, Huma, now reconciled with her pervert husband, the husband who had access to all of Hillary’s deleted emails.
Cherry-picking some crude language from years ago, really?”
Yeah, that comes pretty close to driving me to the point of not liking you, I admit it. And your equally dismissive and rambling reply to my post of a list of trumps accusers made that even more tempting. You don’t get, or pretend that you don’t get, why this is important and worthy of being wildly angry about.
But, hate the sin and not the sinner. As I have said before, I listened to one of my dearest friends a few months back tell me her putin news brainwashing that lil kim is some poor martyr and I have not changed my opinion of her, I still love her dearly, I just consider that unfortunately the political part of her brain has been hijacked long ago by Soviet and post Soviet Russian propaganda. Brainwashing is effective.
I’ve criticized Jay, even recently and sometimes very strongly. Have you ever criticized Dave or any liberal bashing ally of yours here? You actually seriously complain about the posting of biased links in reference to Jay. And the deluge from Dave, those are nice unbiased links by the thousands? What a one sided Joke your complaints are! This is how you drive me nuts. Cry me a freaking river! You want my respect on political matters? You don’t have it. you could earn it by getting out of your partisan rut!
trump brings it on himself. Dave brings it on himself. You bring it on yourself.
“I don’t like your conservative and GOP partisan political viewpoint, at all, no. It makes my teeth itch. Its a first rate example of the problem that independent moderates could be a part of the solution to if they would ever solidify themselves into something..”
You are free to like or not like whatever you want.
But I am going to disect your remarks anyway.
Conservatism reflects somethings that are true and some that are false. Its merit is in what it incorporates that is true.
Whether it is “partisan” or a “political viewpoint” is meaninglish bibberish.
Again we are in a war over the use of words.
Words have meaning. Partisan means ferverently supporting a position.
You intend the term as an insult – which it is – if the position being taken is false.
Zealously defending “the rule of law” would be “partisan”, It would also be positive rather than negative.
The same thing is true of characterizing something as a “political viewpoint”.
You do that constantly the implication – sometimes stated overty that all viewpoints are somehow equal.
NO THEY ARE NOT.
That nonsense makes Nazi-ism no more than another valid viewpoint.
I would think that wise people – moderates or otherwise would seek the truth.
You and I have no disagreement over many elements of your ideology that are true.
We end up in conflict over those that are quite obviously false and in conflict with the rest.
Is there something wrong with seeking whatever Truth is contained in Priscilla’s expessions ?
Or do you just dismiss it all entirely by calling it a partisan political viewpoint”.
Guess what Roby, almost everything you write is from a “partisan politicial viewpoint”.
Just as everything I write is, and anything that Risk writes is. Even an
“independent moderate” whatever that is is still a partisan political viewpoint.
So what does it take for you to get past all the quite stupid words games and confront issues ?
And BTW your voice is frankly less moderate or independent than mine.
“I believe that Dave is an extremist. Not for no reason. Hannity, Coulture, Limbaugh, extremists in my book. Bernie Sanders and company too.”
Aside from guilt by assocaition – another fallacy, what meaning does this have ?
Galleleo was an extremist, Newton was an extremist, Einstein was an extremist, ……
There is no law of nature that tells us where the truth is to be found. Sometimes it is near one end of a spectrum, sometimes another, sometimes at a specific point in the middle.
Where depends on the facts not the position along the spectrum.
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
I have never studied Hannity, Coultur, Limbaugh or Sanders. At best I am familiar with a carciture of their views. I know enough to know that I do not mostly share them.
What truth does you comparison add ? What does it accomplish beyond associating me with people whose views are clearly not the same as mine ?
Again are you interested in debating ideas ?
Or are you just interested in character assassination ?
Frankly, I doubt you know much about the views of Hannity, Coultur, Limbaugh, ….
Beyond your own caricature. I atleast recognize that I do not know them all that well, and beyond that that there are a few areas I know we do not share common ground.
“I believe that the GOP has been hijacked by extremists and the Dem party as well. You will likely join me in only the 2nd half of that. You have talked about the extreme views of the democrats many times. It is OK to call extreme extreme. Dave calls his own views extreme.”
The GOP is a mixed bag, reflecting many disparate viewpoints.
Over the past two decades the GOP has moved slightly towards the center significantly weakening its positions on culture wars related issues and emphasizing fiscal issues.
The result is still not where I am, but it is a move towards sanity and to be applauded.
During the same period of time the democrats have moved away from the center towards greater statism, greater government, away from fiscal sanity, away from individual liberty, towards socialism.
These observatiosn are my own – but they are confirmed by the recent PEW surveys which have us far more polarized than ever, and primarily because the left has moved even further left.
I do not consider the label “extreme” particularly meaningful.
Is Adam Smith an Extremist ?
John Stuart Mill ?
Milton Friedman,
Thomas Sowell ?
Walter Williams ?
James Buchannon (nobel Economist)
Thoraeux ?
John Locke ?
Ben Franklin ?
Kant ?
Whether my views are labeled “extreme” or not, they are shared by some of the most respected thinkers of history. If that is extreme – I am fine with that.
But for over a century those views were close to the middle, not the extremes.
What is disturbing to me is that you can discard something as “extreme” so that you do not have to bother to figure out whether it is true.
“Yeah, that comes pretty close to driving me to the point of not liking you, I admit it. And your equally dismissive and rambling reply to my post of a list of trumps accusers made that even more tempting. You don’t get, or pretend that you don’t get, why this is important and worthy of being wildly angry about.”
I followed you link regarding “trump accusers” and it came down to more of this rhetorical nonsense. Take away the adjectives and there was no substance to it.
I would not be a hard sell with respect to Trump sexual misconduct – I am predisposed to believe it, yet your link failed.
You talk about partisan and political viewpoints – all it was was adjectives without substance.
Calling conduct brutal does not change the conduct.
Roy Moore is alleged to have stripped to underwear with a 14 year old when he was in his 30’s and only not moved into sex, because she said no.
You can add all kinds of adjectives like “brutal” the story is damning with our without them.
It is Moore’s conduct that is the problem, not how the story is told.
As Joe Friday repeated “Just the facts Maam”
Without spin, “just the facts” make many Trump allegations disappear.
I really do not care about most of the Pagaent releated stuff that absent adjectives sounds like the ordinary conduct of a pagaent judge or promoter.
Trump’s association and fascination with Pagaents is itself disturbing – atleast to me, but past that the paganet allegations add nothing.
That is not to say that there are no credible Trump allegations, or that his own bragging is disturbing – whether he actually did what he said or not.
Regardless, I think you will find when you strip out the rhetorical flourishes, the adjectives, and the “naratives” that weighing and comparing things is much easier.
But you do not seem to be able to do that. Not with respect to allegations against Trump.
Not with respect to much of anything.
“But, hate the sin and not the sinner. As I have said before, I listened to one of my dearest friends a few months back tell me her putin news brainwashing that lil kim is some poor martyr and I have not changed my opinion of her, I still love her dearly, I just consider that unfortunately the political part of her brain has been hijacked long ago by Soviet and post Soviet Russian propaganda. Brainwashing is effective.”
Your own posts come accross the same way – different brainwashing, different hijacker, but still driven by adjectives, rhetorical flourish, fallacy, and emotion, not fact.
For the most part I think people brainwash themselves, rather than being brainwashed by others – particularly in the free world rather than the USSR where disent was a danger to your life.
We brainwash ourselves to fit in among the people ws associate with.
One of my tests of credibility is how divergent is your thought from those arround you.
It is not particularly courageous – or evidence of critical thinking to echo the thought of your friends, coworkers, peers, when you stand up for something that puts you at odds with those arround you – I am more impressed.
Standing all one in your convictions is not proof of their truth. But it is proof that you have not brainwashed yourself to fit in with your surroundings.
It is incredibly difficult to hold views that are not popular. It requires a great deal of self confidence, and it generally requires an excellent understanding of the facts.
I would note that history is rarely changed by concensus, but more often by those boldly saying and then proving that all arround them were wrong.
AS I said, people are highly prone to brainwash themselves.
“I’ve criticized Jay, even recently and sometimes very strongly. Have you ever criticized Dave or any liberal bashing ally of yours here? You actually seriously complain about the posting of biased links in reference to Jay. And the deluge from Dave, those are nice unbiased links by the thousands? What a one sided Joke your complaints are! This is how you drive me nuts. Cry me a freaking river! You want my respect on political matters? You don’t have it. you could earn it by getting out of your partisan rut!”
Do you revel in channeling Mao or Lennin ?
Have you engaged in self criticism today ?
I am glad that you have put some distance between yourself and Jay on the Franken issue.
Overall, Jay is more prone to lob granades than you are, but still typically less extreme.
He is pretty much one note. “Arrgh, Trump!!!!”. If Trump died Jay would have to committ Sepuku as he would have nothing left to live for.
Regardless, I have REPEATEDLY stated the most dangerous ideology today is that of the left.
While I occaisonally criticise the right. Hell, everyone here has found me critical of them at one point or another. Ron and I are the closest ideologically and we have had long critical exchanged.
But these do not usually get hostile. Nor do those I have with Priscilla.
Why ? In large part because their arguments are that – arguments, right or wrong, they are still arguments, not fallacies, not appeals to emotions in particular.
With or without tRUMP around, you’d still be making enough asinine statement to lob a bucket full of grenades at daily.
And if you admit tRUMP is a subpar morally deficient human (or haven’t you concluded that?) why don’t you loudly call him out for those specific instances when he acts like a jerk, as you’re prone to do for the Left?
Even fed up Conservative Fox broadcasters are starting to speak against Donald Dunce’s unpresidential behavior, why not you? (Let the rationalizations begin…)
https://secondnexus.com/news/watch-neil-cavuto-donald-trump-youtube-twitter-video/
Jay;
I have called Trump out on the most serious matters of character.
Just because I do not hold exactly the same view of every action of Trump that you do, doesn’t mean I think he is a superhero.
Separately, I get to choose what matters to me.
As I have said myriads of times, the most important threat to our individual liberty TODAY is the left, not Trump.
This country has a cancer that will lead to our destruction if unchecked.
Trump is a boil or heartburn.
We need to treat the cancer.
Further, while Trump is flawed, possibly deeply flawed, and wrong on numerous policy issues.
Exactly the same can be said of the past several presidents.
I was not frothing at the mouth over any of them.
I have opposed, Clinton, Bush, and Obama where they needed to be opposed
And supported them when I could,
With lots of things falling into the middle.
Many here talk about my “extremism” and yet, I am more capable of being objective about current and past presidents than most of you. I do not have to gyrate between full throated support and frothing at the mouth rejection.
As president Trump would get a C+ or B- from me – that would be based on his ACTIONS.
That would be a better grade than Bush or Obama.
Clinton is more difficult.
Though the comparison to Trump is quite Apt. Clinton was a pretty good president – particularly domestically. He was also a very bad person.
I know this may be hard for you, but it is possible to loath what there is to be loathed in someone, while crediting them with what they are entitled to credit for.
Obama and Bush appear to have been among the best people to be president since Carter.
But they were both poor presidents.
Anyway, I am not here to make you happy.
I get to make my own choices regarding who and what I denounce and when.
I do not follow Fox, so I have no idea where they stand with respect to Trump, nor do I care.
I do not follow others lead in forming my own opinions or chosing my values.
I am not a part of any of the “tribes”.
I do not have to condemn or support based on tribal membership.
For a very long time. I spent alot of effort trying to find links that would be taken credibly by someone on the left – links to WaPo or NYT.
And with enough effort I can almost always find what I am looking for.
Even the left is not entirely blind to the truth, they are just sometimes blind to the fact that it contradicts their ideology.
But it is a huge amount of work.
Further the best people reporting on various issues are not often in WaPo or NYT.
Andrew McCarthy is probably the best informed writer there is on Trump/Russia collusion and the legal issues. workings of DOJ, FBI, …
And he typically writes for NRO.
Further McCarthy is no Trump lover.
More and more I am linking to cartoons and quotes – because you are not listening to me anyway,
and because as they say a picture is worth a thousand words.
“trump brings it on himself. Dave brings it on himself. You bring it on yourself.”
Absolutely!
Trump and the media deserve each other.
I challenge you – constantly, and everyone else here to think critically.
I push and you push back.
That is fine.
My complaint is that you do not make arguments, not that you push back.
Defend what you believe with facts, logic, reason, argument.
Not adjectives, naratives, emotions, and fallacy.
“You evade me on the substance of what I am saying and instead keep repeating the same accusations.”
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to do that, Roby. Here is what I think is the substance of what you are saying. You can verify that I’ve got it, or, if you would, please clarify where I’m going off the rails:
You believe that Donald Trump is a disgusting groper, who lacks the character to be president. You believe that the Access Hollywood tape proved this, and that all of the women who accused him of what he bragged about were telling the truth. Therefore, you have lost respect for anyone who believes otherwise. I know that you said at one point that you have no sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump,, because I recall that I responded that I was not looking for sympathy. You said that I knew how bad he was, but still voted for him, and that was a bad thing, or that it reflected badly on me personally (can’t remember which).
Is that a fair summary? I don’t want either of us to keep going over and over the same points, but I genuinely need some clarification (Jay would say that it’s because I’m a deluded, moronic tRUMPanzee, but I think somewhat more highly of my abilities than that, so help me out here 😉 )
“You believe that Donald Trump is a disgusting groper, who lacks the character to be president. You believe that the Access Hollywood tape proved this, and that all of the women who accused him of what he bragged about were telling the truth. ”
Yes. Also that his crude public attitude towards women and his trophy wife who exactly fits his words about a young beautiful piece of ass (her, I just feel terribly sorry for BTW) make him unfit. Along with many other things.
“Therefore, you have lost respect for anyone who believes otherwise.”
No, not so clear cut as that. I can lose, how can I put it, sympathy perhaps, respect too with someone’s political point of view without losing my respect for them outside of political questions ( If I don’t talk about politics with them endlessly and keep getting labeled as an unprinciple left wing barbarian as Dave likes to call me). Then I just avoid talking about politics with them and carry on my normal other business with them, in the world of real people I know. I know quite a few like this!
“I know that you said at one point that you have no sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump,, because I recall that I responded that I was not looking for sympathy. You said that I knew how bad he was, but still voted for him, and that was a bad thing, or that it reflected badly on me personally (can’t remember which).”
I may have said that but I have also said that 45% of the voters choose him for different reasons and I am not going to just throw out 45% of the country as heartless fools. I have, I will admit, more sympathy for rednecks who choose him than for educated people. I can live perfectly well with the “he was the lessor of two evils (how I choose Hillary)” explanation. I just grit my teeth with the further explanations that he is really a basically good sane decent qualified man. And then smoke starts to come out of my ears after many rounds of that.
When an well educated person tells me trump is somewhat heroic, complains that the opposition to him is practically illegitimate and is best characterized by its worst actors, tells me the trumps degrading comments about women are nothing relevant, and that people who do find them relevant are just trying to overthrow an election, then my political relationship with that person is ill fated and my not-long fuse may burn down and I can start sending off fireworks.
Let me try it another way Priscilla. You have kept your liberal friends from your previous life as a liberal. Do you tell them that that opposition to trump is an unseemly rabble of violent lefties, that trumps behavior and remarks with women are just some crude ancient remarks, etc? Do you talk to them at all honestly about your present political opinions?
If not, why not? Would they freak out? Judge you? Do you ever judge people yourself?
I have seen families separated (I mean through anger) and friends lost across the former Soviet Union over opinions about the invasion of Ukraine. There is a reason why people say not to talk about religion or politics with friends. That is all we do here, and it is not easy, in fact in trumps time it may just not be wise!
Although you are more “partisan” – i.e. you beleive every bad thing about Trump and other republicans with little in the way of evidence , and disbelieve nearly every similar allegation against Hillary and other democrats. Aside from that “partisan” hypocracy, we are not so far apart.
Had Hillary been elected there would have been some Republicans questioning her legitimacy.
We certainly would have seen endless congressional investigation – though no special prosecutor.
I am not sure if her far greater support from Russia would have managed to leak our – Clintons ties to Russia have only become more clarified and exposed as a consequence of investigation into Trump.
Regardless, had Clinton been elected there would have been all the same reasons to question here legitimacy and then some as their are about Trump. And there would have been a tiny number of Republicans who did – just as there were with Obama and Bush.
But there would have been nothing like what we currently have now – despite the fact that pretty much every charge against Trump has an even more credible matching charge against Clinton.
Had Clinton been elected – Republicans would have been “out to get her” just as democrats are “out to get” Trump. But everyone including the right would have accepted her as President until they could build the case necescary to impeach her.
There would not have been myriads of people threatening to leave the country, or mock Clinton beheadings, or public prayers that she had a stroke or that she was assassinated, There would not be constant public fretting that she might nuke some country out of the blue – despite the fact that she is a far more credible war monger than Trump.
The markets jumped when Trump was elected – that means they had already factored in the probability of a Clinton victory and determined that a Trump victory was an economic improvement.
I do not know how Clinton would have handled North Korea. I do not think anyone knows how to handle north korea.
Clinton already has a reputation for her dealings in the mid-east – and it is bad. We can expect things in the mideast to be worse not better. Clinton was a horrible Secretary of State, I think we can expect that in a Clinton presidency foreign affairs would have been worse.
Economically she is incompent to the point of retarded. We were headed towards recession before the election, I think we would now be in the middle of a serious recesssion.
WE have had 3 quarters of relatively strong economic growth – and the only consequenctial economic reform Trump has managed has been to put the brakes on federal regulation.
Either you must beleive that the gains since Trump were inevitable – despite the fact that 2016 was headed towards recession, or that they are in anticipation of things that have not yet happened, or they are a consequence of the little Trump has actually done.
And the only significant economic thing Trump has actually done is reduce the rate of growth of federal regulation.
I think the evidence is compelling that the changed regulatory environment is the driving force in the economy right now.
I would note that we are finally seeing improvements in wages
The very people who Clinton and the left pander to, are the ones benefitting the most from Trump.
Anyway, my point is that A clinton presidency would have been worse than a Trump presidency,
and would have had at least as good a reasons to question its legitimacy, and yet, though it likely would have been acrimonious, it would not have been close to what we have now.
The difference is NOT in the flaws in the candidates. It is in the differences between the left and the rest of us. The left is far more blind to the flaws in its own and far more willing to see the flaws in others.
All politics drowns in hypocracy – but the left is far more hypocritical than the right.
That is not conjecture. It is self evident. The response of the left to Trump’s election is evidence.
We can criticize Trump for days – it is easy. But he is NOT the worst president we have had.
Thus far he is doing reasonably well considering. – significantly better than Bush and Obama.
Even if you accept all Roby’s allegations against Trump as True,
We must still confront the reality of Hillary Clinton.
Nearly all the scandals of the Clinton presidency had Hillary at the center. Ken Starr was frustrated because his investigations nearly always lead to Hillary not Bill.
But specifically focussed on the areas of Sexual misconduct.
Hillary enabled Bill, There can be zero doubt that she knew what was occuring, but Hillary did not step back in the shadows suffering in silence, She lead the charge to destroy his accusers – knowing that they were telling the truth. Not only did she do that – but she continues to do so to this day. Recently interviewed and pressed on Bill’s misconduct, she continually asserted that all allegations against him lacked credibility – women are to be believed – unless they make claims against Bill Clinton. But it is much worse than she did not publicly beleive any of these women, but she publicly attacked them. And she privately invaded their lives – the Clinton hired detectives and investigators to hound these women and to drive them underground and to threaten them.
And none of the above touches on the myriads of other misconducts of Hillary.
While I do not “beleive” that most of Trump’s accusers associated with his involvement in Pagaent’s are offering us much more than Trump ran Pagaents and expected those in them to conform to the expectations of a pagaent. At the same time I am dubious about electing someone who is so fixated on beauty pagaents.
I take the actual workplace claims against him more serious – and there are far fewer of those.
Well, just as a minor point, I have many liberal friends, with whom I’ve become friends since I’ve been more conservative. I do live in NJ, after all. I would say that most all of my friends know that I voted for Trump ~ some of them almost voted for Trump themselves, but ended up going with Hillary or not voting at all. Since the election, I rarely talk politics with these friends, because 1) our friendships are based on other interests/activities and 2) we all know that politics is divisive, especially these days, so we keep that out of our interactions. I have a very liberal brother-in-law, a fairly well-known actor/director from LA, with whom I would never discuss politics, because he is a very virtue-signaling, holier-than-thou Hollywood type, who, ironically is about the last person on earth from whom I would take moral advice. We get along very well, he avoids his anti-Trump tirades at family events (sticks to Facebook) and I ignore his snarky comments about Trump~ unless they’re funny ( Trump is easy to make fun of, I can see that). He knows very little of history anyway, and gets all of his news from places like Vox, HuffPo, and MSNBC.
With my longtime, closer friends, of course I tell them why I support Trump. I have never, ever thought or said that anti-Trumpers are an “unseemly rabble of violent lefties,” or that “trumps behavior and remarks with women are just some crude ancient remarks.” My very closest friend is a lifelong Democrat who voted for Hillary. She even went on the pink pussy hat march.
My position is that politics is, by its nature and purpose, divisive, but people should not allow it to become the focus of their relationships. I’m obviously not friendly with anyone like Jay, who openly despises anyone who voted for Trump, but, other than my BIL, I haven’t into that many people who are so closed-minded.
And, yes, I do sometimes judge people, but not generally based on their politics. It’s just not worth losing friends over politics, not in my mind anyway.
We have been playing a mostly tit-for-tat game of escalation for a long time.
Placing blame on a specific party is difficult – do we go back to Bush I ?, Reagan ?, Nixon ?, or all the way to Wilson ? Or even further ?
Politics is a form of war. The unfortunate bad news is real values are merely a tool for the parties. Neither the Republicans or Democrats stand for anything beyond winning power.
That is not to say that no democrats or republicans have values, but do not presume the parties as a whole stand for anything, or that the party conflicts are about anything but party advantage.
Again that does nto mean there is no truth in what is sometimes said – Truth is a powerful weapon, but so is deceit. Regardless, the game for republicans and democrats is power.
Alot of the “attacks” on Clinton were driven by anger over Clarence Thomas and Nixon.
I beleive Anita Hill, but Clarence Thomas looks like a saint compared to all the rest of these people.
In terms of domestic and economic policy Clinton was a very good president.
But it is increasingly evident that Bill Clinton really is a sexual predator, and that Hillary is a Crook.
Alot of people on the left are having 2nd thoughts about Bill Clinton.
A major part of the problem on the left is that “the ends justify the means” is dogma.
That is what needs rethought. I do not care whether you are left or right, if you are willing to use or excuse illegal or immoral means to achieve some hoped for good ends – you will fail.
The corruption of the process ensures the corruption of the results.
Somewhat missing from this 2nd look at Bill Clinton is a 2nd look at Hillary. Not only did she enable and facilitate Bill’s sexual predation, but she was far more tied into the actual non-sexual criminal misconduct than he.
The right has its own problems, and Clinton bashing is cheap – though deserved.
But at this moment the left is more adrift and rudderless than the right.
The right can not come together to repeal Obamacare – but it can agree on the necescity of doing so, just not the mechanix. Maybe it will do better on Tax Reform – maybe not. Still the fights on the right at the moment are about details and about the relative power of factions, and about how to incorporate Trump into the NeverTrump GOP. It is awkward, but the GOP is in no danger of imploding.
Democrats at the moment are united only by their hatred of Trump and their avoidance of looking at the causes of their own failure. They are in serious danger of making themselves irrelevant.
The far left is moving farther left, and the party as a whole is increasingly in the hands of the far left.
The entire party is both hopefull and terrified as 2018 approaches.
Northam demonstrated that Democrats can still win elections.
But Northam is a moderate democrat.
History favors Democrats in 2018. But many many other things do not.
We are a year into Trump Derangement Syndrome, People are increasingly tired of it – it was stale long long ago. Contra the “Drippers” the more that comes out the weaker this is. Reality is just not so impressive as the hypothetical conspiracy. Equally or more importantly ever more comes out with respect to Clinton and the Obama Administration.
If the economy continues to strengthen – which is increasingly likely, and Trump Derangement Syndrome continues to burn everyone out, 2018 could easily go strongly counter Trend.
Democrats remain disorganized, without a message, and without any understanding of why they lost in 2016 and what they need to do about it.
The current explosion of evident that sexual misconduct pervades our society is a huge tangent. I am not sure how it effects the politics – whether it favors Republicans, Trump, or Democrats.
Nor am I sure that I care. Mostly it is harmful to both parties. Further it is long overdue.
Though hopefully the response will match the problem rather than creating new problems.
We need to address this problem of sexual Harrassment and worse. But the solution is not more government, more laws – we have plenty of laws. Roy Moore could have been convicted easily at the time of his actions on the laws in place at that time – had someone cared to go after Roy Moore. The left is begining to grasp that Clinton should have resigned.
Possibly the most important facet of the recent explosion of MeToo stories is that Social Media is providing the means to more safely “come out” and to expose the perpitrators.
Every misdeed does not require a jail sentence, or lifetime registration, but it does require consequences.
One of the greatest problems in our society is the conspiracy of silence arround actual wrong doing. Whether in our police or government or in our businesses, whether it is secual misconduct or other forms.
Contra those on the left – free people in a free society are perfectly capable of massive amounts of self regulation – so long as bad conduct is not kept secret.
Below are Bill Clinton’s presidential approval ratings for his 8 years. Its horseshit that it was merely “the left” or democrats that were willing to overlook his personal character. He left office flirting with 70% approval. He was that popular for years afterward. It made me ill, but its a fact. There were democrats and liberals and lefties, like me, who abandoned him and there were obviously conservatives who thought he did a good job as president because the debt came down. Blaming acceptance of Clinton’s sleazy nature with women on the democrats is a narrative and its oversimplified crap.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
Wow, So it is acceptable for the left to turn a blind eye to Clinton’s conduct – if enough others do ?
That is like Roy Moore having a 70% approval.
“So it is acceptable for the left to turn a blind eye to Clinton’s conduct – if enough others do ?
I said it made me ill. I did not say it was acceptable
No Blaming Clinton on democrats and the left is not “oversimplified Crap”.
To get 70% aaproval, Clinton would have had to have near 100% approval from democrats and the left.
Excellent graph, it proves my point. Clinton had 40% approval from Republicans and 65% approval by moderates at the end of his term. As well, those numbers were almost exactly the same at the end of his term as they were at the end of 1998, when the House filed impeachment charges.
100% approval by democrats would have gotten him on the order of 30% approval overall, lacking the approval of conservatives and moderates. I said the narrative that blames the high approval of Clinton on the democrats is over simplified. My point has been proven, and thanks for your help!
The fact that 40% of republicans and some slightly larger portion of moderates approved is disturbing.
But far more disturbing is that near 100% of democrats approved of a president who lied under oath and sexually harrassed, assaulted, and raped women.
While we get a somewhat similar situation with Trump in reverse today – a tiny percent of democrats approve, and enormous percentages of republicans approve,
And that partisan polarizarion is disturbing.
More disturbing is that Trump’s support is weaker, despite the fact that his conduct was far LESS egregious.
“More disturbing is that Trump’s support is weaker, despite the fact that his conduct was far LESS egregious.”
So, you want trumps support among GOP voters to be stronger in spite of his attitude towards women? Its disturbing that it isnt?
Weird weird weird.
Clinton did what he did covertly. trump does what he does overtly. We will find out all the details over time about everything trump has done, there are more shoes to drop. What is known already is beyond disgusting and WAY beyond Franken.
The PUTUS is a proud loud bragging obnoxious sexual predator and that drives “the left” nuts, but not the most of the right.
Now if you are really the champion of women you claim to be why are you bashing the people who have it right, which is every single person, left, center or conservative who believe a pig like trump should not be president? Can you get off you crusade against “the left” for long enough to stop defending trump as a mere sexual harasser? He is a sexual predator, its clear beyond clear. Yeah, you didn’t vote for him, great. You have twisted yourself into a pretzel here defending him and attacking his critics.
Your hatred of the left blinds you to other issues, reflexively you just put stomping on the left above all.
“So, you want trumps support among GOP voters to be stronger in spite of his attitude towards women? Its disturbing that it isnt?”
No, I want democrats to hold rapists in at least as low a regard as republicans hold sexual harassers.
I want both sides to quit this nonsense of misconduct by my tribe is acceptable, but not by the other.
Both sides have this problem – big time.
But the polls fairly effectively demonstrate that democrats are actually even more hypocritical than republicans.
I am neither so it is no skin off my teeth either way.
But the evidence shows that Republicans are more likely to hold their own to higher standards of conduct than democrats.
Republicans are not perfect about this, or fully consistent, and decades of democrats getting away with incredible misconduct towards women is erroding even republican moral values.
But still democrats are more likely to overlook the misconduct to their own.
That is likely because all democratic values are fungible – those on the left have no principles only a disjoint collection of values. There is no clear true and false or right and wrong for those on the left, EVERYTHING is situational and relative. While the rest of us, have core principles, some things are just wrong, or nearly always wrong, or wrong absent very clear justification.
We do not get into this bizzare calculus that purportedly keeping Abortion legal can be ballenced against some large number of blow jobs int he oval office.
“That is likely because all democratic values are fungible – those on the left have no principles only a disjoint collection of values. There is no clear true and false or right and wrong for those on the left, EVERYTHING is situational and relative. While the rest of us, have core principles, some things are just wrong, or nearly always wrong, or wrong absent very clear justification.”
As I knew you would, you proved my point. Your words on the left are the nonsense opinion of a blinded man. The number of hypocrites on the right about the sexual behaviors and crimes of their own has been loudly on parade this year. You simply are so obsessed with your crusade on “the left” and are willing and able to bend yourself into a pretzel creating a narrative to any event where the left are terrible and others are just humans of good intent. Fail, again.
I am one of your targets. Expect me to call your all-encompassing rants on the left crap, because they are the obsessive crap of an obsessively ideologically blinded mind. Go ahead, poor boy, wail and weep about my so-called ad hominems. If you don’t like my posts don’t read em. If you don’t like my style, tough shit.
“As I knew you would, you proved my point. Your words on the left are the nonsense opinion of a blinded man. The number of hypocrites on the right about the sexual behaviors and crimes of their own has been loudly on parade this year. You simply are so obsessed with your crusade on “the left” and are willing and able to bend yourself into a pretzel creating a narrative to any event where the left are terrible and others are just humans of good intent. Fail, again.”
1). I am STILL not on the right.
2). Until Trump, I can not think of a single republican who has politically survived the kind of revalations that Trump has. I can list innumerable democrats.
Misconduct appears to be common to both parties. I am not sure we have a basis for determining whether it is more common on the left than the right.
But until 2016 it was near always fatal on the right if exposed, and almost never on the left.
That is hypocracy – not of the perpitrators – but of the ordinary people on the left, who are prepared to tolerate pretty severe sexual misconduct from members of their own tribe.
Of course I am obsessed with the left – they are both the more dangerous and more hypocritcal.
What have Republicans done since Trump took office to decrease our individual liberty ?
Trump and republicans have spent most of the past year, trying and mostly failing to dismantle the infringements on liberty of the prior administration.
Where Trump seriously threatens individual liberty – I will join you.
But even in the instances he tweets something authorarian and stupid – he does nto have the power to back it up.
The FCC is not going to review media ownership, in fact FCC chair Ajit Pai is more likely to dismantle the FCC if he could. Something I support and credit Trump for putting him there.
“I am one of your targets. Expect me to call your all-encompassing rants on the left crap, because they are the obsessive crap of an obsessively ideologically blinded mind. Go ahead, poor boy, wail and weep about my so-called ad hominems. If you don’t like my posts don’t read em. If you don’t like my style, tough shit.”
You are the most prominent exponent of leftism on this blog. Of course you are my prime target.
I have said repeatedly at this time the left is the greatest danger to our society today.
I am not at all blind with respect to the failure of your ideology.
There is no ideololgy ever that has failed so consistently and so harmfully.
What is disturbing is after a century of collosal and bloody failure of leftism of all kinds, not only are so many like you still selling it, but you are all so ignorant of its flaws and failures.
Stupid Dems almost always forgave Bill for his stuff against women and Hillary’s “brave defense of her husband”. Same with the trumpers now. Our only hope are the folks on the margins, including moderates on both sides, and real independents, both hopefully growing in number.
Meantime, Moore should lose if we have any decency left in America.
Moore should lose.
Trump Should have lost.
Hillary should have lost.
Bill should have lost.
What should happen rarely does.
More independents and moderates supported Bill Clinton than Republicans.
Expecting independents and moderates to save us is a false hope.
Hillary did lose.
When you shake your head do you hear a rattling noise?
A part of my point was that it was nearly impossible for what should have happened to happen.
Both Trump and Clinton were unlikely to lose.
We were going to be stuck with one of that.
Republicans get the Blame for advancing Trump to the general election.
Democrats get the blame for advancing Hillary.
I did not vote for either.
I have never voted for any person Republican or democrat where there have been serious questions about their integrity, or their conduct towards women.
The Moore emergency followed by the Franken revelations is bringing trump into a more precarious state regarding his own skeletons. trump is playing with fire attacking Franken but remaining silent on Moore.
Clinton managed to get impeached over his sexual conduct while being otherwise a very popular president. trump only has conservatives on his side and not all of them either.
I still think impeachment is a long shot but it may be getting closer.
We agree!
Trump should Shut up about Moore and Franken!! No one should want to hear what he has to say about either. I certainly don’t.
Clinton is far more complex.
SCOTUS should not have allowed the Paula Jones lawsuit to proceed while Clinton was President.
There were several real criminal claims against Clinton.
He lied under oath. There is no lying about sex with an intern exception to perjury.
Ross Douhat’s column notes that the obstruction of justice charges stem from his use of Arkansas State troopers in both his daliances and his coverup of those daliances and that phone records demonstrate that continuing right up to his inauguration.
Trump will near certainly be impeached – and likely removed if you manage to come up with an actual serious crime on his – particularly while in office.
Based on what has been dug up over the past two years – that is not going to happen.
I would also note that a part of Clinton’s popularity is because he took James Carville’s assertion “its the economy stupid” to heart.
Trump appears to be doing the same.
The probability moving forward increasingly is:
There will be a few more of these meaningless Russia connections – some other inconsequential person attemption and failing in interactions with Russia. Possibly more of this nonsense where someone more important failed to note that someone tangential to the campaign notified them of of something meaningless regarding Russia.
There is not going to be anything of substance for several reasons:
If there actually was it would have visible effects. i.e If Trump got useful dirt on Clinton it would have been used.
If there was there would not have been some many failures with respect to Russia continuing late in the game. i.e. If Trump was coordinating With Putin in January 2016 as he would likely have had to to be tied to the DNC hacking, then there would not have been all these lower level failures. Why would Papadoulos have been allowed to talk to a fake russian in England if there was already a high level Channel to Putin ?
Almost anything that could actually arrise is not something people are going to buy as improper collusion. No Trump voter thinks they were decieved into voting for Trump by russian facebook adds. To convert the Russian social media claims into something meaningful, you have to persuade alot of Trump voters, that they were duped by Russians – good luck with that.
So ultimately people will get bored of this. And this is very dangerous to democrats.
The left has spent enormous energy fueling this outrage, if it fizzles – what motivates voters next ?
The left is demoralizing its own voters, the level of frenzy over Trump can only be maintained so long, either the left must succeed, or it will fizzle.
Last the economy continues to improve. Absent some new major crisis, that will be the primary effect on future voters.
The only way President CrapHead will be impeached is if Dems control Congress.
Even if CrapHead’s taxes are released, and show some egregious deceit on his part (like money laundering for Russians, or sexual harassment payoffs) Republican Politics will muddy the charges, and nothing will happen to him while in office. If something serious emerges that could threaten him after the presidency, he’ll work out a deal with the VP to resign in exchange for pardons for him & Family.
We have been over this before related to the Mueller Manafort indictments.
Money laundering requires an actual underlying crime.
There is none in manafort’s case and therefore that part of the indictment is likely to fail – even thought it sounds the most egregious.
What Mueller is trying to call money laundering is actually tax evasion, and Mueller likely did not charge that for two reasons, Manafort settled with the IRS sometime ago, and Mueller can not re-open that, and the statute of limitations for tax evasion expired.
All the same things would be true regarding Trump.
To get Trump on money laundering, the money has to be the proceeds of a crime.
The US has little jurisdiction over Trump’s actions outside the US,
So any crime would have to be a russian crime, and if there was money laundering it would be a violation of Russian not US law.
I am sure Trump’s tax returns would provide fodder for the left to further whigg out.
But without getting incredibly creative they will not provide evidence of crimes.
Trump has an army of lawyers and accountants. It is likely he does little more than sign his tax return. These lawyers and accountants would be personally liable, and likely criminally complicit if Trump’s tax return’s covered up crimes.
Trump does nto have to work out a deal for pardon’s.
He already has to power to pardon himself and anyone else of FEDERAL CRIMES.
Pardoning oneself has already been done before.
Nixon did not pardon himself because he did not beleive he committed a crime.
But neither Trump nor Pence can pardon Trump of state crimes or those in another country.
Well well well – Leanne likes to pinch male butt without permission.
Lock her up!
https://twitter.com/i_am_here_still/status/932630276798283776
So you are using an example where two people CLEARLY make a free choice to engage in conduct with one where they do not ?
You are completely clueless.
The issue is not that Franken stuck his tongue in Tweeden’s mouth.
It is not that he grabbed her breasts.
It is that he violated her right to make her own CHOICE.
You keep going back to she kissed other soldiers.
I do not know whether those were “soul kisses” or not – but it does nto matter.
They and She made a free choice.
The same with this clip.
Even Franken is not arguing that Tweeden consented to have her breasts groped or his tongue in her mouth.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/al-franken-inappropriate-touch-2010/index.html
What Franken said: “I respect women. I don’t respect men who don’t. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed,” he said in a statement. “I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences.
Ok, where’s the third, or more woman? It may be that Franken is a little too frisky.
But, so far, I would not advocate any “throw him out” talk or action.
Dduck “But, so far, I would not advocate any “throw him out” talk or action.”
That is one of the problems with our permissive society today. There are too many “no further actions” when people do something wrong. From shop lifting to sexual assault and most anything in between, your fine if its ” the first time”.
Yes, I categorize this as sexual assault, just as I would consider it SA if a woman walked up and grabbed my junk. Private parts are just that and Franken is just as guilty as anyone else grabbing private parts.
So what would you do to a young man in high school who feels up a sleeping classmate on a bus coming home from a field trip and who takes a picture of it taking place?
I am more interested in what people do, than what they say.
There is now a Third Women, and maybe there will be more.
I am not advocating “throwing Franken out”,
Though I would suggest that if we wish to stop this kind of conduct, there must be consequences.
So Dave “I am not advocating “throwing Franken out”,”
Whats your line in the congressional floor that has to be crossed over before they are sent packing?
My preference would be to see misconduct exposed and the perpitrators resign.
After that I would prefer voters decide.
The specifics of the conduct are relevant too.
Some of this conduct is actually criminal – that should be prosecuted.
But much of it is not.
You noted that 17M has been spent in 20 years in congressional sexual harrassment claims.
There are very very very few reasons that I beleive that any aspect of government can be secret from the public – this is not one of those.
These records need to be made public.
To the greatest extent possible where crimes are not involved I would prefer that government no impose consequences.
Though there are complexities there too. Actual government employees can and should be fired.
We need to change3 things such that government employees are easier to fire.
Elected officials are different, they are primarily responsilble to voters.
Short of a criminal conviction or a personal choice to resign – I think that the ability of government to discipline elected officials is limited.
I hope that Roy Moore loses.
From what I can tell, I unfortunately hope Jones loses too.
I do not think that is going to happen.
Regardless, I do not have all the answers.
But I do believe that bringing things out to the public is the first step.
I agree with your comment that the voters should decide. But they may not be able to decide for 4 years in Minnesota. I believe that is the case I believe he was reelected in 2014, so that means his term ends in January 2021. They will have to wait and by that time some other scandal will have taken place and he will have been forgotten about. And this is what any politician wants when he gets caught with his hands in the cookie jar or worse.
I think the house does not need to do much because those guys are only elected for 2 years and by the time any evidence is confirmed, they will have come up for reelection and the voters could decide. But I think the senate could include in their rules certain criteria for behaviors, just like employers with contracts with higher level positions, where violation of those standards would lead to expulsion and the need for the governor to send a replacement until the next special election. If the person violating standards wanted to run and be reelected, then the voters will have spoken and the senate should seat them until the next problem arises.
I can not just push this aside like Jay and say there is nothing to it. And I bet if Franken was a “Cruz right” conservative, he would be yelling for expulsion as loud as he is yelling for Trumps impeachment. There is no place for politics when it comes to inappropriate sexual behavior.
I understand what you are saying.
Like I said – I do not have all the answers.
Even those I do have do not guarantee a good outcome all the time.
Just better than anything else.
I understand that Franken might not face voters for a while, and by then their anger might fade.
Roy Moore might well get elected – though that seems in doubt.
Trump did get elected.
Freedom, trusting people, does nto always produce the outcome we want, or hope for.
But nothing else does better.
Atleast if the power of government is limited the damage the assholes can do is also limited.
Trump may well be one of the worst people we have had as president.
But he will be far from the worst president we have had.
Amost exactly the same can be said of Bill Clinton.
Ron you are leaving out one important item: a flack jacket. I’m not making excuses for him but just as a fact he felt a flack jacket, not a breast, and he did it for photographic purposes, clowning, inappropriately. Its definitely harassment and the worst of the harassing act ilies in sharing the picture with her but I would not call this assault. As well, this appears to be the world they were living in on the USO tour, all of them acting raunchy. Part of being a celebrity appears to be the delusion that everyone loves you.
If someone grabs the area of your junk but you are wearing a suit of armour at the time, its not for sexual purposes.
It appears he grabbed some lady’s butt during a photo, that is much more of a real case of getting some little sexual thrill at someone’s expense. In front of her husband apparently. These rich famous people are just out of their minds, high on celebrity.
The youngest billionaire in the world (at the time) moved with his family into the ski town where my kids went to high school. He was in my daughter’s class. Went around quite literally grabbing girls a la trump. Took his friends by private helicopter to his family’s private island on weekends. Never got disciplined for the grabbing. Had a playmate girlfriend, beat her up. Family owned Pabst brewing among other companies. Name of Metropolis. Now he owns the Playboy mansion. the same world trump inhabits. I hit him in the head with a snowball during a ski day once, he had no idea where it came from. A small. tiny little act of defiance by my peon self for his grabby hands. My daughter was there and was duly proud of me.
This is really interesting. I argue with more progressive friends that marijuana should not be illegal and states should be allowed to do whatever they want with those laws. A more open position on the issue. They take the other position and say it should be illegal and regulated. So now, I am in a debate where I say any touching in inappropriate places should be illegal and harassment, and many people are saying that the flake jacket makes a difference and it was not inappropriate behavior. A much more open position on sexual issues.
Seems like I am a totally screwed up individual as few have the same thinking I have. I am almost 100% different from those that think it is inappropriate and not inappropriate when it comes to other issues facing the country.
Just call me the confused Libertarian.
Ron.
Your positions are close to consistent – your friends are not.
The only force involved in Marijuana is that of government.
We are not arguing about dealers forcing people to buy or smoke joints.
What you advocate for regarding marijuana is all consensual at every step of the way.
With sexual harrassment or assault we are discussing non-consensual private conduct.
No one is arguing that Franken can not french kiss a willing woman, or grab a willing woman’s breasts.
The entire debate centers arround consent.
People should be free to engage in whatever consensual conduct they wish, short of actually harming others.
Dave “Your positions are close to consistent – your friends are not.”
And that was my point.
If someone wants to smoke, that is their choice. They are not harming anyone. They are not making anyone else smoke. Now if they are in a field where high mental acuity is required and they show up stoned, then they are harming or could harm someone else and they should be fired. If they drive they could harm someone and they should be charged.
And then those that have done things like we are hearing in congress or what Trump, Clinton and others were accused of, some people are saying that some or all of them should not face consequences. But they harmed someone, maybe not physically, but mentally.
That why I keep asking where the line is and no one will answer (maybe because they don’t want to say “any sexual misconduct” or they don’t want to say what they think is allowable sexual misconduct)
I start with the use of force to infringe on the rights of others.
That is nearly always wrong – whether there is harm or not.
I am not a utilitarian.
Franken used force. Not much, but still force.
Actual harm comes next – real physical harm, not psychological harm.
Psychological harms are last, and I am inclinded to discount them as much as possible – not because I do not beleive in psychological harms, but because they are messy, and the world is not a particularly friendly place.
I care about what others feel, but I am not prepared to use force to punish a third party over hurt feelings,. no matter how real.
I have tried to answer you regarding where lines are.
There is not “one line”.
Boorish conduct, sexual harrassment, sexual assault and rape are each different and have different consequences.
The use of force is more consequential than actual harm, and actual harm is more consequential than psychological harm.
The use of force, and actual harm fall into the realm of government to punish.
Other things are punished by society (not government) .
The flak jacket is being left out because it is not significant.
There are two reported incidents here.
The first is the non-consensual tongue in mouth. That is the more serious allegation.
That is a minor sexual assault or a major sexual harrassment.
Trump has bragged about doing the same – and it may be more than braggadocio.
With respect to the “breast grab” – that was photographed, in fact it appears to be posed.
I do not know whether Franken actually grabbed anything. I do not know whether the flak jacket had its ceramic inserts. I do not think any of that matters much.
I do not think Frankens purpose was personal sexual gratification.
I think his purpose was to demean Tweeden.
To show that he was in control and she was not.
A clarification to this:
“the worst of the harassing act ilies in sharing the picture with her ”
After rereading her widely reported remarks about the incidents with Franken, she says she discovered the photo herself:
“It wasn’t until I was back in the US and looking through the CD of photos we were given by the photographer that I saw this one:”
He didn’t show it to her for malicious reasons…
http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-tweeden-on-senator-al-franken/
“He didn’t show it to her for malicious reasons…”
Excuses, excuses. You keep justifying his continued serving in the senate. At least the liberal left will support your position.
Im pointing out THIS particular instance is OVERBLOWN, and Franken is getting TOO MUCH criticism for it. The photo wa NO BIG DEAL HE PRETENDED TO GROPE HER. The tongue kiss was gross and inappropriate, But again NO BIG DEAL. Men AND woman do it frequently, without asking permission. Franken apologized. She accepted the apology. Suggesting that’s serious sexual misconduct and he resign for it is STUPID.
Jay, my last comment on this subject.
“Suggesting that’s serious sexual misconduct and he resign for it is STUPID.”
How about lets not call each other stupid. How about “over reaction” kind of like your excessive postings to links about Trump that say the same thing about him.
As for the Franken issue, kids have been kicked out of high schools for less than this. Would you call the schools stupid for the rules they have?
Franken is attracting more attention because he is a larger hypocrite.
But most of the attention HERE on TNM is not really focused on Franken – but on YOUR stupid defenses of him.
There is a big difference between “this is not the same as rape” and “this is something we should just ignore”.
This is not as an example fundimentally different from Roger Ailes or Bill O’Reilly – to the best of my knowledge, except that they were serial offenders.
Doing something repeatedly is more serious than doing it once.
But this is not “NO BIG DEAL”.
So long as you continue to make excuses for conduct like this, you will have more conduct like this.
Certainly Moore’s conduct should be more vigorously condemned than Franken’s.
I think Moore is getting plenty of Bad Press.
Franken does not appear to be as big a problem as weinstein or O’Reilly.
But it is still – not “NO BIG DEAL”.
And your defending him using all the nonsense that even defense attorney’s in rape trials are smart enough not to try makes YOU look bad.
If you are frequently sticking your tongue in women’s mouths without their permission, then you are a perv.
There was no romantic relationship involved. This was not adults on a date.
This was not mixed signals between people in an actual relationship.
I have not said Franken should resign or be removed.
I think that voters should get the final say on that.
But I think it is reasonable for the Senate Ethics committee to investigate, and I think that they can and should impose consequences.
If there are no consequences for Franken, then the expecation of others is there will be no consequences.
I imposed consequences on Trump – I did not vote for him.
If there are credible claims of sexual harrassment against Trump – then the women so harrased are free to sue trump, or go public.
Tweeden is similarly free with respect to Franken – though given the acts occured in a foreign country, I do not think she would get very far.
So my words were not precisely chosen.
Franken did this knowing it was photographed.
He expected the photograph to be shared – both with her and with others.
Yes, this was about Malice – though that is not absolutely critical.
It was an attempt to cause harm.
It was a form of defamation.
What Paul said.
Sorry, RonP, we have two different styles/standards. Call me a philistine, call you a prude.
Would you consider Trump’s alleged actions on the same level as Frankens, I don’t.
And to put either of these guys in the same sentence as Weinstein and Moore is not to my, or many other people’s, liking. Each case deserves its own investigation and I hope you are not leaning on partisan/tribal reasoning.
For me, you don’t throw out a good senator over minor (my opinion), but obnoxious, behavior.
Now, if more comes out of the woodwork for any of these guys, we should take such into consideration.
Sexual Harrassment Fever is bubbling up to epidemic levels.
We live in a world where female public sexual enticement is generic- look at the dresses worn by females at the Academy Awards Ceremonies, and at clubs and restaurants for proof. The encouragements to incite male sexual inclinations are constant and ever present. Ass clinging spandex pants and plunging necklines are everywhere. This puts men in baggy Jeans and pullover sweaters at an inherent disadvantage. Their sexual instincts toward mischief are heightened by alluring looking woman in seductive feminine dress (or undress). Men are sloppy dressed leering oglers.
The playing field needs to be leveled. Men need to ressurect the Victorian cod pieces as standard ware and accentuate their sexual nature too.
Go for it, guys!
So, my favorite US ex-President, Bush the Elder, has also been the subject of accusations that he has been using posing for pictures as an excuse to grab ladies by the bottom. I have a feeling but no proof that those would not be just any floppy old bottoms but the bottoms of a young and rather attractive nature. And, he should not be Doing That! He apparently does it in public, with the ladies families standing right there.
This is about fame, money, and power. Famous people, usually rich, musicians, athletes, actors, politicians, celebrities, they all live in an other world, of different possibilities than you and I have. They do what they please, people kiss their asses, they have lawyers, egos, and many women that they meet actually encourage them and flirt or more.
George Bush, my idea of a gentleman, a person who behaved with dignity as POTUS and in his life, may actually think he is doing the ladies a favor by pinching their bottoms. It will make them smile for the photo or something. And who knows, there may be a whole bunch of women who actually like it and have it as a story to tell their friends, ha an ex president pinched my bottom. Maybe, or maybe not. I can’t read minds, only guess.
Then there is you and me and we do not have these possibilities (well, anyhow I don’t) and we cannot understand these entitled idiots.
I would say that in my world, just grabbing a woman by the pussy in private without some kind of romancing is a far more personal and traumatic thing than pinching a bottom during a photo. There is zero doubt in my mind that trump has done exactly what he says and that there is a long line of women out there he did it to who really did not react in the way he thinks they did, in pleasure. But he has the bulldog lawyers and the fans and supporters and the women don’t want all the terrifying consequences of filing the complaints.
Its all part of trump having been born on third base and then whatever genetic reason or life experience reason that made him a chronically lying pathological narcissist.
The level of outrage and disapproval of butt grabbing is cultural.
Some cultures are more incensed than others.
I grew up in Washington Heights, in upper Manhattan, in a Tri-cultural neighborhood of Irish, Italanians, and Jews (a few other ethnicities in the mix, but the three mentioned were dominant). The Italian guys were always scheming on ways to grab a teen-girls butt. They seldom followed through – the girls by then weren’t shrinking violets
http://www.mozzarellamamma.com/2012/butt-squeezers-and-wolf-whistlers/
Genital mutilation of women is also cultural.
The use of force to take freedom from another is always wrong.
If your culture accepts it, then your culture is wrong.
Roby;
I can assure you my wifes clients have neither fame, money, nor power nor any prospect of them, yet, they engage in the same behavior and use the same justifications.
Roby;
With respect to your speculation concenring Trtump – maybe you are right.
But it is still speculation.
It is also entirely possible with Trump or anyone of these people – that there are more who have not come forward with even worse conduct, or that some of those who have come forward will prove not credible. Apparently one of Moore’s more serious accusers is having credibility issues.
There is enormous preasure on these victims to not come forward – until there isn’t and there is then enormous preasure on them to come forward.
That is why these things come in floods.
Trump’s candidacy made the press dig and pry and push these people out into the public.
Weinstein succeeded in keeping his victims out of the press for decades, but once the floodgates burst – something like 40 came foreward, and Wienstein’s downfall somehow has allowed women to come foreward on myriads of other perv’s. Some of are people who we all thought of as pervs before, Some of them are people we thought were decent – whether it is Charlie Rose or Bush or Cosby.
There is no pattern to this. While we read about the monied, rich and powerful, there are plenty of people in jail for this kind of conduct who have little or nothing.
This is not unique to republicans or democrats. It is not unique to gays or straights.
Dingy Dave: “Genital mutilation of women is also cultural.”
You’re equating butt grabbing with genital mutilation?
And you wonder why it’s imposdible to take you seriously?
“Dingy Dave: “Genital mutilation of women is also cultural.”
You’re equating butt grabbing with genital mutilation?
And you wonder why it’s imposdible to take you seriously?”
Not equating, everything is not binary or of precisely the same value.
But both are uses of force.
Given that you seem to think the one is acceptable conduct and the other is not,
the obligation to define the boundary between the acceptable use of force and unacceptable use of force would be yours.
As a violation of another persons freedom through the use of force “but grabbing” is relatively minor. It is not a capitol offense. But it is still an offense.
I have more faith in the ability of men to restrain themselves from using force as a respond to a bit of cleavage or spandex.
There is a difference between a woman sending a message that says she is an attractive sexual being that might be interested, and permission to club her over the head drag her back into the cave and rape her.
So the NYT reporter covering Trump is a perv.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/20/16678094/glenn-thrush-new-york-times
So the IRS did Target the Tea Party AND continued to do so after it claimed it had stopped, and now Lerhner does not want her testimony made public.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/19/lois-lerner-holly-paz-want-testimony-sealed-perman/
WaPo calling for a clinton investigation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-the-clintons-should-be-investigated/2017/11/19/d88bb652-cb15-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html?utm_term=.95ccbded3ee6
Fact checking Trump/Russia Collusion
https://nypost.com/2017/11/19/here-are-some-of-the-biggest-myths-of-the-russian-collusion-story/
This is really over the top – like Jay, but it is still humourous – and there is a point.
When you engage in hypocracy, you excuse the hypocracy of others.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/11/20/lets-all-savor-the-democrats-pervgate-pain-n2411633
FBI claims unable to verify the Steele dossier.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fbi-has-not-verified-trump-dossier/article/2641207
http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2017/11/19/does-your-gas-and-electricity-cost-too-much-can-thank-liberals-for-that/_jcr_content/article-text/article-par-4/inline_spotlight_ima/image.img.jpg/612/344/1511118556300.jpg?ve=1&tl=1
Its the economy stupid.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-economy-20171119-story.html
I know others, other than dhii, are commenting, but I can’t see their icons in the COMMENTS section on the home page because after a few minutes, they get bumped off by dhii icon/comments.
No, I don’t wish to get email alerts, I just want o use the system that show recent comments by Roby, Jay, Priscilla, but not dhii. This system sucks and the thousands of comments in a thread jump all over the place as you try to follow a discussion, so only hogs get to eat at the trough; freedom of speech indeed.
I do not control how wordpress works.
I do not typically move arround the site via a web browser to comment,
It is much harder to reply.
I do so via email notifications. That also allows me to sort and filter if I choose.
You are free to find the way that works for you.
If you do not like how wordpress works – it is open source, fix it.
Regardless, the world is not here to make you happy, you have to do that for yourself.
You can rail about me or others all you want.
What you can change is yourself.
Absent their actually using force or fraud you have no right to change others.
Dhii: What Paul said, you condescending obtuse hog.
dhii, you are “forcing” your verbal tongue down the throat of this blog with too many long and short comments. Don’t give me any that libertarian bull about what I am “free” to do and can’t do. No, you are not free to disrupt on TNM, maybe you can interrupt and spout wherever you are, at church, meetings lunch buffets, etc., but not here. You are the ONLY one clogging the TNM pipeline.
The sad part is you don’t even understand common norms of sharing and courtesy. You are the worst face of Libertarians that any of us has ever encountered.
No dd
I am not using the slightest force.
Words have meaning. When you distort their meaning you distort communications and thought.
You are under no obligation to read anything I post.
I can not make you.
No one can make you.
That is not “libertarian bullshit” – it is reality.
It is the basis of our criminal law.
Tweeden had no choice with respect to Franken.
He forced his tongue in her mouth without permission of any kind.
At most she had some ability to resist.
But a crime is a crime, whether you resist or not – we are not in the mideast where if you do not scream and fight it is adultery not rape.
No one is “clogging the pipeline” here
There is no pipeline.
There are no “common norms of sharing” here – there is nothing to be shared.
There is not limited resource, the internet and this blog are infinite.
You would be the one violating reality – trying to constrain something that has not need for constraint.
My freedom costs you nothing.
Censorship however has a cost.
You are free to engage me, or ignore me.
You are not free to control me – or anyone else.
The one seeking to use force would again be you.
The word is simple its meaning clear,
and yet your ability to think is destroyed because you misuse it.
Well I’ll be damned. Who is next. Wonder if Vegas is taking odds on the next to fall.
http://www.businessinsider.com/cbs-pbs-bloomberg-suspend-charlie-rose-after-sexual-harassment-claims-2017-11
No clue dhii to what forcing, clogging sharing are, same as all hogs.
An analogy rooted in the world of things rarely if ever works in the world of expression, thought, ideas.
Expression is not a limited resource that you most conserve to “share” it is infinite. The expression of one, costs another nothing.
You can not clog something infinite, you can not hog something infinite.
Pretending otherwise is deceit.
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.”
Thomas Jefferson
dduck think this got linked to the wrong comment
Added clueless dolts: “A pig is an animal with dirt on his face
His shoes are a terrible disgrace
He ain’t got no manners when he eats his food
He’s fat and lazy – and extremely rude
But if you don’t care a feather or a fig
You may grow up to be a pig.”
Ha, good one. And then there is George Harrison’s contribution to the porcine musical literature:
Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt
And for all the little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in
Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in
In their styes with all their backing
They don’t care what goes on around
In their eyes there’s something lacking
What they need’s a damn good whacking
Everywhere there’s lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon
Just insulting empty space ?
Well I’ll be damned #2. I guess I found out who would be next. Thought it would be longer than 24 hours.
John Conyers, 80+ old congressman from Michigan, (D) is accused of inappropriate relations with staffers and paid $27,000 out of his “expense” account to keep one of them quite. Another report is he used these funds to fly in escorts for his pleasure while in Washington.
So, the question was asked earlier dduck, would this cross your line of throwing someone out?
Also widely circulating reports are coming out that the government has paid more than $17 million in taxpayer money over the last 20 years to “resolve” claims of sexual harassment and other workplace violations that are filed by congressional employees.
So again the question, is this enough to remove individuals from office? Should taxpayers be funding hush money?
dduck, what’s your line in the congressional floor where someone is sent packing?
Mine is any proven claim of any inappropriate sexual behaviors including what some claim to be jokes like Franken’s is claimed to be. If you, as a husband, would be angered by actions taken in a sexual manner with your wife by another man, then most likely that is inappropriate conduct if you loved your wife.
“My wife has a sense of humor and considers the photo a sophomoric joke. As for the photo with the young lady, she would have handled it on the spot, and considered it a good story to tell her friends. Did he use poor judgement in both cases? Yes. Does it rise to the point of removing him from office? She thinks not. With all the terrible things going on in the world, she feels that this is minutia. Women should be taught how to squash unwanted advances when they begin to date. That’s also a good time for men to learn respect for women.”
Written by Mrs. dduck12, whom I love, and agree with.
We all are certain we know how we would handle the things that happen to others, and can dictate how they should – that is until things happen to us.
I hope Mrs. dduck12 never has to find out how she would deal with being in a similar circumstance.
And how BTW was Tweeden supposed to deal with Franken’s “unwanted advances” ?
aka Franken’s tongue down her throat ?
I would also note that the strategies one conceives of after or before the fact, often do not work or take into account the real circumstances when something does happen.
One of the observations of John Stuart Mill in “On liberty” was that democratic society is far more willing than monarchs and autocrats to tell the people as a whole how they must live.
When monarchs infringe on people’s liberty – they are a clear target.
American Colonists clearly blamed their problems on George III.
When a democracy opporesses us there is no specific person to point the finger at – to blame.
When dictating how others must live we hide mostly anonymously in the masses, not taking responsibility.
dduck, I appreciate your wife’s open mind and thoughts of this being minutia. It does provide parents with a good example of how a man should not treat a woman. For those in Minnesota, show your sons this picture and say “Do as I say, not as our Senator does”
I agree with your wife’s assessment 100%.
Wow, an 80+ year old dirty old man.
And this Wonder Woman generation can’t neutralize them?
Is Mueller fizzling ?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-russia-dossier-robert-mueller-investigation/
On a related but broader issue, I am vigorously opposed to the prosecution of “crimes” related to an investigation, where the underlying crime being investigated is not proven.
i.e You can not obstruct an investigation into a non-crime.
You can not be convicted of lying to the FBI unless it is directly related tot he crime they are investigating, and that crime is proven.
You can not seize the wealth a person attained through crimes – without convicting them of a crime.
Just to note – this is a long held position having nothing to do with Trump.
It is also generally consistent with centuries of law, though less so with modern screw ups.
The law regarding perjury require not merely lying under oath but lying regarding something of substance that could have effected the outcome of the proceding had you testified truthfully.
Some on the left are starting to see the actual harm of regulation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/21/the-left-reconsiders-zoning/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_term=.c8c2ef6b3a4b
Trump may be the most de-authoritarian president in modern times.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/20/is-donald-trump-of-all-presidents-devolv
Some interesting comments on sexual relations in the context of Title IX.
http://reason.com/archives/2017/11/16/dear-prudence-meets-due-proces
Is trump hiding sexual misconduct suit payoffs in his hidden taxes?
Isn’t that a highly likely possibility, with his history?
Will reporters ask that question?
I am guessing you have never filed taxes for a business of anykind.
“Is trump hiding sexual misconduct suit payoffs in his hidden taxes?”
You will not find the answer to that in Trump’s tax returns.
Further why do you beleive you are entitled to know ?
If Trump and some woman came to an agreement and do not wish for whatever reason to share that with the rest of us – that is their right.
It is the actions and payments of government that must be made public,
what your neighbor spends their money on is not your business.
Reporters are free to ask whatever questions they please.
Trump BTW has a reputation for take no prisoners litigation – not for secret settlements.
What kind of uniformed ignoramus are you?
payments made by businesses in relation to sexual harassment settlements ARE tax deductible. By what idiotic leap of unreason are you suggesting they wouldn’t show up [hidden or concealed perhaps] in a business tax return.
First, read the title of your own link “Often deductible” not the same as always.
Regardless, again you apparently have never filed business taxes.
Each business that I own that I file for on my tax return requires about 4 pages of tax forms – though some specific thinks like depreciation might require some additional forms.
There are maybe 15 lines in which business deductions are identified, using broad labels such as “utilities”, Office supplies” ….
There is no catagory for sexual harrassment payment’s and definitely no specific itemization of it.
A business tax return is NOT a complete set of any businesses books, all transactions etc.
If a business is audited it MIGHT be required to produce those for the IRS,
but they are not part of filing a normal tax return.
Your article BTW is not about sexual harrassment claims.
And the premise of the article is stupid.
Any payment a business makes is either:
A distribution of profits in some form to owners.
A perq to employees
A cost of doing business.
This is part of the reason why taxing business at all is just idiocy.
Business “profits” are either distributed in some form to individuals where they are subject to income taxes, or they are re-invested in the company, growing the economy raising our standard of living.
It is not governments business how a business invests.
The only interest government has in a businesses expenses, is in determining whether they are income for someone else. Your business paid healthcare is untaxed income as an example.
“First, read the title of your own link “Often deductible” not the same as always.”
Read you own post, indicating it was NEVER deductible. If tRUMP paid off women he sexually assaulted at any of his businesses, he would have written it off as noted as a business expense.
Like Groping Goofball Donnie, who never admits he’s wrong about anything, you follow in the same insecure small minded shit headed path. YOU made a mistake, but are too much a rationalizing dick head to admit it.
Stupid is as stupid does, Stupid.
“Read you own post, indicating it was NEVER deductible. ”
Read my post – I said you would not find them on his tax return.
“If tRUMP paid off women he sexually assaulted at any of his businesses, he would have written it off as noted as a business expense.”
Maybe, maybe not, but either way, you will not find a line on his tax return that says
“I paid Ms. Jones 10M for sticking my tongue down her throat.”
Have you actually ever filed a business tax return ?
Between my wife and I we file about half a dozen each year.
Each business is requires 2-4 pages, and sometimes suplimental forms for another couple of pages.
Each of those business returns summarizes thousands of transactions – in a few pages.
My tax return is not going to say I spent $11.97 for a replacment valve for the toilet in Apartment 1. It is going to say I spent 3857 on maintance last year. or 1200 on utilities, or 200 on legal fees.
Trump has far more business than I do and each likely has millions of transactions per year.
The things you want to know about Trump are not going to be found on his tax return.
At best what his tax return might tell you is what the best areas to look into are.
The biggest thing it will tell you is what businesses he has and where they are located.
Information that is already publicly available, but you would have to search through records in courthouses across the world to find.
It might tell you whether his legal fees appear to be high, which would suggest lots of lawsuits and possibly settlments. Though even there Trump is nororious for not settling anything, for spending a fortune on lawyers rather than settle.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-senate-tax-businesses-taxed-sexual-harassment-payments-2017-11
I would probably agree with the GOP plan.
Individuals are responsible for individual conduct.
A business paying a legal settlement for sexual harrassment by an employee should really be treated as a perq – income to that employee. IF Fox paid millions to settle sexual harrassment claims against Bill O’Reilly – that is really income to Bill O’Reilly.
At the same time I would be reluctant to make predictions as to what the actual effect of this change would be.
The Claim that it would make businesses less likely to protect harrassers is a shallow assumption. We will know what the effect is, when and if the provision is imposed.
Quite often the unintended consequences of such laws have the opposite effect as predicted.
This might discourage settlements, or result in smaller settlements, as an example, or myriads of other possibilities.
Our laws very rarely work even close to as intended, particularly those laws regarding the economy.
The classic example is that in the 90’s government imposed a luxury tax on things like yachts.
The result was the near complete destruction of yacht manufacture in the US, at a cost of tens of thousands of jobs.
“It is the actions and payments of government that must be made public,
what your neighbor spends their money on is not your business.”
It’s not the business of the nation to know if the President concealed sexual harassment payoffs during his campaign after swearing he did not commit sexual harassments and or assaults?
You are a jerk. Go intercourse yourself.
“It’s not the business of the nation to know if the President concealed sexual harassment payoffs during his campaign after swearing he did not commit sexual harassments and or assaults?”
So many fallacies.
Not publicly revealing what is private is not “concealing”.
You seem to think that government is both obligated and entitled to tell you whatever you wish to know about others.
Investigating the veracity of Trump’s public statements during a campaign is the role of individuals and the press – not the government.
I am not aware of Trump “swearing” something.
You entire argument is circular – it requires you to assume the conclusion to be true.
You have no idea whether there were sexual harrassment payoffs – during the campaign or at any other time. You assume that, and then you assume you have the right to know it.
You are not free to know everything about someone else’s private life – just because you want to, or because they are running for office.
You are free to decide not to vote for them if they will not provide whatever you want,
But that is all.
“You are a jerk. Go intercourse yourself.”
More ad hominem
Dozens of female coworkers of Franken, who worked with him over a long time frame, say he not a molester of women.
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/361315-female-snl-staffers-show-support-for-franken
“Dozens of female coworkers of Franken, who worked with him over a long time frame, say he not a molester of women.”
Good to know – still a non-sequitur.
Franken’s acts with respect to Tweeden are atleast sexual harrassment.
If that is the only time in his life he has sexually harrassed a woman, well that is much better than if he makes a habit of it.
One instance does not make someone a serial offender.
But it does make them an offender.
We do tend to be more lenient with first time offenders of all types, though we also tend to treat those entrusted with creating the law, more harshly, and we tend to punish hypocracy more harshly.
Regardless, I do not think anyone is saying that the allegations against Franken are more serious than those against Moore. They are however, more recent and more solidly established.
Priscilla, I can’t find your comment I want to reply to in the pile of Dave’s deluge So, I put it here at the bottom
“I have never, ever thought or said that anti-Trumpers are an “unseemly rabble of violent lefties,” or that “trumps behavior and remarks with women are just some crude ancient remarks.” “
Then your evil twin must have got to the keyboard on day and typed this out while you were not looking in reply to my posting of trumps sexist comments.
“Cherry-picking some crude language from years ago, really?””
I’ve shown you this quote of yours twice previously in the past week. Still, you claim you would not say that! There is just a disconnect from reality here, we go round and round over the simplest most obvious things. Nor was your remark just some sarcastic anomaly of a moment, it has been your steady opinion, and later you had the same dismissive opinion of the women accusing trump. Again, It strongly affected my opinion of your political thinking.
My question about talking with your liberal friends got about the reply I expected. So, my next question, why would you expect liberals, democrats, etc. in an online discussion to have some different reaction than the one that you are avoiding provoking with your real-life friends? Especially when the same discussion just gets pounded into the ground by nearly everyone here, year after year resolving nothing and just producing frustration and miscommunication?
You complain about Jay. Jay is nothing. Try 10 years of Dave hounding you and gleefully shitting in your temple. You could not take 1 month of Dave’s negative affections if they were to turn on you someday. But you think he is getting a bad shake.
So, finally my reaction is, let Jay drive you and Dave as nuts as you two have driven me here. Once upon a time I thought Jay was going too far with you and Dave. But you two have worn me out. Jay is nature’s inevitable reaction to, at first, JB and then Dave and, sadly to you as well, even though you have a more measured tongue.
Roby
You are trying to do much the same thing to what Priscilla has said as I reoutinely do to what you way.
With some differences.
I do not drag up remarks you have made years, months or weeks ago, and shred them based on narrow analysis of details.
While I do to an extent do that you the LAST remark you made – I expect that when you are commenting on a specific topic you are accurately stating your position on that topic at that moment.
You are trying to take a general remark Priscilla made, I am not sure how long ago, and layer more meaning on it than it was ever intended to bear, in a narrow way in an unrelated context.
In other words you are doing the same thing that you do not like when I do to you, only on a much much broader scale.
How many ways do you want to be called out as a hypocrite ?
Worse as best as I can follow Priscilla’s argument and your claimed rebuttal – she is right.
You do engage in cheery picking and numerous other fallacies.
“There is just a disconnect from reality here, we go round and round over the simplest most obvious things.”:
ABSOLUTELY – but again – this is with regard to YOU, not priscilla.
Your fundimental argument about everything eventually boils down to “i am right because”.
You offer no principles, no standards by which we can measure whether something is right or wrong, true or false. I have begged, pleaded, cajoled you for some basis that you use to make decisions. I think maybe once I got a few values – a start, but not sufficient.
You claim to have no interest in philosophy or anything like that.
All fine, but ultimately each of us must decide what is true and what is false, what is right and what is wrong. That is morality, and the rest of us are entitled to judge your conception of morality based on its underlying principles – particularly if you are going to impose your morality on us by force.
Regardless, I would suggest re-reading your criticism of Priscilla CAREFULLY,
It is an excellent self criticism.
Priscilla and I do not likely agree on everything. But she is not rushing out to impose her concept of morality on everyone else by force, without any foundation for that concept of morality besides her feelings.
Priscilla has principles, many of which I agree with.
Of course little gets resolved here.
You complain that I own the conversation – but that is not really True.
The single largest topic of debate on TNM is the Left’s imposition of its will by force on everyone else without justification.
You will not concede that is wrong,
Nor will you provide any substantive argument why it is right.
It is a presumption that underpins your entire ideology, but you will provide no foundation for it.
We go “round and round” about this – because in your world – your concept of morality is right – because it “feels” right to you. No other basis is necescary. You are not obligated to justify your use for force to impose your morality on others.
You are like Franken forcing your tongue down others throats, and like Jay justifying that vile conduct using the arguments of rapists.
“You are like Franken forcing your tongue down others throats, and like Jay justifying that vile conduct using the arguments of rapists.”
While you are like a lunatic who believes he is sane.
Somewhere above a day back you complained that no one here is listening to you.
Yeah, Jeez,I wonder why?
You talk too much, mostly nonsense. If you were really as smart as you claim to be you would have figured out why no one is listening to you a very long time ago.
Now, is your name Priscilla? Since it is not, perhaps you should let Priscilla answer a comment I directed towards her before you jump in with your deluge of bizarre nonsense.
Trying to have an intelligent conversation with you in the room is like trying to pitch a $40 tent in a desert sandstorm.
Roby;
“Somewhere above a day back you complained that no one here is listening to you.”
Oh ?
I have repeatedly asserted that you are wrong on various issues and not interested in finding the truth.
I have NEVER asserted that you are obligated to listen to me or anyone else.
I have however complained that you are NOT free to use force against others – directly or by proxy, without justifying it.
I expect that you will pull some quote out of context that does not mean what you claim.
Just as you appear to be doing with Priscilla.
You seem to be happy when I criticise you and others come to your rescue.
I think I am entitled to defend Priscilla against your stupid and hypocritical attacks.
“You talk too much, mostly nonsense. If you were really as smart as you claim to be you would have figured out why no one is listening to you a very long time ago.”
absolutely True, says the pot to the kettle.
“Trying to have an intelligent conversation with you in the room is like trying to pitch a $40 tent in a desert sandstorm.”
Also true. So why are you trying to pitch a cheap tent in a sandstorm ?
What you are selling is junk. It does not hold up under the lightest scrutiny.
I have stupidly allowed you to provoke me into too many counter appeals to my own authority.
While I beleive some of the claims you have made for yourself – that is only because there is a huge bofy of over educated stupid people today
I think Taleb gets you perfectly.
View at Medium.com
IYI.
You can not make a coherent argument,
Unlike those Taleb is criticizing you can not even get to first order impacts, you are stuck on the beleif that your a priori uses of force will produce the first order consequences you wish – just because you will them.
Nutty as your posts are you can always manage to double down and sound even nuttier in a follow up.
Dave I can play you like a violin. If I did not have sympathy for dduck and Ron and Rick I would make a game of seeing how few words I can say to get you to produce more and more and more of your wild nonsense. But I Do have sympathy on others and their attempts to navigate or converse here, so I will not just keep you going ad nauseum, though it would take no effort at all.
Have the last obsessive word. You cannot help yourself. I am sure you will produce a find nutty example of irrelevant of topic purple in the face howling at me that no one here will believe has any actual relation to me.
This started as a conversation between Priscilla and myself, but, as always, you have hijacked it.
Is there an argument in your post AT ALL ?
If you want a private conversation with Priscilla – skype, email, text, the phone all work.
When you post in public you invite the public to comment.
No one has “hijacked” anything.
Further you did not want a private conversation with Priscilla, you wanted to publicly excoriate her.
You are free to do so, I do much the same with you all the time.
But when you do so, you invite the world to comment on your critique,
in particularly you invite the world to point out your hypocrisy.
I would refer you again to Taleb’s essay on Intellectual Yet Idiot – it almost fits you perfectly.
Though I am increasing unsure that you qualify as an intellectual.
Roby, I can’t really pursue this particular dialogue any more, because I can’t convince you that, because we disagree on Trump, we are not mortal enemies. In short, we’re not.
If you derive some pleasure out of the fact that Jay behaves here in a puerile manner, and substitutes name-calling and ranting for actual discussion, fine. I’ve used him as an example in our conversation, only to point out that I consider you to be above his sort of juvenile ad hominem and general asshole-ness. But I can see that I have been unsuccessful in that, so I will gladly go back to ignoring him, and you can go back to cheering him on.
I’m still pretty convinced that you are not a hypocritical jerk. So, let’s try to move on.
https://twitter.com/otpor17/status/933189654471254017
Overturning Net Neutrality: FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use – The Washington Post
And gaming the vote to overturn it, so that AT&T and Spectrum and other carriers can charge me more money monthly.
Sorry Jay
But WaPo and the left are completely wrong on this.
Net Neutrality is a nice name, but it is the complete opposite of neutrality.
The technology exists – and has for sometime, to prioritize internet traffic.
This may sound evil, but it is exactly what we want.
Do you like your Netflix and other viewing constandly interrupted by “buffering, stalls and pauses”.
If you have voice traffic- like cell or other phone service over the internet do you want that disrupted jerky and being dropped ?
Do you want your neighbors teens bittorrent porn traffic disrupting your ability to browse TNM ?
Addressing all of those are traffic shaping which is either banned or secerly restricted by Net Neutrallity.
Net Neutrallity stupidly presumes that all internet traffic is and must be treated equally.
I know the left thinks that they are somehow hurting big corporations with net netrality and the left stupidly thinks that hurting corporations is always good (in reality it is almost never good for consumers).
But in reality all that Net Neutrality meant was that the FCC took the side of one set of corporations over another.
After some expereince with it even most of those corporations – such as google that initially favored it, have now realized it is stupid.
The internet managed fine for decades without government interference.
Net Neutrality is a stupid fear based response to problems that are not serious and will work themselves out.
You are correct that it will likely mean some businesses might – atleast temporarily charge more for some thing.
So what ? Why do you think you know the correct price for anything ?
ALL PRICE CONTROLS EVERY ANYWHERE HAVE FAILED.
That is about as universal a law of economics as exists.
Yes, I think AT&T or Comcast should be able to charge Netflix a surcharge to receive faster and more reliable delivery of their product.
I have no doubt that netflix is capable of negotiating for itself the best deal.
In the real world things improve because producers think that they will make great profits.
But what actually happens is those delivering something in high demand first reap high profits for a short time – until others find a way to do the same thing even cheaper, and then prices drop and we start the cycle over.
You want to do something about the cost and quality of internet services get rid of the rules that stiffle competition.
I live in an area “labeled” a rural disadvantaged zone.
That has not actually been true probably since the great depression,
but changing that deignation is impossible – why ?
Because it allows the cable and tellephone systems in my region to be a monopoly and prohibits national competitors from moving in.
As a result I have really crappy internet service, and really crappy phone service.
I currently pay a premium price for “high speed” service that is much slower and less reliable and 3 times the cost that my tennants 5miles away pay in the city for Comcast or Verizon.
At my apartment building I have two competing sources that I can buy fibre internet from.
At my home I have Zero and it may be years before I see 1.
Most municipalities take kickbacks from cable and phone providers, and in return they provide them with a monopoly on service in their region.
Again why is government involved at all ?
Jay, “Overturning Net Neutrality” .You need follow some advice from Aaron Rodgers. “RELAX ”
Cool your heels and take a deep breath. Look at what is really happening with Trump.
When the constitution was written the founding fathers were convinced that the powers of the president and his administration should be help to the minimum. All powers to legislate and control actions of individuals was left in the hands of congress. Over the many years since that time, progressive politics has moved this power much more from congress into the hands of the president. Regulations by Executive Orders have given the president imperial powers never intended by the framers of this country. Minimum wage laws, EPA laws, immigration laws and a host of other controls on our lives have been put in the hands of one man or women, that being the president.
So step back and look at what Trump is doing with a more open mind. Examples:
Keystone pipeline- He reversed an EO that prohibited this from happening. He put it in the hands of congress and the states that the pipeline would flow through to accept or reject that project. Nebraska just approved their portion. (States Rights)
DACA- He reversed an Obama regulation and has put this in the hands of congress to approve or deny. He is forcing congress to act.
Labor Laws. Many regulations have been reversed. He is forcing congress to act on minimum wage and anything else like OT rules.
Environment regulations: Reversing Obama era regulations and forcing congress to act
NOW THE NET NEUTRALITY–Reversing regulations!!! Forcing congress to act.
I will not get into a debate on net neutrality and if it is good or bad. I don’t know and don’t have a dog in that hunt. I do not use the internet for much other than e-mail, amazon and “The New Moderate”. But it is the responsibility given to it by the constitution to make laws that regulate lives regardless of the issue. It was never intended that our president would have imperial powers as they have today through the E.O. loophole allowed and growing by congress over the past 100 years.
Liberals accept an imperial president
Progressives promote an imperial president
Conservative accept an imperial president
Libertarians will fight to the last breath against an imperial president.
Congress is and should be the only division of the federal government passing laws and regulations that regulate our lives unless it directly changes the constitution and then, and only then should amendment be added to the constitution to regulate our lives.
Ron
You are correct that
our founders and the constitution never intended the president to have the power that he currently does.
Trump has to a large extent refused powers he does not have.
Some but not all of those powers belong to congress or the states.
With regard to KeystoneXL – what does this have to do with congress, the states, or the president ?
A bunch of people want to build a pipeline.
To do so they must obtain the land or the leases on the route they wish to take.
They must obtain control of that land voluntarily.
They may not use force.
They may not leverage the force of government as through eminent domain.
Given they manage the above, and in the event they cause actual harm to someone, they make them whole, what business is it of the rest of us ?
Why do states, or the federal government have any say in this ?
Congress is the only body with the power to legislate, and therefore regulate,
but congresses power to do so is not unlimited either.
All government – including the states are barred from interfering with free contracts.
That nearly precludes any form of economic regulation.
We have nearly a century of evidence demonstrating that regulation does not work,
that it is costly and inefficient and that at their best regulations reflect what would naturally happen anyway.
Despite centuries of evidence we do not grasp that everything we beleive that regulation has accomplished all occured independent of government and regulation.
I would refer you to the Taleb essay I linked in a post to Roby about “intellectuals Yet Idiots”
That Essay encapsulates numerous arguments against government.
50 years ago Hayek’s nobel valedictory attacked “the pretense of knowledge” .
Taleb is confirming that.
One of Taleb’s common arguments is “skin in the game”
Skin in the game is a necessity, it is not however sufficient.
People make extremely poor decisions when their are no consequences to those decisions.
When you have no personal stake – when you do not win or lose personally based on the outcome, when you have no incentive to get a decisions right,
As Madision noted in Federalist 51, the democratic process is not sufficient to restrain government.
You note that you do not really understand Net Neutrality. That is a wise observation, one that is true of you, me, Jay, NYT, Wapo, the FCC, Trump and Congress.
In fact no one can fully understand the workings of even a small portion of a free market.
Free markets are so important that we now have records from the USSR, that one of the things Bureacrats relied on was copies of the Sears Catalog.
Because without a functioning market is it no possible to tell the relative value of different items.
There was no way for soviet commisars to determine the price of a pair of shoes compared to that of a coat, or loaf of bread. Value is subjective, and dynamic. It is determined ONLY by humans in trade. Government games with value are inefficient – ALWAYS and therefore destructive. The free market does nto work perfectly – but the use of force must make it work worse rather than better.
Governments legitimate role is to bar the use of force, not to introduce it.
I was thinking about this whole sexual misconduct hysteria, the anger and confusion over who should lose their jobs, who shouldn’t, whether girls who dress “too sexy” never again have the right to accuse a man of harassing or assaulting them (that would certainly help Harvey Weinstein, since many young starlets have done the same thing as Leeann Tweeden did, by becoming men’s magazine models, swimsuit models (same thing these days) and undressing for movie and TV roles), why the private sector seems to be much more efficient about getting rid of men who have been exposed as having harrassed or assaulted women in the workplace, etc….
Here is one thing that occured to me:
Hypocrisy is a big part of the fury on both sides. For decades, Democrats have ~ in many cases, correctly ~ accused Republicans of espousing religious and family values, while privately behaving in ways that completely contradicted those values. Liberals and Democrats have been able to say, “yeah, we might do it too, but at least we’re honest about our sexual mores.”
But now, and especially since the 2012 election, when liberals went all in on the “GOP War on Women,” called Mitt Romney, a man of almost impeccable character, a misogynist because he opposed free birth control and abortion, and used every Hollywood awards show to proclaim their status as defenders of women’s rights and women’s empowerment….well, it seems as if the liberal side is pretty damn hypocritical itself.
This is why the allegations against Franken are important. Jay’s impassioned defense of Franken as a great guy, who merely gave in to the obvious seductions of a “fallen” woman, who once posed in various stages of undress, and strutted herself across stages at USO shows, is the classic “slut shaming” that virtually all women, regardless of political ideology, recognize as misogyny at its worst.
Now, I doubt that Jay is a misogynist, but he has definitely bought hook, line and sinker, into the hypocrisy that you can 1)say you’re for women’s rights, but 2)slut shame any woman who accuses your political side of wrongdoing.
The hypocrisy fully cuts both ways now.
Some very astute observations.
The left as well as the right have in the past usually held republicans accountable for this kind of misconduct. They have been able to do so because that conduct violates the values those on the right adhere to. Holding the left accountable has been far more difficult because for the left all values are fungible.
The values the right has in the past tried to impose on us have often either been wrong or not the role of govenrment. Mostly I think that war is over, ad mostly the left has won.
The left has sold us all that you can not legislate morality.
Unfortunately that statement is false. Legislation – government inherently rests on our shared conception of morality.
It is that shared qualifier that is what is critical. It is near universally accepted that the initiation of force against others is wrong. A critical part of the social contract is the individual surrendering their right to initiate force to govenrment in return for government barring the initiation of force by others.
The prohibition against murder is a moral prohibition, its incorporation into law is legislating morality.
But most of us have a very poor understanding of morality, and even less understanding of the morality of others, and the extent to which we share moral values.
Roby does not wish to discuss philosophy
But philosophy is “a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology”
And ethics is a system or theory of moral values.
We can not discus government and its powers without addressing “right and wrong” we can not address “right and wrong” without addressing morality, and we can not address morality without addressing philosophy.
We do not universally agree on what is right and wrong.
But we do nearly universally agree that many things are wrong.
Further our near perfect concensus that something is wrong is rooted in shared principles – ones that we may not be congnizant of but none the less we know and act accordingly
Freedom is the core to all morality. You can not have morality without freedom,
everything that is wrong is an abrdigement of freedom.
Love you guys. He isn’t, or most likely isn’t, or is probably not a ______ (whatever). But keep repeating that word, and jeez, some folks start thinking “well, maybe he is”.
Dduck and Mrs. dduck living in NYC (the modern Sodom and Gomorrah) are not libertines, but who knows what living where they do to you, but probably not, but maybe.
And don’t they like Jackie Mason who was always saying “Nazi bastards” although they may not be anti-Semites. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fGnIOZ1yY8
Hmmmm, now what about Jay?
So, dduck, fair enough. I’ll be more clear in my language, less passive aggressive, which is what you seem to be claiming I have been. And, perhaps you’re right.
Jay is NOT a misogynist, in the sense that he clearly does not advocate “generally” against women or women’s rights, and would almost certainly say that he is a supporter of feminism. But he clearly does not believe those rights extend to women who accuse liberal politicians of sexual misbehavior. One of the accusers of Donald Trump was a porn star, but Jay would doubtless portray her as pure as the driven snow, because her accusations are politically valuable to his side.
That may not be misogyny, but it sure as hell is hypocrisy.
I agree that Jay is NOT a likely a mysoginist.
But he has been making a large number of arguments that are inherently mysoginist.
He does not grasp that the arguments he keeps making to defend Franken have consequences, they ultimately justify rape.
It is true that dressing certain ways, engaging in some professions increases your risks.
That is something we should be aware of with regard to the choices we make.
But Tweeden parading naked on a stage, would not justify Franken raping her, even though most of us grasp it would increase the risk.
Franken is responsible for his own conduct, no matter who tweeden is or what she may have done in the past (or future).
Excellent video with Peterson and Haidt – myriads of points.
Even more excellent observations from Peterson and Haidt
To the extent that I disagree it would be:
The right has been moving to the left – particularly in the 21st century with the decline of social conservatism.
Haidt has science wrong. The left has gone off the rails by incorporating religion into science,
To the extent the right has grown anti-science it is a response to the left’s sanctification of science and automotically resulting failure of science as it becomes more religious.
While there is a great deal of excellent science going on today, any area of science that has an ideological component will be captured by the left and will start producing crap science.
We have seen this in sociology, psychology, anthropology, and environmental sciences.
Many of which have spent 4 decades or more persuing crap that is only just starting (in some cases) to be discarded.
Why free markets work, why planning does not, and why seeking to profit nearly always results in the best outcome for EVERYONE.
Something here for everyone, amazingly prescient:
Great show. SNL is boringly drawn out compared to RM.
Absolutely
GOP TWITTER PORN
Do I care?
No, not that much…
Did you actually bother to follow the link ?
Thus far we do not know that Barton took and sent the photo to anyone.
The implication from Barton’s remarks is that another woman of his own age, while he was unmarried, with whom he was in a consensual relationship took the picture,
that she shared that photo with someone else, and that a third party posted it.
I do not care what consenting adults are doing in private.
I have no reason to care.
There is no claim that any force was involved.
There is no claim of any lack of consent.
Of course you do not care – there is nothing here to care about.
Separately, no one is claiming that republicans are somehow inherently less prone to bad conduct towards women.
The public issues I care about are:
There is self evidently more bad conduct towards women than many of us – particularly males appreciated.
That conduct varies in degree from conduct slightly less egregious than that of Franken to that of Bill Clinton, and Roy Moore.
For decades powerful people of all ideologies have been very successful in hiding their misconduct. That does not serve us well. When this remains in the dark the opportunities for change are diminished.
Bad conduct towards women comes in many forms and degrees, and the consequences of bad conduct should be comparable to the degree.
The misconduct being currently addressed specifically involves sex.
But the fundamental issues is not that it was sexual, but that it was not consensual.
In other words We may not use force against another except in very narrow and specifically justifiable instances – because we want something, is not a valid justification.
Whatever the other differences sticking your tongue in a womans mouth without her permission, is wrong. Sticking your hand in her purse and taking her money without permission is also wrong.
Sticking your hand in a man’s pocket and grabbing his penis without permission is wrong,
sticking your hand in his pocket and taking his wallet without permission is wrong.
The use of force against others to get what you want is nearly always wrong.
It does not become right when government does it.
Nixon, for all his political faults (numerous) was still a decent American.
Compare this letter he sent to Jacqueline Kennedy to the kind of vile insults the present ShitForBrains President directs at Clinton and others daily.
Nixon was decent in some ways, and repulsive in others. He was actually a good president in some and a crappy one in others.
The same can be said of most every president, thought what aspects were good and bad are different.
Thus far the same can be said of Trump. He is abysmal at some things and good at others.
I think most of the things he is bad at are not that important to the job.
Most of the things I am most concerned about with respect to Trump are not things he is actively pursuing – such as starting a trade war.
I was not impressed by the Tweedon incident after more of the facts came out. But as to the butt grabbing, when I heard of it, I said to myself, that is not going to turn out to be the only time he did that. There are now three women alleging that he grabbed their bottoms and I believe them and I would not be surprised if there are not dozens more at least.
Now its time for Franken to do the right thing and resign, let the Governor appoint a replacement. I bet he goes, and the sooner he does the better it will be all around. Set an example.
I wonder how many more politicians are now sweating bullets waiting for their skeletons to come out? The dream of throw the bums in congress out may finally become a reality at this rate!
I’m volunteering for the position if he resigns.
I promise not to Grope anyone while in office.
(Except my dogs, which I will continue to handle)
I’m willing to relocate if the job is offered.
LA to Minnesota (or DC) would be a hell of a culture shock. Having had your own rear grabbed by Ayn Rand Might be considered a qualification in these trying times. Are you on good terms with the Governor of Minnesota?
Not so fast, his butt is on the line, but there are still plenty of buts from more liberal minded people who are always butting heads with the “hang em first and let god figure out if he is guilty” and St. Peter with those scales that weigh good against evil.
Of, course all my buts are off the table if more, or more serious, alleged incidents emerge.
BTW, all of these gals were over the age of consent, but still vulnerable to coercion and pressure of one sort or another.
Yes, I would be willing to advocate resignation on an individual basis if things get worse.
What bothers me is that there are no trials or hearings for these guys.
In contrast, I admit Moore’s accusers are too numerous along with people saying he cruised for young stuff for me to wait for him to become a Senator with their crazy rules protecting perverts. At the very least those rules should be thrown out so staffers are not victims without a chance of justice.
Well, how many more accusers? The two latest were both fans and supporters of Frankens who were anxious to meet him, one still voted for him, but both were truly shocked and told friends or family. I read their stories, I do not find that these two women are the kind of people who are likely to be doing a sort of political hit.
As to hearings, what kind exactly? If someone wants to press charges and a DA finds sufficient evidence to bring a case, then there will be a trial. In the case of sexual harassment or assault long ago with no hard evidence, that is unlikely. I guess that congress can hold a hearing. At the point, if it hypothetically comes to that, when the number of accused congressman gets to be unwieldy that whole process could become impractical.
There is trial in the media going on via investigative journalism and it is catching politicians from both sides of the aisle. It could become a witch hunt and not every single accuser is going to be believable. All the same, its a better alternative than just overlooking this.
I mean, God help us, apparently the quite dignified decent old Bush 41 was doing grabbing asses. Its getting to be a true epidemic. Its damned hard to deal with an epidemic. One or two cases, yes. This is going to be a wild wild ride. If in the end it turns out that they were damned near ALL doing it, and the recourse is the ballot box, and all their voters stick with them, then the only thing that will have changed will be that there is an clear cut exemption for politicians for the normal standards of sexual harassment and assault of different severities. Which will be ridiculously depressing and bad for the country.
But I am getting ahead of myself.
Ass grabbing among the elderly is apparently fairly common.
My father who would never have done anything like that during most of his life engaged in inappropriate conduct like ass grabbing constantly after his stroke.
But my understanding is that there are allegations that Bush 41 did that while in office.
Roby, you and I are on the same page here. And I’m pretty sure Dave is there, too.
There needs to be a reckoning on both sides of the aisle, but I don’t think that reckoning is going to come without an awful lot of collateral damage. The country is starkly divided, and people are convinced that the stakes are high.
There are moral arguments for the ends justifying the means, as well as moral arguments against it. We’re hearing them all, along with a lot of arguments that are not based on any sort of morality at all.
It’s sort of ironic isn’t it, that Mike Pence was mocked and ridiculed, just a few short months ago, for saying that he didn’t have drinks and/or dinner with other women, unless his wife was present?
His rule seems awfully prudent right now, huh?
Of all the accusations floating arround, those against franken are among the least serious.
But they are also among the most recent, and the best documented.
The allegations against Moore as an example are extremely serious, but very old, and not well documented. For the most part I beleive the women accusing Moore – though apparently the yearbook signature is coming apart and appears to be a forgery.
If the statute of limitations had not expired – Moore should be prosecuted.
Most of the rest of this shoulds be decided by voters.
But one aspect of this reflects a serious flaw in represenative government.
The time between exposing misconduct and an election often means that an elected official is not punished for their conduct.
In a free market Fox as an example has to deal with the fallout from advertisers, viewers, and stockholders as a consequence of misconduct by O’Reilly nearly immediately. They rarely have the luxury of time to wait for the public to lose interest.
The strong response and short attention span of people in the market is a very good thing, and typically produces the results we want – O’Reilly is gone, as are many of these others that have been exposed.
I think that the consequences for Franken’s conduct should be determined by voters, not government, but it should be determined now – not in 4 years when they have forgotten.
I remember the night Clinton announced that he had lied about Lewinsky.
EVERYONE thought he was going to have to resign.
But he drug things out long enough that people’s anger eventually faded, and as noted left office with incredibly high popular approval.
You have a trial when you are seeking to convict someone of a crime, and in that instance the standard of proof is fairly high.
Moore as an example should drop out or lose, but even ignoring the statute of limitations, it is unlikely he could get convicted.
The actual use of force makes something a crime and requires criminal punishment by government.
I have no idea what you think coercion is, but not having the choices you want is at most a tort, and more likely something that should only be addressed outside of government.
Such as by publicizing it or protests and boycotts.
I’d like tto give thanks that we live in a country where we can all be a_____. Happy Thanksgiving
Happy Thanksgiving to you, duck. And to all of the ________s here at TNM.
You can be any kind of _____ that you want to be. Hallelujah.
“Translator: The general would like to know if you will drink a toast with him.
Patton: Thank the general and tell him I have no desire to drink with him or any other Russian son of a bitch.
Translator: [Nervous] I can’t tell him that!
Patton: Tell him, every word.
Translator: [In Russian] He says he will not drink with you or any Russian son of a bitch.
Russian general: [In Russian] Tell him he is a son of a bitch, too. Now!
Translator: [Very nervous] He says he thinks you are a son of a bitch, too.
Patton: [laughing] All right. All right, tell him I’ll drink to that; one son of a bitch to another. ”
So, as one son of a bitch to all you other SOBs Happy Thanksgiving.
Excellent!
Once again Jonah gets it right.
Like me, he says you have to our sexual misconduct allegations in perspective, and not lump all those charged together.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-sex-harassment-distinctions-20171121-story.html
I Like Goldberg, and he makes some points, but mostly his article is muddled.
While there is some efforts at partisan exploitation of all of this,
Most of us understand the ONLY part of this that is particularly partisan – is deservedly so, and that is exposing the left as hypocritical.
We have had decades of the left deriding the right as vile mysoginists, when it is quite clear at the moment that powerful male figures on the left treat women in real life no better than those on the right.
Like myriads of the left’s issues – all that is offered is mirage, not reality.
Whether it is on feminism, economics, jobs, race, poor minorities, the left might “feel your pain” but that is the end of it – if you are lucky. If not, the policies of the left actually make things worse.
Regardless, of the fact that the current exposure of decades of sexual harrassment AGAIN makes clear that the left is “all hat, no cattle”,
the issue remains serious, regardless of whether it is those on the left or the right.
Moore has somehow pulled back to within the margin of error in the polls – which I would guess is part of what has triggered the hypocritical quasi support that Trump is now offering Moore.
To be clear, that is a mistake for Trump and for Republicans. It is one they will likely get away with. But it is still wrong.
I would have supported most of the republican machinations to trigger a new election.
But I am offended by Republicans – including Trump supporting Moore.
Whether the evidence against Moore is sufficient for a court, it is more than sufficient in the court of public opinion – or ought to be.
I am not happy with Franken’s purported confessions – they are really not admissions at all.
But they are also not denials, and I do not think that politicians should be rewarded for denying the obvious.
Further while Goldberg notes that all allegations are not the same, he mostly avoids the differences in the seriousness of the allegations, and focuses on the differences in the number of allegations, and whether the alleged perpetrator admits of denies them. While those factors matter too, there is still a difference between harrassment, assault, and rape.
Moore is in more than one instance accused of Rape,
Franken is accused mostly of non-criminal harrassment.
I have no problem with the negative attention that Franken is getting, it is well deserved for this conduct. And yes someone is always trying to use anything in a partsian way.
But casting a light on Franken’s conduct should not diminish the attention given to the bad conduct of Republicans.
Jay: Excellent link. I agree with Jonah.
“We will need this broad bipartisan agreement to set out standards for evaluating unproven allegations of bad behavior. Does the accuser bring proof? Do the details of the account match verifiable facts? Does it fit a pattern of complaints or other allegations? Is there reason to doubt the accuser’s honesty, or does the accuser have some other potential motive?
…As Denzel Washington’s character declares in the new movie Roman J. Israel, Esq., “Each one of us is greater than the worst thing we’ve ever done.” We want to believe in mercy and redemption. But we also need accountability, and to deter the temptation to abuse power, ”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453990/sexual-harassment-allegations-character-politics-partisan-bipartisan-democrats-republicans-2018
“Each one of us is greater than the worst thing we’ve ever done.”
That quote is actually from Bryan Stevenson, who is the lawyer single handedly responsible for the Supreme court decisions resulting in the near elimination of the death penalty and life sentences for juveniles convicted of serious crimes.
Roby and Jay might want to consider that although Stevenson is on the left – the far left, I have supported him on these issues.
Those on the left here wish to divide the world into left and right and because libertarians do not side with those on the left on fiscal issues or those of increasing government, or redistribution, you fail to grasp that libertarians are the champions of individual rights, and the protectors of individual liberties.
I recently attended the ACCR fund raisers for Bryan Stevenson
https://www.atlanticcenter.org/gala/
My wife has been very active in Pennsylvania in Juvenile Life Sentences appeals, and has 2 clients on the national Exonerated list – and I am very proud of her for that.
For those of you here who think I can not “get along” with people on the left,
Stevenson, the ACCR and most of the people at this Gala, are pretty far to the left.
I share tremendous common ground with them on actual civil rights issues.
Further these are tremendously intelligent people who are capable of making strong arguments – both when I agree and when I disagree.
You do not persuade the Supreme Court with appeals to emotion or Ad Hominem.
You must argue – facts, logic, reason.
Washington appears to have based his “Roman Israel” character on Stevenson.
“I wonder how many more politicians are now sweating bullets waiting for their skeletons to come out?”
Lots of them, I’m sure. Roby, this is where our Venn diagrams intersect ~ I know that big name Republicans and big name Democrats are sweating the same bullets. Some, because they made mistakes many decades ago, and will face the music in a different zeitgeist. Some because they are genuinely corrupt scumbags, and they’ll say and do anything to avoid being taken down.
I just hope that, as a society, we still have the moral fortitude to make the right decisions.
I beleive NRO is arguing that the records of congressional payments of sexual harrasment settlements – almost $20m in the past decade must be made public – I agree.
Yes, this is getting out of hand. I say let’s subject all Senators, first, then House Members, then Chiefs of Staff and so on until we get to the lowest staffer, in Congress, to mandatory Lie Detector Tests.
My problem is who would come up with the questions: Maybe Carter who had lust in his heart. Nah, too encompassing for modern times. Maybe former members like Packwood, Hastert, Frank, Weiner, etc., on the theory it takes a perv to catch a perv (full list: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-sexual-misconduct_us_5a10591de4b0dd63b1aac3b4
A discussion at the Thanksgiving table, resulted in this argument from my 25 yr. old nephew,
and generally agreed to by my two adult sons, as well as my other two nephews, one 30, the other 18:
Said he, ” Why didn’t any of these women say NO? I would hope that my own girlfriend, or any girl friend that I know, had they been subjected to the sight of Harvey Weinstein masturbating in front of them on a cruise ship, would have run up to the main deck, told everyone aboard what he had done, and called the police to report his lewd act. If my girlfriend was having her picture taken with Al Franken, and he grabbed her butt, I would like to believe that she would pull away and say “what the hell do you think you’re doing?!”
He continued, ” I get that there is a reluctance or even a fear to say no to a powerful man, someone who may likely be believed over a less powerful, much younger woman, but, come on! It’s like the Emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes (literally, in some cases) but not a one of them had the courage or the decency, themselves, to call these men out, until a mass hysteria breaks out, and they know that any accusation will be believed?
Thoughts?
I am not sure what the question is ?
Should women speak out ? Certainly!.
Are they obligated to ? In most instances not.
There is some confusion because many of the actions involved are perfectly legitimate in a different context.
All of these recent allegations are about conduct outside of an established relationship, and without any suggestion of prior consent. Most do not even involve establishing a relationship.
This is not mostly about “bad dating skills” or a “pass gone wrong”.
This is about taking gratification from someone who is unwilling.
No question, really. I guess I’m just thinking that we’re giving young women the message that they are always victims, whether their submission is forced or not. In my view, that is not very empowering.
Priscilla,
I would absolutely agree that we are sending lots of stupid messages – and not just to women.
This is a consequence of empowering government. It automatically disempowers people.
If someone says something nasty and unwaranted to you – you are a victim – and you really are. But you have choices. You can be a snowflake and rush to whatever authority exists to use force against the alleged perpitrator, or you can handle it yourself. Unless there is actual violence involved the latter choice is nearly always the best.
People – often bad but sometimes even good people have done bad many things to me in my life and that of my wife and family.
I have a long list of people I can legitimately blame for lots of bad things that have happened.
But even if I am actually entitled to an successfully compel government redress, that does not get my life back. I am a victim so long as I chose to be a victim.
Plenty of people have the ability to wreak havoc on my life. But only I have the ability to move forward with my life, to find joy and peace and happiness in it regardless.
It is not that we are often victims of misfortune (or evil) that is our big problem, it is that having been victimized, we choose to remain victims and cede responsibility for our own lives.
What is empowering – the only thing that is empowering is taking back your own life.
Whether it is by saying no to unwanted advances, slapping something who grabs you or outing their misconduct, a day or 20 years later. These are all part of taking power back in your own life.
In some instances more is nescesscary – we want to send rapists and others who intiate force to jail – if we are fortunate that occurs. But always we are free to take back our own lives, and always we are the only ones that can do so.
The problem is not that we are sometimes victims. It is that we use that as an excuse to cede control of our own lives.
Whatever has happened to us, no one else can fix us.
Easy to say what someone of the opposite sex should/would say unless one was prepared for the occurrence in advance, add/or had training- which would be a good idea- to respond.
Of course this may be difficult if the guy/gal has power over the victim. Yes, even if you are only verbally abused by someone in power (physical, monetary, employment, religious, educational), you are a victim.
The only person with actual power over you is the one using real force.
Everything else you list is all some form of free exchange.
If you want a job – you will do X. You are always free to say no.
You are free to sell your time, your property, drugs or your body if you wish – or not.
The fact that you badly wish something – like a job, does not convert someone else’s ability to provide you with what you wish into force.
If you need or want money – you are free to choose what you will or will not do for money.
If you need or want employment – you are free to choose what you will or will not do for employment.
I am not sure what you think religious force is.
Further in most of these contexts even though no actual force is involve in various different ways we disdain those who tie certain actions – particularly sex to other things.
Some of what Weinstein did constitutes Rape or Sexual assault, and is criminal.
But most of these allegations are not forced, but are subject to various forms of disdain.
Weinsteins company is suffering large losses because we do not like his conduct.
That is one of the ways we regulate outside of government conduct we do not like that does involve force.
I have less problems with Weinstein saying “blow me if you want the part” than Franken forcing his tongue into Tweeden’s mouth.
Those dealing with Weinstein had free choices.
Including the choice to make his demands public and subject him and his company to whatever public condemnation might come with that.
Religious and educational environments generally prohibit the use of position for sexual advantage – and when they do not or do not enforce that the consequences when made public are severe.
Further we also though often badly distinguish between the consent of adults and children.
That is a difficult and imperfect process, regardless, we do not generally presume that 12 yr olds can consent to many many things with 30 yr olds.
The distinction involving the actual use of force is important.
Even if you are not quite so libertarain as I – though I would challenge you to explain what the difference between getting paid to provide a massage or play football, or perform a piano solo, or repair plumbing and being paid to provide a blow job, or a bag of heroin is ?
Regardless, what you are actually forced to do, and what you do that is a choice – if not the choice you would have prefered are still qualitatively different.
Whether the later is or isn’t, should or shouldn’t be legal, it is still not the same as using or threatening actual force.
The social contract that is the basis of government, surrenders our right to initiate force against others in return for governments protection from the actual force of others of all our other rights.
We are not however protected from undesireable choices.
I would prefer not to collect garbage or to handle sewage.
Yet I have had to do both as well as other undesireable tasks.
Interestingly I have had to do those as a consequence of being the owner, or the boss, and not being able to or wishing to pay someone else to do them.
I do not have alot of sympathy for those who might also choose despite their wishes to perform undesireable tasks.
I had a tenant leave 15-20 35gal garbage bags full of used baby diapers in an apartment when they moved out several months behind on the rent.
I have had to take trailerfuls of garbage to the dump, when tenants failed to bring their garbage to the street for pickup for over a month, and the city threatened to fine me.
There are things I would not do for money, but so long as force is not involved these remain my choices, nothing more.
“I do not have alot of sympathy for those who might also choose despite their wishes to perform undesireable tasks.” ~ Dave
Yes, Dave, that’s the issue that I think gets largely ignored in these sexual harrassment allegations…well, maybe not ignored, but merged with the accusations made by actual victims.
I would bet that 99% of women have been subjected, at one time or another, to unwanted remarks and or touching. I think that we need to identify more clearly, what the boundaries are. For example, in many romantic comedies, the lovelorn male finally brings himself to kiss the woman he cares for, without permisssion. She is often surprised, but kisses him back
Can she claim, 20 years later, that he assaulted her?
“Of course this may be difficult if the guy/gal has power over the victim.” ~ dduck12
And, duck, I agree, you are absolutely correct that, anyone being harrassed by someone with some official authority or power over him/her, is a victim. But there are laws prohibiting that kind of sexual intimidation and harrassment, and those laws have been around for about 20 years. So, young women in their 20’s and 30’s have always had recourse against these guys. But many of them, for personal and professional reasons, have chosen not to pursue it.
If, 20 years later, a woman says ” I slept with ____ so that he wouldn’t fire me,” I wonder if that mitigates her victim hood, and should we place all of the blame on the man?
I brought this up, because I don’t know what these answers are…but I think that, as a society, we need to consider clarifying them. Saying that women must always be believed (which is what Hillary has said, ironically) doesn’t seem to be a prudent course ~ consider the Duke rape case, the UVA rape allegations, even, way back, the Tawana Brawley case. These were all cases in which the men turned out to be the victims, because we were too willing to bypass due process and the presumption of innocence to believe untrue or exaggeration allegations by women.
I’m not saying that there can even be definitive answers. But I think that we should resist the temptation to believe every accusation, merely because there are so many that are true.
The actual dance of attraction is often horribly awkward and complex, with lots of fumbling and mistakes. Most of the time we can distinguish between those and actual harrassment.
On of the excellent bright lines is the use of force – even small amounts of force.
The parties in a dating ritual have choices – as he moves in for the kiss she can move away if it is unwanted, the process proceeds in steps, nothing may be said but many things communicated.
If you kiss someone back that constitutes consent.
The Tweeden incident causes minor analysis problems because it was scripted – Tweeden expected an “acting kiss” it was part of the job, and she agreed to it ahead of time.
But she did not agree to Franken sticking his tongue in her mouth.
I do not want to get into details of dating behavior, but in my limited personal expereince couples do not go from the guy moving in for a kiss to his tongue down the woman’s throat in a single step, when that conduct is welcome there are plenty of clear signals along the way.
Because of the complexity of non-verbal signals and subjectivity, I would be unwilling to criminalize single instances of unwanted tongue kisses..
BUT again in Franken’s instance, this was scripted. It was NOT intended to be a “romantic kiss”.
Franken had no reason to presume Tweeden was receptive to more than the script called for.
I would expect that professional acting conduct would perscribe that anything beyond the appearance of a romantic kiss would require prior scripted agreement too.
Actors in porn know what they are getting into.
Franken’s conduct is MORE disturbing because it was NOT dating behavior, but a part of an act that was not agreed by all parties.
All of us have been subject to unwanted remarks.
I get plenty here – My only criticism’s of them are: They do not constitute argument, and they are hypocritical. Regardless, they come with the turf. I have thick skin, and mostly find turning stupid barbs arround which is usually pretty easy fun.
The entire nation and particularly those in college at the moment are in the midst of a ludicrously stupid grevane fest over hurtful words.
Yes, sometimes words can and are intended to cause pain, and that is often “inappropriate”.
Bad manners is not criminal.
We are not free to silence others because what they say might hurt our feelings or those of someone else.
Conversely, actual conduct rather than words is actionable, and inside the scope of government.
For the most part I think we should take care with regard to criminal prosecution of minor unwanted touching. But my reluctance to criminalize very small acts of violence does not make them good or acceptable conduct.
I have constantly – and not just in the context of sexual harrassment, trying very hard to distinguish between what can and should be punished by government and what should be dealt with outside of government.
The vast majority of the conduct that is being revealed is NOT criminal. And probably should not be. While some of it is criminal but is not prosecutable for a variety of reasons.
Our criminal system should err heavily on letting the guilty go free to avoid punishing the innocent.
We have criminal standards like beyond a reasonable doubt because it is possible to beleive someone acted badly without enough certainty to deprive them of freedom.
The fact that all misconduct is not criminal and all criminal misconduct is not always prosecutable, does not preclude making our own choices by our own standards and chosing to apply our own punishment – so long as we do not use force.
The revaltions regarding many of these in Hollywood have had immediate severe consequences – and possibly lasting ones.
That is appropriate. Just because these people may not be going to jail, does not mean there are no consequences.
Further privately imposed consequences are maleable to changing norms.
Today accusations of mistreatment of chickens could destroy McDonald’s, 50 years ago, no one would have cared. 100 years ago, each of us would have been “mistreating the chickens” if we wanted to eat. 400 years ago we would have been lucky to have a chicken.
Government should impose consequences for the use of force against others. Because the punishment for the use of force involves the use of force. We do not accept “self-defense’ as a justification after the fact.
But where there is no force involved, we should address the problem outside of government.
That does nto mean we should ignore it. I think that many of the actors directors, producers are having serious second thoughts about whether their conduct was worth the consequences.
Regardless, each of us gets to individually decide the importance and magnitude of the private consequences we wish to impose.
While substantially delayed, what we are seeing now is evidence that government is not necescary to solve many of our problems.
In almost all instances we are way to late to impose criminal punishments – even if the conduct was criminal, in most cases we do not have other legal consequences – such as the laws you have described that have been passed in the past decades.
At the same time it should be clear that however imperfectly this misconduct has consequences, even if delayed, and that government was unnecescary to impose them.
Market self regulation is quite real, and effective, even if imperfect, it is still better than alternatives.
And sometimes it is the only alternative.
Jay” as opposed to investing more in infrastructure, skills, children and our most hard pressed families ”
Why is it just two choices? Why is it always cut taxes favoring the rich or spending more which also favors the rich. How aout paying off the f’in bills we have run up over the past 50+ years?
OK. But let’s let those who benefited the most the last 50 years pay most of it.
And after the next 50 years the newly made wealthy trillionaires and multi billionaires can bail out their generation’s deficit.
That seem fair. Dintnyou agree? 👍😎👍
Yep, sounds reasonable, but it will never happen.r
No it is not reasonable, it is not “fair” it is also not true.
As Adam Smith noted more than two centuries ago, the benefits of a free market most accrue to those at the bottom.
Why ? Because money is not wealth, and because there are limits to what even the richest can consume. The entire remainder of their money serves others.
“OK. But let’s let those who benefited the most the last 50 years pay most of it.”
That would be those closest to the bottom.
They have homes and apartments nearly twice as large,
They have cell phones and tablets,
They have twice as much food at the same cost, and better food,
They are more than twice as likely to have a car and it is a better car as they were 50 years ago.
They are more than twice as likely to have AC.
And on and on.
The rich merely have more money, and that money is all invested – where is produces goods and services consumed by the rest of us, as well as providing jobs.
Even economists like Christine Romer – Obama Cheif Economic adviser grasp that taxes on capital and investment do twice as much economic destruction as they provide revenue.
There are no “trillionaires” There is no one even close.
There is not even a Trillion Dollar company.
In fact there is no company worth in total as much as the US deficit for a year.
The combined money of the entire Forbes 400 is about the same as the deficit for one year.
The complete market value of the entire fortune 500 is less than the US GDP for a year.
I have addressed “fair” before.
I am not even listening to arguments framed as “fair”
There is no common meaning to fair.
You and I do not agree on what “fair” means.
I doubt any two people here do.
Every parent has told their toddler “life is not fair, get over it”
I do not think it is ever fair to take from anyone what is theirs and give it to someone else.
Some sanity on Taxation.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2017/11/though-it-would-benefit-me-greatly-the-proposed-pass-through-entity-tax-cut-is-a-bad-idea.html
Can;t get at your article because it is behind WSJ’s paywall.
But the assertion is false, and irrelevant.
First the least economically destructive level of taxation is far below that to any OECD countries.
It is irrelevant who is lowest, if everyone is too high.
Myriads of studies over 5 decades have found that for every 10% of GDP that government spends, the rate of increase in standard of living declines by 1%.
Government SUCKS as an investor.
The very last thing we need is more government investment in anything.
Again there have been studies of government job creation programs dating through the 60’s.
None EVER have proven effective. Most government training programs have actually left participants LESS employable than when they started training.
BTW, it is not “extremism” to note the FACTS as they actually are.
I am sorry that you think that reality is “extremist”.
We just had an 8 year experiment in bigger government.
It was not a stupidly bad an experiment as the new deal.
It came at the tail end of a conservative experiment in big government.
Regardless, the outcome was FAILURE.
The rate of increase in standard of living during the Bush administation was just over 2%, during the Obama administration it was under 2%. During the 20th century the average was 3.5%,
During the 19th century it was over 7%.
The post 2008 recovery is the worst since the last time we chose to spend our way out of an economic downturn – the great depression.
The average post recession growth rate is over 5%.
I will note that Taxes are NOT the big factor. So long as the economy beleives that changes in taxes will not result in changes in spending the economic benefits of tax cuts will be small.
The consensus of opinion is that Time should change the name of the award to Asshole Of The Year, so that there would be no question Schlump wins hands down yearly.
Jay “I said probably is no good and took a pass. Thanks anyway!”
I suspect they told him they would give it to Charles Manson for finally exiting this world before they would give it to him, so his ego forces him to say no thank you before their choice is published. That way no one will ask him about being anything but #1.
Ron, I do think that Trump has a gigantic ego, and a fragile one when it comes to perceived insults or attacks.
I also thinks that he presumes that, even if he were to agree to the photo shoot and interview, the “honor” of being person of the year, would be a negative profile, so why put himself in that position? So, he gets it out there that he didn’t want it anyway. Sour grapes, but I think that he is addressing his base, and they agree with him.
Personally, I think it should be Harvey Weinstein. 😉
How disappointing- sob-, no latest shots of Trump. I was dying to see if his pompadour was shrinking, cause his ego sure ain’t.
(But I wouldn’t mind if instead they gave the cover to Melania as “the most suffering female on the planet”.)
Oh, well, maybe next year- sigh.
Clueless as usual.
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/16/564579792/three-generations-of-actresses-reflect-on-hollywood-harassment-and-hitchcock
Tippi Hedren was a victim, and Hitchcock was an awful creep. But that was a very different time. Women had little recourse against guys like him.
I like Don Johnson’s advice to his daughter, “My dad said, Dakota you need to be a wolf, not a lamb.”
Priscilla: This was actually an example for fatburger, who doesn’t seem to understand what power, force, or circumstances mean in a comment somewhere way above, although he has a long-winded obtuse explanation.
Sorry dd12, but I am unambiguous about what power and force mean.
I could care less what you think they mean in the context of fiction or poetry.
Force requires physcially action, power is the ability to use force.
These are very close to the definition used in physics.
If you wish to redefine the terms in other contexts – fine, but you can not redefine a few terms and expect that everything else works the same.
Government is there to punish the actual use of real force.
Defining force differently does not suddenly make it governments role to pushing an alternate definition of force.
I have said this repeatedly. Words have meaning, when you mangle the meaning you mangle communication and thought.
I have no problem with your using a different definition of power and force – but when you do it no longer works the same nor caries the same implications, and you still need words for what force and power mean in the normal context.
Otherwise you are just playing an orwellean game.
Orwell brilliantly understood that you can excercise great control over peoples ability to think and communicate just by controlling their words.
With respect to your examples – I do not care what you call the conduct of Hitchcock.
But it does not constitute acts within the legitimate role of gonvernment to address – unless there is a breach of contract or an actual tort involved.
You continuously equate the ability of someone else to interfere with your ability to acheive something that is not yours as force.
It is not.
If I am an employer and I have one job and 100 applicants – I am going to interfere with the realization of that job or 99 of those applicants.
You need not like the way I make that choice, you and all of society can classify the way I make that choice as immoral. But absent my using actual force (or the threat of force), you may not use actual force to punish me. If you wish you can persuade society to rain moral opprobium down upon me.
Everything that is illegal must also be immoral, but everything that is immoral is not illegal
And we are seeing that in play right now.
Franken’s actions were immoral, They might just barely be illegal.
Most of what is alleged regarding Weinstein is immoral, but not illegal. What is illegal can be punished by government, the rest must be punished by each of us.
Moore’s alleged actions are illegal, as well as immoral.
You have to take much of what is reported with huge grains of salt.
Incentives matter greatly. Measures that do not directly test the real world, can be highly skewed by distorted incentives.
George Will on 2017
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/another-year-of-american-hilarity/2017/11/22/14e3e304-ce09-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html?utm_term=.e0b23179c9f0
dhii: You are SC, super clueless, and I don’t care what you don’t care about what others think. It is hog mentality.
Not clueless, just not buying bad metaphors that do not fit.
There is no limited commons – so there can be no tragedy of the commons, nor any “hogs” or “pigs”.
Your use of metaphors that are so obviously bad – is either deliberate deceipt – or clueless itself.
I understand your argument and metaphor perfectly. Not even the tiniest bit clueless.
But that argument and metaphor is WRONG.
Incentives matter
Is this long thread broken?
Electoral College – as out of date in modern America for utility as the butter churn .
“Demographic trends also are straining the American model. Because of the way the Electoral College works, two of the past three presidents first won office while losing the popular vote. And David Birdsell, dean of the school of public and international affairs at Baruch College, notes that by 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states. They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30% of Americans will have 70 senators representing them.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-variedand-globalthreats-confronting-democracy-1511193763
Other interesting observations about threats to the American Model Of democracy in the article..
Jay there is a fix for this. Amend the constitution for election by popular vote. That is how anything specific in the constitution is changed and the onky way its changed. Maybe we need more journalist including that point in their comments.
I have no idea what this article states as I dont subscribe to the WSJ.
No doubt, Jay, that the Electoral College process keeps the largest states from dominating every single presidential election. This was actually the purpose of it ~ well, actually, it was a compromise to keep the president from being elected by Congress (as the British prime minister is by Parliament), by the state legislatures, or by a direct popular vote.
Demographic trends may have changed, and there are still, as there was in 1787, some who want direct popular elections, but our government is still based on a federalist model (thank goodness), so, as Ron says, if you want to change that model, write a new Constitution.
And, good luck with that ~ I don’t see it happening.
Why you wishing ME good luck with that?
Don’t you live in a populous state getting screwed by over represented under populated voters?
But you’re right, those over represented states will never affirm a constitutional change that reduces their influence to screw the larger population
Your posts on this issue presume that there is a right answer and that right answer is democracy.
I really do not care how we elect our president – we can throw darts or flip a coin, so long as government is limited and rigorously constrained.
It should not matter which party is in power as complying with the constitution – which we forsook a century ago, would make the difference between a democrat and republican nearly meaningless.
And that is as it should be.
What should not be the case is that one party given power by some measure – and it really does not matter whether that power is convey by 51% of the people, or by that party controlling the largest surface area, or the greatest number of representatives, or the most state legislatures,
gets to impose its will by force on the rest.
Separately your argument is spurious anyway.
The popular vote only matters, it the popular vote is the way the election is decided.
Given that the rules perscribed that each candidate needed to get the most electoral votes to win – that was the way they campaigned.
Both candidates would have run completely different elections if their goals was to get the most popular votes.
In corporate elections stockholders vote their shares – those with the most shares get the most votes.
There is not a “right” way to conduct an election.
It is not even certain that elective government is inherently superior – regardless of how elections are conducted.
This is fundimentally the same non-sense as the gerrymandering claim.
There is a false presumption that there is a right way to do things and therefore anything that is not that, is wrong.
There is not a right way. There are just different ways. Each of those differences have consequences in terms of outcomes and policies.
But there is no basis to assert that the results of one approach are more right than another.
Well, I believe that the federalist system, as originally conceived, was a pretty good one.
More to the point, there would not have been a United States of America, without the states agreeing to unite. And that was a result of a number of compromises that led to the Constitution being ratified. So, there likely would have been USA without the electoral college system, or something similar.
The large states got their priorities in the bargain too. I mean, your state of California has 53 representatives, while Roby’s poor little Vermont has only one.
And California and NY combine for 84 electoral votes, which go without fail to the Democratic candidate. Add Illinois’ 20, and NJ’s 15, and the Dem’s got 118 out of 270 pretty much guaranteed.
It’s not a bad system at all, IF you want a unified country. If the goal is to screw over those who are not of your political persuasion, it becomes less optimal.
The general principle of federalism – that political decisions should be made at the smallest practical level and as close to the people as possible
is a good idea.
However the constitution gave too much power to the states.
The fact that the federal government needs to be severely limited does nto mean the states do not.
With respect to both you and Jay and the electoral college.
It is morally neutral. It is neither bad nor good.
But neither it nor any system is absolutely neutral in all ways – as opposed to morally neutral.
The electoral college changes the way candidated campaign, it changes the focus of government,
A different system would alter campaigns, as well as governance.
You can like or dislike the consequences of the electoral college.
You can even like them one day and dislike them another.
But the fact that for the moment they favor or disfavor your wishes does not make it an inherently good or bad system.
**So, there likely would have NOT been USA without the electoral college system, or something similar.
Left out the key word…
What I said, essentially, was that the electoral college system was a compromise, intended to obtain the ratification votes of both the small states and the large states, in 1787.
And, that, without these compromises, the US, as we know it, would not exist.
I know that you frequently remind everyone here that compromise is a tool, not a goal, and I think that you are correct.
Moderates are generally supportive of using compromises to obtain their ends…this was true of the founders, although not all of them were moderates.
Nevertheless, the electoral college system works as well today as it ever has. Both sides gain certain advantages, and both sides are angered when those advantages are not enough.
In 2016, the advantages that the Democrats believed would secure Hillary’s victory were simply not enough to drag an inferior candidate over the finish line.
I completely agree I am just making a different point.
There is no correct way to elect a president – or to elect anyone to anything.
There are a variety of different ways, each of which have different consequences.
Any claim that one is superior is based on the fact/hope that it accomplishes more of what you value. that inherently means it accomplished less of what someone else values.
The Supreme Court is about to hear arguments on gerrymandering.
Ignoring the fact that all the claims regarding the large insidious effects of Gerrymandering are false. Even if they were true – there is still no “correct” way to create voting districts.
Every single approach will have consequences, whether you like those consequences depends on your values. Not on some objective principles.
The left is selling some voter efficiency metric. This is just nonsense.
It is just the expression of a specific set of values as a number.
You correctly note that the electoral college was a compromise and that without it we would not have formed a country – all likely true.
It is still just one of myriads of ways to elect the president.
None are inherently superior to others. But each does favor one set of values over another.
When the left claims that parts of the constitution are obsolete or archiac.
All they are saying is that they have different values than out founders did.
Duh!
That is why we can amend the constitution.
If you want it different change it.
That is also why the courts should read the constitution as it is written, and to the extent that there is a time based shift in meaning, they should use the common meaning at the time of ratification.
Not because that is the “scared meaning” but because the rule of law requires that the reading of laws produces a single predictable outcome that does nto change over time.
When we are not happy with that outcome – we change the law or the constitution.
That is the rule of law not man.
It is not that there is a single right way – there often is not.
It is that there still must be a single way. If we do not think that is the right way we have the legitimate process for changing that.
America is not a democracy – and never was, Our founders rightly loathed democracy – as does anyone not an idiot. John Stuart Mill notes that democracy will ultimately prove more tyranical than any monarch.
In all the actual values that are core to being american “democracy” is not one of those.
The american ideals are a faith in the individual rather than government,
a beleif in individual liberty.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”
There is nothing about democracy in there.
People choose where they live.
What we have is not “outdated” what you deem as problems were created deliberately.
The majority of the house of representatives is republican – including a substaintial portion of the members of those 15 states. Democrats have total control of only 5 states Republicans 26.
Of those 5 ONLY California is a “large state.”
Delaware, and Rhode Island each had two senators in 1787 when the constitution was ratified – despite being very small states even them. Nothing has changed.
The problem you rail it is the deliberate structuring of govenrment to make the exercise of power difficult, and we do not want to change that.
Trump and republicans are very successful at the moment in dismantling the expansion of government under Obama and democrats, but they are near powerless to expand government in their own particular way.
Our problem is that the power of minorities to impede the growth of government is too small.
Regardless, if the way things are bothers you, you have myriads of choices:
Move out of the cities. The left self concentrates. You do not get to blame others for the fact that in the US major cities are 70% democratic, that nearly all democrats live in a very tiny portion of the country and are pretty much ignorant of the lives and needs of those who live in 90% of the country.
Return to the federalist system that our founders created. I am personally an anti-federalist.
I believe that a power precluded the federal govenrment ought also be precluded the states.
Regardless, I do beleive that decisions – including political decisions should be made in the smallest units possible as close tot he people as possible. Republicans have been arguing for federalism for decades. Should democrats adopt it, you would have greater control of things in the places you live, without the power to F’over those living in the vast majority of the country.
Change the constitution.
Given the stupid policies they advocate and the disaster that was the Obama administration when Democrats actually controlled congress, no one in their right mind ever wants the left to return to holding that kind of power again.
We may not be able to repeal ObamaCare, but most of us know it was a mistake – just as we know that medicare and social security are mistakes. We can not get rid of them, but we know they threaten to destroy the country.
We have off and on nearly a century of experience with the consequences of progressivism – and they are universally bad.
Does anyone sane think that the left should be in charge of how we produce food or energy, or any of the myriads of things that we depend on for our standard of living that are produced cheaply in the red parts to the country ?
I have very little trust of republicans – and far less of the left.
President 💩Head Endorses a Molester
In 2016 the Republican Party elected an admitted sexual harasser.
In 2017 that sexual harasser endorses a predator of young girls.
what will 2018 bring?
An Erection?
☺️
^&%$# typos. I meant an election.
Jay, why do you think anything will change? The far left will continue electing their incompetent dark sides ( Conyers, Frankin) and the far rght will continue electing their incompetent dark sides (Trump, etc).
And once again the competent moderate middle gets screwed!
Charlie Rose ?
Maybe not a moderate – but certainly not an extremist.
Sorry Ron – no one comes out of this looking good.
The fact that the left and right are often wrong does not mean the correct answer lies between them.
Dave, you miss the point completely. The fringe elements are pjcking the piss poor candidates. Just look at Alabama. Just look at Trump, Obama and all the others that a more moderate voter would not choose. Maybe someone from a more middle class with more moderate positions would also be a sexual predator, but in many cases individuals with moderate thinking are not as inclined to take advantage of others like those with morals that allow them to think they are above the law. So when you have 30% on both sides and divide the remaining 40% centrist vkters between thevtwo parties, we end up with crappy candidates on bith sides.r
Ron.
First you presume that there are fundimental differences in the way democrats and republicans govern – as opposed to the way they campaign or speak.
Sorry, there are not.
Both parties are prone to cronyism, and rent seeking.
Maybe they do so slightly differently but those differences have little impact on the rest of us.
There is no reason to beleive that existing “moderate” politicians would be less croniest or rent seeking – only that the crony’s and renters would be different.
I am not sure that should “moderates” attain power for long, they would not be worse, as they have no ideology to make them feel hypocritical.
Moderate as used here means many many distinctly different things.
I have noted previously that compromise is a tool – not a value.
That does not mean I am unwilling to compromise,
But it does mean that there is no basis to presume that a compromise position is not inherently worse that either extreme. And as I have noted before – being very wrong is usually easier to fix than being half wrong.
Nor am I a proponent of centrism.
I do believe there is a right answer – or atleast better and worse answers to most issues we must confront through govenrment.
Most often that answer is the get them out of govenrment to the greatest extent possible.
That best possible answer is sometimes that of the right, sometimes of the left, and sometimes in the center, or slightly off to one side. It will depend on the problem.
I think we can actually know or atleast fairly well approximate for each problem where the answer lies – not just from ideology but pragmatically from the real world.
I do not BTW think that moderates are inherently less likely to be rent seekers, cronyiests, or sexual predators. I think that those who seek the center as a means of conflict avoidance are atleast as likely to moral corruption.
Conflict avoidance – again is a tool, not a value. It is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
Those people least likely to be predators are those with the strongest moral cores.
I do not believe those are inherently found on either the right, the left or the center.
It is not about thinking you are above the law. The law is rooted in morality, and morality is inseparable from liberty.
We do not obey good laws because they are laws – but because we know what is right and wrong, without referring to the law. That is why ignorance of the law is not an excuse,
it is also why the law must be rooted in our common understanding of right and wrong.
We primarily obey bad laws because they are rarely highly inconvenient. When they are and we obey them anyway, it is for fear of punishment, not some moral values.
The law is not intrinsically moral because it is the law.
Roby, you sexual harasser!!
Moi? We had two very beautiful and charming ladies over yesterday, one a former member of the Ukrainian legislature and one an adorable Armenian friend with the biggest brown eyes you ever saw, and in spite of my old age, I did not pull a Bush 41 or a Franken on either one.
But I may have committed a Carter.
Speaking of the good old days:
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/when-trump-praised-bill-clinton-692192835751
While I might quibble that the Reagan economy was better than the Clinton economy – Reagan started in the midst of a serious recesssion, aside from that is there anyone who disagrees with Trump on this clip that the Clinton economy was good ?
It is BOTH True that the Clinton’s are repugnant people treating women like dirt, and that
Bill Clinton – particularly economically was one of our best president.
It is also True that Trump’s character leaves alot to be desired, and thus far atleast he is doing well both economically and in foreign affairs.
In 2016 Democrats nominated a crook, and a women who slutshamed women who were sexually assaulted.
In 2017 we learned that much of the elite particularly on the left was hypocritically harrassing Women
What will 2018 bring ?
You want to make all this partisan.
Mostly it is not.
To the extent it is, the more serious hypocracy is on the left.
While I disagree with Trump, at the same time Alabama apparently has the same choices the country had in 2016. Between two poor choices.
You can blame republicans for nominating Moore.
But Democrats were also capable of producing a better candidate.
Current polls are giving Jones a razor thin advantage.
But again no matter what the people lose.
“But Democrats were also capable of producing a better candidate”
How? By running a Republican?
The fact that the Dem was doing as well as he has been, even before the sexual predator charges were aired, in a predominantly Republican State, was already a red flag for Republicans there, and nationally.
Schlump the Divider is doing his stchick, dividing America, dividing Republicans, dividing his own supporters (the pro Israel Right is furious at him for backing away from his Palistinian threat to shut down their DC offices).
#RepulsiveDespicableDivisiveDonald – the MOST despised President by Americans with above average IQs in history.
“How? By running a Republican?”
If the range of democratic candidates has become so narrow that it is defined, by Clinton, Sanders, and Jones, then the democrats are in extremely serious problems.
Solving the problem of democratic far left homogenity is not my problem.
Regardless, in the real world I have seen some real democrats who are as good overall as good republican candidates.
Jones was down by double digits before these allegations – and Moore was a lousy candidate before these allegations.
Moore should have been losing in the General against a generic democrat.
No one is arguing that Moore was a good choice for republicans.
Only that if Democrats can not now win this – the only thing they have to blame is themselves.
They have a whack job pervert running on the republican ticket that anyone should be able to defeat. We are potentially watching a replay of Clinton/Trump except that Moore is far worse than Trump, and still could win.
I hope that Jones wins, but I think that is far from certain, and if he does not at this point – that would be because democrats made a poor choice.
Northam managed to defeat Gillespie – BOTH good candidates, because he was a reflection of the values of most of VA, because as Ron would say he was an actual moderate – atleast for a democrat.
Trump did not create the divides in the country – the left did.
At worst he just recognizes them.
I would like to see him stay out of the AL race – and numerous other issues – but he wont.
Of course I would have liked it if Obama had stayed out of all kinds of things that he did not either.
As to your IQ reference – I would refer you to the Nassim Taleb essay on Intellectual Yet Idiot’s I posted,
Though while re-reading John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” I note he makes the same point.
Mill found maybe one in hundred of the smartest people of his time capable of critical thinking.
There are few people with IQ’s that I am envious of. Regardless, I have not noted that IQ translates into the ability to think critically in the real world.
Your ability to solve problems is only meaningful – when those problems have consequences for you, further we are all worse at solving problems – regardless of IQ – when our solutions do not have consequences for us.
Finally insulting the IQ or Trump voters is an excellent way to continue to lose elections.
And, as usual, don’t you have it backwards?
Shouldn’t the Republicans have produced a better winning candidate?
And now, between the two, what kind of persons of low moral judgement would vote for Moore?
https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/934867299017912321
You seem to think the obligation to field good candidates rests only with one party.
If Jones wins – that will mean Republicans needed to field a better candidate.
If Jones loses – that means Democrats needed to field a better candidate.
Given how Bad Moore is, losing to him – or even only narrowly beating him is a very poor reflection on Democrats.
EXACTLY the same is true of Trump/Clinton.
I do not think anyone here expressed disgust at Moore as a candidate before I did, and long before his pervesions came to light.
Anyway, I will make this simpler for your.
Moore is a very poor choice for Republicans.
Trump was very nearly the worst choice for Republicans.
Democrats lost to Trump – which means as bad as the republicans did with Trump, the democrats managed to do worse with Clinton.
The election demonstrates that the voters decided Trump was the lessor evil.
We might see the same thing in Alabama.
If YOU think Trump and Moore are abysmal – you only need run a better candidate to defeat them.
Dowd’s argument is an obvious fallacy.
We do not know nothing about the two candidates,
It is rare to make a decision on a single criteria.
It is also likely that if voters ONLY knew the best thing Moore has done, and the worst thing that Jones has done, the results would be a landslide for Moore.
You are merely repeating Hillaries nonsense of “why I am I not ahead by 50 points ?”
The fault is not in your stars but in yourselves.
Impeach the Ahole!
More Impeach The Ahole
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-tweets-link-to-conspiracy-theory-website/article/2010606
Sorry Jay,
the CFPB is the swamp.
I wish it was in Trump’s power to destroy it rather than merely to castrate it.
It is the perfect example of Democratic stupidity.
Democrats blamed the Recession on very specific causes – high among them the repeal of Glass Steagall.
They ruminated for a year and barfed up Dodd Frank – which ADMITTEDLY does nto address a single thing that democrats claim caused the recession, and creates a monstorous unaccountable and unconstitutional entity that does little but make things worse.
The economics of the CFPB are horrendous.
It is an agency only a left wing nut could love.
It is the substitution of banalities for performance.
It is the left passing the “all puppies go to heaven” legislation – because who could oppose that ?
When the legistlation’s objective beyond its perfumed title is to euthanize all dogs.
Nothing could be more destructive to the financial ability of the poor than the CFPB.
You do not seem to grasp such simple things as you can dictate in great detail exactly how people have to loan money to poor people.
You can not force them to loan money to poor people.
The more conditions you impose on something – the less of it you will get.
Neutering the CFPB is “Draining the Swamp” – though actually killing it would be better.
CFPB’s own attorney agrees that the President appoints the interim head of the agency.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/26/consumer-bureau-trump-english-cordray-260062
Sorry, Jay. But, try, try again.
The CFPB was genius in the way that Elizabeth Warren designed this incestuous agency that produces its own infected puss and has a good chance for no cure.
First. the agency was made part of the Federal Reserve, an independent agency other than appointments by the President.
Second, the legislation creating this agency specifically states the outgojng head of the agency will appoint his/her sucessor.
Three, the legislation was created well after the “presidential appointments authority” was created and most likely the legislation supersedes the presidential appointment powers.
So we have a cancer within the Federal Reserve that is an independent agency with an independent agency under its umbrella that has no presidential oversight and no congressional oversight when it comes to appointments.
There is only two things that can change it.
One, SCOTUS rules presidential appt power is in effect and not legislative powers. With past decisions in matters like this., it appears the chance this happens is slight.
Two, congress amends the legislation returing appoitment power to the president. That takes 60 votes. Also, less chance happening than SCOTUS supporting the president
Since the federal reserve is self funding with no federal budget, congress can not even defund the agency.
GENIUS!!!
It does not matter, the courts are near certain to find that.
The constitution states that ALL powers of the executive are vested SOLELY in the president, except where the constitution explictily states otherwise.
While we have far too many breaches to that already,
This is not one the courts are ultimately going to find against the president.
The CFPB – aside from being disasterous and evil to the very people it claims to try to help,
is also outside of the constitution.
Unfortunately it is not alone.
The constitution makes absolutely no provisions for governmental bodies that are part of the executive branch but indepenent of the president.
We have too many – the FCC, and the Federal Reserve,
They should have been found unconstitutional long ago.
If we want executive agencies independent of the president – we can change the constitution.
We also have the same mess with regulation.
There is no executive branch power to make laws or regulations – it is no where in the constitution. That power rests solely with congress.
Again if we do not like that we should change the constitution.
CFPB is worse – it is funded independent of the rest of the government – from the federal reserve – again unconstitutional.
I don’t have to ‘try’ anything.
I just have to sit back and see what the judge who hears the case, already in the system, has to say.
I bet you’ve heard that’s what judges do – listen to differences of opinion.
I guess it depends on whether or not you think the agency should be rendered ineffective or not. schlump who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about consumers, wants to dismantle it. That’s why he’s trying to foist this after Thanksgiving Turkey to run it — down.
Mulvaney, tried to dismantle the agency when he was a congressman. Now, like Tillerson, he can destroy it from the inside.
America, America, Schlump craps his darkness on thee..
:I bet you’ve heard that’s what judges do – listen to differences of opinion”
No that is not what Judges do – they decide what the laws says.
They might choose to listen to other oppinions but that is not actually their job.
“I guess it depends on whether or not you think the agency should be rendered ineffective or not”
No it does not depend on that at all – that is not a decisions for the courts – that is a decision for congress or the president.
The decision of the courts is pretty trivial – the constitution vest ALL executive power with the president. Even subsequent laws can not change that. Except where specifically required to get the consent of the senate all choices regarding the management of the executive are up to the president – even if some law dictates otherwise.
In this instance there is vaguely conflicting law. Dodd Frank allows the CFPB director to appoint his deputy, There is other federal law – which is essentially redundant with the constitution that makes all appointments executive appointments that do not require the approval of the senate the power and responsibility of the president.
I have no idea what the judge currently hearing the case will do. As we have seen the left has had an excellent record winning against Trump in some lower courts, and has been utterly crusshed by the supreme court, and sometimes by appelate courts.
This is following patterns from the Obama administration.
The structure of the CFPB has already been found to be unconstitutional. The issue being addressed here is just a permutation of that.
Though I do not thing that ANY independent executive agencies – such as the Fed, or FCC or NLRB are constitutional – for now, the court have found those independent executive agencies with multiple commissioners appointed by the president and approved by congress to be constitutional – despite their unconstitutional independence.
The courts have never found an agency with a single head to be constitutionally part of the executive while independent of the president before. Over a year ago they rejected that regarding the CFPB.
This is all a stupid game anyway – absent a Supreme court ruling reversing last years DC appeals court ruling, which is highly unlikely the CFPB must either cease or be restructured.
My guess is that regardless of who leads it at the moment it is powerless to do much absent congressional action or an favorable reversal by the Supreme Court.
Anyway, I am not interested in speculating what lower federal judges might rule – there are plenty of nitwits sitting on the federal bench.
But the writing is on the wall, the CFPB is either being castrated or being destroyed – who the deputy director is until then is almost meaningless.
Why do you presume that because an agency has the word consumer in its title that it somehow actually benefits consumers ?
The only consequential effect of the CFPB thus far has been to reduce the credit available to poor people.
But I guess you think that is a benefit ?
Yes, I expect Mulvananey will destroy it from the inside, and probably at a tenth of a point to GDP, and make the lives of those towards the bottom a little bit less miserable.
But you do not grasp that someone willing to lend you money under terms you do not like is better than no one willing to lend you money at all.
I thought the left – and you idolized Tillerson for purportedly calling Trump a moron ?
Regardless, Tillerson is doing a fine Job at State – he is shrinking the crap out of it – and amazingly still able to conduct foreign policy.
Analysis of fortune 500 companies found that 65% of middle managers are net NEGATIVE in the value they add to the company. In government that is likely off by a factor of 3.
Regardless, there is very little that much of the state department does that is of any consequence at all, and most of that can be performed by clerks.
Actual policy issues and real deals are negotiated close to the top.
Most of Foggy Bottom is useless.
I would also suggest reading “The Ugly American” if you have not. Technically it is fiction – about southeast Asia at the time of the vietnam war with a fictional country much like Viet Nam at the center. But it is an excellent indictment of our entire foreign services.
They have almost nothing to do with the meaningful relationships between countries.
I would suspect that from personal experience Tillerson is well aware of that.
I would guess that his time with Exxon, left him with an understanding that the US State department is primarily an impediment to the relationship between US businesses and individuals and foreign countries.
It is bad enough that we must deal with incompetent and corrupt bureacrats from foreign countries to engage with them, all the worse that we have to add a couple of layers of incompetence and corruption of our own.
Or if The Ugly American is not your thing – re-read Washington’s farewell address.
The US needs for foreign policy are extremely limited.
Tillerson could castrate State by a factor of 3 and have no meaningful impact.
I retract!
The case will be settled in Schlumps favor.
All that likely means is that it will be decided SOONER in Trump’s favor,
The actual outcome has had little doubt.
Unless the supreme court – reverses the DC appelate courts the issue is dead.
And I have not followed things closely – but even that might not be an option, as the DOJ and solicitor General may have chosen not to appeal the DC courts decision, in which case the issue is entirely dead.
The CFPB’s structure has been deemed unconstitutional.
My guess would be that Cordray resigned because that decisions was not being appealed or not being appealed with vigor.
I also suspect that pending that appeal he has been essentially powerless anyway.
This is mostly a meaningless fight.
Congress must fix the structure of the CFPB or kill it – hopefully the later.
In the mean time they are close to impotent anyway.
Heh. The CFRB protects consumers the same way that a wolf protects chicken coops, Jay.
It was set up to be unaccountable, uncontrolled and to have zero transparency in the collection of American’s financial information and credit card data. The agency can access, without permission and without notification, the personal and financial data of tens of millions of people, and if that information is misused, the agency is under no obligation to report it. The Chinese and the Russians have more access, through hackers, to your data than you do. And, the CFRB did nothing ~ nada ~ to prevent Wells Fargo from ripping off its own customers.
Mulvaney is in. No judge is going to change that. He is there to dismantle or significantly reform the agency, and that’s a very good thing.
I do not think that Mulvaney has much to do to “dismantle” it.
The DC appeals court already decided the CFPB was structurally unconstitutional.
That requires a congressional fix.
My guess is that decision leaves the CFPB close to impotent.
One of its structural problems was that it delegated an enormous amount of unaccountable power to the director. The DC court decision specifically turned on that.
Absent a successful appeal I do not think Cordray had much power, and since nearly all CFPB power was vested in him, that meant CFPB has been powerless.
I think Congress has been sitting on the issue – because they are happier with an impotent CFPB than having to act to fix or destroy it.
They really should just obliterate it, it serve no valid purpose. It regulates something that had absolutely nothing to do with the financial crisis. It is a fix for a market that is already over regulated and certainly did not need more.
Are using various government departments to go after political and personal enemies considered abuse of power and hence maybe impeachable offenses? Just asking.
“Are using various government departments to go after political and personal enemies considered abuse of power and hence maybe impeachable offenses? Just asking.”
The Obama administration used the IRS to stall the formation of Tea Party Groups.
That bridge has already been burned.
Using the power of government to go after your politicial enemies is a serious problem – one that should be thoroughly investigated.
Therefore the Obama administration unmasking, and pre-inauguartion investigations of Trump should be put completely under a microscope.
With respect to Clinton – I agree with Turley and Derschowitz.
There should be no special prosecutor for Clinton – for mostly the same reasons there should never have been a special prosecutor for Trump.
There should however be a DOJ investigation into actual crimes or serious allegations of crimes.
Anything BTW is impeachable.
You seem to be positing a bizarre thesis that if you are a criminal who is also the enemy of a current president that the federal government can not investigate.
An “impeachable offense,” is whatever the House of Representatives says it is. And, once impeached, the president is put on trial in the Senate, which can then choose to remove him from office, or not.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” is the standard. But, politics is the key. If Democrats win the House in 2018, they will likely impeach Trump, no matter what ~ it is their rallying cry. I think it would be a huge mistake in the long run, just as I think that their giving up the moral high ground, by defending Franken and Conyers was a mistake. But that’s what Democrats do ~ they defend their own and attack Republicans, no matter what.
But, sure, I would think that using federal departments, as Obama used the IRS and the DOJ would be impeachable. THE CFPB is a somewhat different story, since it was set up unconstitutionally in the first place, but if Trump were to use it to go after Democrats, sure.
But it’s all up to the House.
tRUMP is a splinter in the Nation’s eye – if you don’t realize he has to be removed ASAP you have your head attached to your nether region.
More excellence from Prof. Haidt.
I do not think I can queue it up right. Haidt starts at 12:43 and this is pretty long so you likely want to skip the intro.
I have few disagrements with Haidt.
While he is right about his observations of the changes that occured as a Consequence of Republicans taking over the house under Newt Gingrich.
He does not seem to grasp that the consequence was not greater tribalism, but a shift in the point of conflict. Gingrich’s changes Tied Republicans back to their constituents rather than their peers in congress.
Beyond that I am more optomistic that Haidt. He is right about nearly everything that is wrong,
But I think he is wrong in implying that the problem is more recent. The birth of our current problems is in the ascendancy of progressives – “illiberals” in the late 19th and early 20th century.
The period he sees as one of relative quiet was the period in which the clock got screwed up.
It is the period where for the first time in US history we started to see our govenrment as the solution to our problems, as benevolent rather than something to be cautious about.
I am hopeful BECAUSE faith in government is at its lowest ebb likely since the time of our founders. In fact is innumerable ways this moment is more like that of our founding than any prior time.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/the-age-of-outrage.php
Response to dhlii somewhere above in the thickets (too time consuming to find one crumpled note in a basket of trash) to this:
“That would be those closest to the bottom.
They have homes and apartments nearly twice as large,
They have cell phones and tablets,
They have twice as much food at the same cost, and better food,” etc…
By your analogy, those Immigrants packed like sardines in steerage coming to America, surviving on stale bread and water stew while the rich cavorted in luxury on upper decks to gourmet meals while serenaded by music, were benefiting more from those trips than the wealthy because they were experiencing an ocean voyage for the first time in luxurious surroundings.
By extension your argument of the poor benefiting more than the rich could be applied to those immigrants living in American slums: they had a better life in those squalid tenements than they did living in foreign huts; they enjoyed the marvels of new technologies of electricity and streetcars, not old country candles and horse carts; they could listen to radio and watch silent movies, not hear accordion music and beerhall songs – therefore why should they complain about 60 hour work weeks, or living from paycheck to paycheck on near starvation wages, because they were starving from a lack of better food here than from gruel in Europe?
And if everyone is eating so well, why is there such a high rate of childhood hunger in the US? I guess those undernourished kids can watch rich people eating on their cell phones, or take selfies of themselves outside restaurants!
And the poor and elderly who will be once more squeezed out of health insurance access in the US under the new Republican plan can take comfort in knowing they will be living longer lives without medical care, as life expectancy has lengthened for them.
I did not create an analogy.
It is a FACT that the real wealth of those at the bottom has doubled int he past 40 years.
Independently, though it is primarily the money of those in the top 1% that has increased – not their wealth, it would not matter if it had.
If we can choose between a system where all are equal and all are abysmally poor, and one where all are increasing well off but some are more well off than others.
Only a left wing nut and idiot would choose the former.
More specifically addressing your analogy, those traveling to the US in steerage where not traveling for pleasure, they were traveling to improve their lives. Comparisons to those traveling in first class are as completely irrelevant as they are with respect to the past 40 years.
Who is doing better than who is just an issue of jealousy.
Only an idiot thinks that relative inequality is more important than absolute well being.
With respect to your nonsense about immigrants,
If someone voluntarily comes from elsewhere and freely takes a job here under whatever conditions that leaves them better off than they were, then yes, You have absolutely no business complaining about their working conditions.
IYI – you seem to think it is wiser that they stay where they came from and be worse off, than that they freely come and not quite have whatever you think they should have.
THEY may complain about whatever they wish. and THEY are free to do whatever they can to continue to improve their lot.
But if YOU make demands for them that reduce or remove their opportunity to come here – even to voluntarily endure 60hr work weeks – then YOU are doing evil.
That you do not grasp that is why you and your ideology is morally bankrupt.
“And the poor and elderly who will be once more squeezed out of health insurance access in the US under the new Republican plan can take comfort in knowing they will be living longer lives without medical care, as life expectancy has lengthened for them.”
Ignoring the fact that the entire premise is stupid – Republicans are not seeking to end medicare.
WE have already had the debate over whether health insurance has anything to do with health or mortality. You lost – it does not.
“WE have already had the debate over whether health insurance has anything to do with health or mortality. You lost – it does not.”
An utterly typical absurd declaration of victory on your part.
Actually, Ron and I went over this with you in great detail many months ago and You lost.
Your belief that health insurance does not have anything to do with health or mortality was so extreme and flat out absurd that it was no problem to puncture it and we clearly did.
Obamacare advocates like to come up with bogus statistics like “Obama care has saved 3 million lives “or cancelling Obamacare will lead to “3 million deaths” (I’m inventing the numbers for lack of wanting to spend my time finding the concrete examples). This is just as bogus as your statement that there is no connection between health insurance and health.
In fact, there is a huge middle ground between the gonzo advocates and the gonzo denialists where the truth lies, not that anyone could possibly quantify it exactly.
No, I cannot prove this, or anything else, to you, no matter how obvious or a reasonable an idea I might try to convince you of. This is your problem, not mine.
But it will generate a typically overblown Dave response that will convince no one here and remain mostly unread by anyone who values their time.
“An utterly typical absurd declaration of victory on your part.”
Nope, not a daclaration, an observation of fact, and the result of myriads of actual studies.
“Actually, Ron and I went over this with you in great detail many months ago and You lost.”
The debate that I had with Ron that I was not completely correct about was that you are legally obligated to charge medicare the lowest price you charge anyone.
That is actually in some parts of the law – but there is no enforcement mechanism and Ron noted correctly that it is possible – but difficult to charge a patient less than medicare. It is particularly difficult for doctors rather than hospitals and large medical providers.
On the issue of the relationship between health insurance and health outcomes, anyone who has tried to argue a link has utterly failed.
You linked to a couple of papers – those articles did not demonstrate links, they speculated that their must be links. That is a very common fallacy.
I do not BTW doubt that some very specific policies might have very specific benefits in narrow areas – though you have not even managed to prove that. But specific benefits in specific areas are NOT sufficient to prove your argument, that would require presuming there was absolutely no downside to health insurance – which is ludicrously stupid. If that were true we would not have to have laws to require people to get health insurance.
I have noted over and over – on both health insurance and every other purported benefit of any government regulation that YOU must demonstrate an abrupt positive change in a trend corresponding to the implimentation of that law.
That is what is called evidence of an effect – otehrwise all you are offering as “proof” is your “feelings”.
And “feelings” is all you ever offer as proof of anything.
“Your belief that health insurance does not have anything to do with health or mortality was so extreme and flat out absurd that it was no problem to puncture it and we clearly did.”
If it is so extreme it should be trivial to disprove.
Passing PPACA accoring to the left resulted in 10’s of millions of people going from uninsured to insured. We should have seen a positive change in overall mortality trends reflecting that .
We have not.
It is YOUR viewpoint that is utterly basely crap. It does not hold up logically, and it is not supported by the facts.
I do not care whether PPACA advocates make up stupid claims.
So longs as YOU grasp those claims are bogus, they are irrelevant to this discussion.
Yes, there is a large middle ground – but there is no evidence that there is an effect greater than zero. Not an effect of 3m, not an effect of 30,000, not an effect of 300.
And just to be clear I am talking about a NET effect.
PPACA has incredibly high cost. 1.^Y/decade just in direct government costs, Atleast as much in direct costs to consumers and possibly double that again in economy burden.
That cost is also LOST LIVES. our lost quality of life.
You say you can not prove it “to me” as if that last clause is meaningful.
Proof is proof, it is independent of people, and emotion.
Either you have evidence or you do not.
PPACA is not some tiny program where you would have to look under a rock with a microscope to see effects. It is a huge program, it has been in place for 8 years, we should see a significant measurable change in overall mortatily trends.
If you can not that means there is no overall benefit to health outcomes.
You are right I may not be able to convince anyone here – that the sun will go down tonight.
And yet, it will.
“You are right I may not be able to convince anyone here – that the sun will go down tonight.
And yet, it will.”
That’s Brilliant. I have seen the light, I am now your convert. (right).
If some blight wiped out every tobacco plant on earth tomorrow and smoking ceased everywhere, one would see no immediate change in mortality statistics, but it would certainly have an effect on health. In a similar manner, as Ron and I understood when we looked at this, giving 20 million people health insurance in a country of 330 million would create no immediate obvious statistical uptick in lifespan. Quality of life undoubtedly increased drastically for a large number of newly insured people.
Moreover, the issue of your comment was not Obama care, its health insurance period, not having “anything to do” with health.
A colonoscopy, as recommended as a precaution for people my age, costs from $2000 to $10,000 plus, depend on where one lives and whether there is insurance and what kind of insurance. Those without insurance or with insurance that won’t cover the colonoscopy are far less likely to have one than those for whom it is covered by insurance. Does it have a health effect to have a colonoscopy? For the former bass player in my band its a reason that he is still alive 3 years after having his cancer was found. It would be a societal health benefit if every person who was recommended to have a colonoscopy did not have to ask themself if they had a spare $2000-$10000.
The alternative to a system based very heavily on insurance for income is that people would pay out of their own pockets. Is there such a country in the world where either state health insurance, private insurance or a combination are not the basis for the bulk of the health care system? If not, why not?
Based on a system where people pay their medical expenses out of pocket would hospitals, medication, and medical research exist in the form that they assumed in the 20th century that launched life expectancy and quality of life into an entirely different and better level?
No. Arguing otherwise is as obtuse as arguing that the sun won’t set tonight set. The modern state of healthcare is based on people paying collectively for the system, and in general not depending on paying out of pocket for anything other than the least expensive health care.
You are free to knock yourself out arguing otherwise. Health insurance, health, and mortality are inseparably linked at the societal level. You are wrong, you have lost, just wasting your time fighting reality.
If the impact of smoking on mortality was actually that high – you would see and immediate effect.
The impact of smoking is actually extremely low. It approximately doubles your risk of some cancers. But those cancers to do not effect 100% of people, are not fatal 100% of the time and tend to occur towards the end of life and most typically for those who are more fragile anyway.
I am not recomending smoking to anyone – but I beleive that actuarially the effect of smoking on the average smoker shortens their life by about 6weeks. That does nto mean the effect on some is not much greater, but the net effect is small.
AND IT WOULD BE SMALL DECADES after all tobacco ceased.
So you have picked an abysmal example.
But you make several other errors.
You are still presuming an effect that you can not measure.
You are pretending that but for PPACA the existing trends would NOT continue – otherwise your argument is full of shit.
You are also making an argument that is all about guesses and feelings.
You say it will take time to have an effect – it has been almost a decade – no measurable change in trends.
But there must have been an effect, why ? Because you say so!, Because you BELEIVE! Because it si an article of FAITH!. Not because of any evidence.
In fact the argument you are making essentially admits that even if you are right – the effect will be so small as to be unnoticable – and yet we are spending multiple trillions of dollars for an unnoticeable benefit that we have to beleive exists.
BTW the various studies did NOT find significant “quality of life” improvements – not immediate, not long term.
The Oregon Experiment ALONE found any effects at all – and these were very small.
And the Oregon experiment is pretty much the gold standard of scientific methodology. We very rarely see large scale double blind controlled expermients in fields of sociology policy or economics. We just do not get to test policy changes with large controls.
The Oregon experiment found extremely small health impacts – almost nonexistant – the largest being a very small increase in the detection of Diabetes. It did NOT however find an OUTCOME change as a result.
The only “Quality of Life” improvement was that recipients of health insurance expressed that the felt less financially stressed over health care.
WHICH IS A FINANCIAL RESULT.
And SORRY, but you do not get to steal trillions of dollars to make some people less financially stressed.
While I am arguing that there is NO, ZERO, NADA, ZIPPO health outcome effect of PPACA,
If you wish to “win” this argument – you have to do far more than find some small exception.
You have to find a change that has a value of approximately $1T/year – because there is the overall Cost of PPACA – both in terms of increased government spending AND increased private spending, and harm to the rest of the economy.
There is no possibility in the world you are even close.
With respect to you “colonoscopy” argument.
My mother was unbeleivably well insured – and she died of Colon Cancer.
Why ? Because she never had a colonoscopy. My Doctor claims that if she had had one as little as two years earlier she would have lived.
Regardless, in the end you can not know that as a result of PPACA Or wahtever other magical pollicy you wish to push, there will be more Colonoscopies, there will be more Cancer detected early, there will be more people who live as a result of that cancer being detected early
AND last, but most significant of all, that the losses elsewhere caused by increased colonoscopies do not result in total harm exceeding your gains from colonoscopies.
That is why you must use overall mortality – and not specific cases like Colonoscopies.
Spending on Colonoscopies and other facts of health care as a result of all this new insurance, MUST result in less spending elsewhere. That other lost spending REDUCES quality of life – because QOL is by definition raised by people spending as THEY choose not as someone else chooses for them.
But Beyond the QOL LOSSES as a result of your nonsense, there is also the real HARMS elsewhere. You presume that you can take $1T/year from the economy as a whole and transfer it to healthcare with no increase in mortality elsewhere. That people will with less wealth to do so, eat as well, excercise as well, spend as much on safer products, not commit suicide.
The bottom Line is:
You can at best guess places where spending $1T a year more on health insurance MIGHT decrease mortality.
I will trow you a bone – with near certainty some of those exist.
But you absolutely fail to grasp that you can not take $1T out of the rest of the economy without ALSO having a corresponding decrease in QOL and Mortality as a consequence.
I can only guess at the infinite number of ways that a society with $1T less to spend each year will
behave that will decrease their mortality and QOL.
But my inability to itemize the myraids of negative impacts does not change their existance.
The point is that we look at Changes in overall Trends – like Life expectance, because there is no doubt there are both positive and negative changes in a wide variety of niches.
I am not claiming that health insurance has no effect on Health Outcomes.
I am noting the FACT that it has no NET effect on healthcare outcomes.
“If the impact of smoking on mortality was actually that high – you would see and immediate effect.
The impact of smoking is actually extremely low. It approximately doubles your risk of some cancers. But those cancers to do not effect 100% of people, are not fatal 100% of the time and tend to occur towards the end of life and most typically for those who are more fragile anyway. I am not recomending smoking to anyone – but I beleive that actuarially the effect of smoking on the average smoker shortens their life by about 6weeks”
Brilliant. Amazing. You are the king of lost causes. If only you could have a time machine and go back to 1950 and be a tobacco company lawyer.
Strangely, Life insurance companies, based on the work of their actuaries DO believe the smoking has a strong impact and carry that assumption out to their lower rates for non smokers, which is foregone income if they are wrong.
Here is a clarifying excerpt from an article that took me about 1 minute to find.
“Rarely are simple messages heard, such as the fact that about half of all smokers will die from smoking, and of these, about half will die before or around age 50. These numbers come from a landmark 50-year study of physicians in England, initiated in 1951.
Similarly, research from the ongoing Nurses’ Health Study, published in May this year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, finds that 64 percent of nurses who smoked died from smoking-related causes. The life expectancy for a smoker in the United States is about 64, which is 14 years shorter than the national average (which includes smokers), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(Ha, so much for your 6 weeks.)
Going by these numbers it becomes clear that few pastimes, habits or addictions are deadlier than smoking. Only Russian roulette and scorpion juggling come to mind.
Much more than cancer
Part of the problem of the misconception of real risks is the emphasis on smoking and lung cancer. The greater danger is from vascular diseases leading to heart attacks and stroke, which kill more smokers than all cancers combined. Toxins in the tobacco smoke cause inflammation and hardening in the arteries.
Nearly as common as lung cancer among smokers is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which entails the narrowing of airways in the lung, largely in the form of chronic bronchitis or emphysema. Bronchitis is a result of smoking-induced inflammation; emphysema stems from cigarette smoking hardening the alveoli, the little sacks in the lungs where oxygen meets blood.
If painful death as a middle-age adult doesn’t move you, consider life-quality issues. Smokers get sick more often because smoke paralyzes tiny hair-like structures in the lungs called cilia, which otherwise sweep dirt and bacteria out of your lungs. Smokers have less endurance, particularly sexual endurance, because carbon monoxide replaces oxygen in the blood.”
https://www.livescience.com/3093-smoking-myths-examined.html
Roby;
I do not care which way you wish to go on this.
You can claim my observations on the actual magnitude of harms of smoking are wrong – fine, if that were true than your complete wipeout of tobacco would have an immediate and measuable effect.
With specific respect to smoking:
We will all die eventually. Most of us will die from something that could be attributed to smoking – if we were a smoker.
As an example Lung cancer rates are about 60% higher for smokers.
but people who are not smokers – still get lung cancer, and of those who smoke and get lung cancer more than 1/2 would likely have gotten lung cancer anyway.
I do not smoke, I have never smoked. I am not planning on smoking, I do not understand why anyone would.
But people do, and if it that kills them very quickly – that is fine with me, given that it was their free choice.
With respect to the specifics of the argument about the life expectance impacts of smoking.
What you beleive inherently results in an iresolvable contradiction.
You either must beleive I am wrong about the magnitude of health impacts of smoking,
or your claim that elimanting all smoking near instantaneously would not have a noticeable impact on life expectance trends must be wrong.
I really do not care which you wish to go with.
I am not interested in starting a new debate with you over smoking.
because I do not care about it very much.
And because you are incapable of informed debate,
and are going to put your effort into telling me how horrible people think things are or other stupid appeals to authority rather than facts. That I am not even going to bother to read.
You have so thoroughly lost this argument regarding the impact on fife expectance of health insurance that it is just plain stupid for you to continue – yet you do.
Why do I want to debate something similar with you which you are likely less informed about, less interested in being informed, and again going to declare victory – because it is “obvious” that otehr people “feel” the same way you do – as if nature gives a damn about your feelings.
“consider life-quality issues. Smokers get sick more often because smoke paralyzes tiny hair-like structures in the lungs called cilia, which otherwise sweep dirt and bacteria out of your lungs. Smokers have less endurance, particularly sexual endurance, because carbon monoxide replaces oxygen in the blood.””
I did not make a “quality of life” argument. It is entirely irrelevant whether we agree or disagree over QOL issues. The argument you made was that despite the magnitude of the health effects of smoking no effects would show up in trends for a long if all tobacco vaporized tomorow.
That is quite simply crap.
The larger the effect smoking has on life expectance the quicker and larger the effect of a global cessation would be. It is called math.
Either you are right that there would be little noticeable effect BECAUSE the life expectance impacts of smoking are small, or
you are right that the lefe expectance impacts of smoking are large – and there would be a large noticeable effect in your thought experiment.
Pick whichever makes you happy.
The choice you do not get is smoking has a large effect on life expectancy but an instaneous end to all smoking will have no observable effects on life expectance.
Once again it is called Math. You must have had several years of advanced math to get a phd in molecular biology as you claim – try using it.
Roby;
I am 59 years old. For much of my youth smoking was commonplace.
My mother was a heavy smoker, But she died of colon Cancer, just a little shy of the average life expectance for someone from her age cohort.
Regardless, I know the QOL effects it had on her.
Nor was she the only smoker in my life – during the 60’s and 70’s these were common place.
I still have a few friends who are near my age who took up smoking and have never been able to quit.
I have zero interest in selling smoking to anyone.
Nor have I some interest in substituting emotional anguish for argument or fact.
“The alternative to a system based very heavily ”
BZZT, Wrong.
No one put you in charge. You do not get to decide for everyone else – that is the point.
Nor do you know what will occur. In fact in an actually free market many different things will occur – we will not get “one size fits all” nonsense that IYI’s such as yourself favor.
Further I am not interested in beating your straw man.
What we had before PPACA was not a free market, it was a government created mess, and it is hard to imagine that PPACA could possibly have made it worse – but it did.
At its very best PPACA is spending in one form or another an extra $1T/year for no noticeable change in outcome.
The answer to what should be do imediately is trivial – go back to the mess before.
As bad as it was, it was not overall worse, and it was far cheaper.
AFTER we have done that we can talk about what is necescary to improve things – starting with getting government even further out, because there is nothing that government touches that does not get more expensive and lower in quality as a result.
Actually bother to learn something – I would suggest starting with some primers on public choice – which is just the application of the same principles of human conduct that those of you on the left are so certain drives the free market towards a race to the bottom, to govenrment, where lo and behold, the proveable consequences are worse.
It is simple – if you beleive that people are to corrupt and greedy to operate in the free market – then they are FAR to corrupt and greedy to govern others.
“The modern state of healthcare is based on people paying collectively for the system, and in general not depending on paying out of pocket for anything other than the least expensive health care.”
Multiple straw men. So you F’ things up – and then claim that is how it is, so that is how it must be ? Really ? Critical thinking appears beyond you.
All insurance is a form of gambling that is all. IT is VOLUNTARY gambling.
It is The insurance companies Betting that the cost to cover the bad things that actually happen that they insura against will be cheaper than the premiums they collect.
There is pretty much ZERO difference between that and casino gambling.
It is individuals paying premiums that they KNOW or SHOULD KNOW will almost certainly be higher than their likely health care costs – because no one would offer them insurance at that cost if that was not overall true, in return for protection againts the possibility that they “win” their bet with the insurance company – and contract a very expensive health problem.
Health insurance is that simple, it is PURELY a financial transaction,.
it should be entirely voluntary. There is no way that this transaction improves as a consequnce of the use of force.
Not only is Health insurance a form of gambling – but there is no reason that everyone must or should participate. For the vast majority of people under 35 health insurance is an unwise econimic choice.
I posted Stossel’s video on Thanksgiving. It is short. I would strongly suggest going back and watching it. When you socialize consumption without tying consumption to production – which is what happened at Both Jamestown and Plymouth, and what has happened with Medicare, and in some form with all socialized medicine throughout the world, and what occured with the housing bubble – you get moral hazard and you get bad outcomes.
Canada like every Single payer system must limit access. Because if there is no direct cost for consumption humans will over consume, and force becomes necescary to correct the problem.
I do not understand why those on the left fail to grasp that people will not behave as they hope and that the consequence of their “altruistic” programs ulitimately becomes more force.
Why is it that you think that government is going to be able to deliver services better – when inevitably government delivering a service requires vastly more use of force than doing so privately.
You tell me of the necescity for regulation – but the vast majority of medical regulation today is about how government interacts with the health care system – regulations that would be unnescary without government involvement.
Regardless, you are growing the need for additional force.
You are playing a losing game.
“The modern state of healthcare is based on people paying collectively for the system, and in general not depending on paying out of pocket for anything other than the least expensive health care.”
Multiple straw men. So you F’ things up – and then claim that is how it is, so that is how it must be ? Really ? Critical thinking appears beyond you.”
???? (ad hominem BTW)
I have had a change of my thinking about your posts. You used to be able to make me pretty angry. But that is just a matter of my own psychology. I can alter my thinking and reaction to you.
For me now, you are simply amusing. I can have some fun with you. But, its a low level of fun, and it annoys others so I won’t take it too far.
Let me know when and where health insurance disappears and people go back to paying out of pocket for their heart transplants, surgeries, cancer therapy, CAT scans, etc.
I live in the real world Dave, your world is just a philosophical fantasy that is disastrously, for you, not in correspondence with reality. Can’t be fun. But…Your problem.
You do not seem to understand what Ad Hominem is.
If I take my care to a mechanic and they return the car worse than I sent it to them, and then charge me for it. Telling them the F’d up – is not “ad hominem” it is an observation of fact.
It MIGHT be an over generalization – i.e. a proper argument might be, you returned the car with A, B, C, and D broken all of which were working when I gave it to you.
My argument was that you took a system that had problems, and then made it worse, and then claimed – that is just how it is.
Sorry, NO!. When you break something you are responsible.
If you make somethign worse – it is NOT “ad hominem” to note that you have made it worse.
All insults are not ad hominem – an insult that is both true and relevant is not ad hominem.
Though I am about to insult you.
It is not the sign of someone with a Phd. In mollecular biology to be unable to distinguish between “ad hominem” – which means an argument directed at the person – like saying “you are stupid ergo you are wrong” and their own feelings of inferiority and insult because their argument is weak. Making a bad or weak argument – makes you appear stupid. That is an effect you impose on yourself. Even insulting an argument that you make after demonstrating how bad it is, or even insulting you for making a bad argument – after demonstrating how bad the argument is, is not ad hominem.
In the real world should we meet, we probably would like each other. I am easy to get along with. But I have a great deal of difficulty beleiving based on your arguments that you had the GRE’s you claimed or have a Phd. and anything, and if so – then they give away Phd’s too easily – but then I already know that.
“Let me know when and where health insurance disappears and people go back to paying out of pocket for their heart transplants, surgeries, cancer therapy, CAT scans, etc.”
False generalization. We have myriads of forms of insurance and have had at least since the medieval period – if not before.
We are not debating insurance – and you know it. In fact what you are selling isn’t even inurance, it is just another entitlement masquerading as government secured insurance.
Do you actually think that Social Security is insurance ? or Medicare is ?
Actual insurance is voluntary – The insurance company accepts the insured’s risk in return for the premiums the insured pays. It is little different from buying an apple – accept that that the commodity is risk rather than apples.
Further the examples you cite are all the major risk items that we would expect that people might buy insurance against.
I do not care if people freely choose to pay insurance companies 11K/year extra to “save” paying the first 10K of medical expenses. So long as the choice is free.
But I would expect that in an actually free market few would do so – because it is a bad idea and has negative value for most of us.
That you can not understand that is highly disturbing. It again strongly suggests that the claims you make about your own education and accomplishments are false.
“I live in the real world Dave”
Not a chance. You live in a world with unicorns that fart raspberry clouds.
You have near zero connection to the real world.
“your world is just a philosophical fantasy”:
The objective of philosophy, like of all the sciences, is to explain the real world.
It is YOUR piss poorly developed philosophies that even you are not capable of arguing that are about a fantasy world.
In the REAL WORLD, unjustified abridgement of liberty is immoral, and criminal.
There are numerous philosophical arguments regarding that. Those arguments have merit BECAUSE the correspond to the real world.
“that is disastrously, for you, not in correspondence with reality. Can’t be fun. But…Your problem.”
I am doing fine. I have never asked for your help.
All I have ever asked of you is that you cease using or advocating for the unjustified use of force against others, directly or by proxy. A request that you refuse. A request that you are morally obligated to meet.
You keep trying to sell this stupid meme that all the rest of the developed world is somehow ahead of us on healthcare.
In someways they are – but almost none have actual systems of the types you want.
Germany has a mandate, and a kind of medicaid for all – with private suplimental insurance, But even the medicaid for all, is competitively privately provided.
Switzerland mandates that everyone must have health insurance. But it is provided exclusively privately and only a tiny portion of people are subsidized.
Further their mandates have teeth. If you do not buy private health insurance, you will be heavily fined.
India purportedly has a fully public system – but that is a mirage. In practice they have a fully private heatlhcare system resembling that of the US prior to WWII – basically a pay as you need system. The quality is high the cost is dirt cheap and they do a booming medical tourism business with Europe – particuarly the UK.
The bottom line is that most of the developed countries in the world have systems that are actually closer to fully private than ours. The few exceptions are the worst.
What tends to be common in developed countries and missing until now in the US is a mandate to have health insurance. Europeans have mandates, and those mandates have teeth.
The Swiss as an example must pay 1/3 of the cost of all medical care up to about 5000. Similar arrangements are common in the nordic social democracies – even though they have otherwise closer to the leftist ideal.
It is true that alot of Europe has better health insurance schemes than the US.
It is also True that PPACA is NOT a step towards those.
Nearly all of them go to great lengths to address Moral hazard – the US conversely disasterously creates moral hazzard.
Anyway, if you are going to try to sell things that you do not even know about – then maybe you should go away – it is decieptful and immoral.
“You keep trying to sell this stupid meme that all the rest of the developed world is somehow ahead of us on healthcare.
In someways they are – but almost none have actual systems of the types you want.”
I have said nothing here about what I really want. You are fantasizing, inventing.
“Anyway, if you are going to try to sell things that you do not even know about – then maybe you should go away – it is decieptful and immoral.”
I am selling nothing at all. Its another fantasy you have, that you know what I want. I have no idea what kind of system I want, its beyond my pay grade. My reaction to the part of the left that thinks it can get us to single payer has been uniform and negative.
The mere fact that I recognize the fact that worldwide the finances of medical system is built on collectivism in some form rather than each person paying for their medical treatment out of pocket has sent you into an erroneous frenzy of ideas about what I want.
The “maybe you should go away” part of your post seriously cracks me up! I wonder how many times in your life that same has been said to you?!? And your response is, as we know, that the very idea of you going away is oppressive.
Dave, the “maybe you should go away” Libertarian. Not one of your principles is real. ROFLMAO
“I have said nothing here about what I really want. You are fantasizing, inventing.”
When you argue:
All other developed nations have X.
There are several conclusions that can be drawn from that.
1), You are combining an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity.
2). That you think there is some positive significance to X and out absence of X – i.e. that you prefer X over ~X – otherwise there is no reason to make the argument.
Regardless, I do not care either way. If you make a false argument I am likely to discredit it.
I do not care much whether you make false arguments that have nothing to do with what you think or not.
Though I think it is reasonable for me to beleive you favor the things you argue for.
Of course maybe I an fantasizing that you are arguing for things you want and beleive, rather than throwing grenades.
“I am selling nothing at all. Its another fantasy you have, that you know what I want. I have no idea what kind of system I want, its beyond my pay grade. ”
If you do not know what you are talking about – then why are you arguing.
Sorry Roby, it is quite reasonable for me to assume that when you argue for something you want what you argue for.
BTW, I do not care whether you want Single Payer. The errors are essentially the same, only the magnitude is greater.
What we have is a disaster, What we had before was abysmal, albeit less so.
We are mutually arguing opposing positions – Single payer, the status quo, some permutation fo what we have – it really does not matter. You think that more government is the answer.
It isn’t. The fact that some counter examples of government failure do not exactly correspond with what you support – is not important. The absence of government success is what is relevant.
“The mere fact that I recognize the fact that worldwide the finances of medical system is built on collectivism in some form rather than each person paying for their medical treatment out of pocket has sent you into an erroneous frenzy of ideas about what I want. ”
Mischaracterization.
There is no “worldwide finances of the medical system.
Any more than there is “world wide finances of pencils”.
With very few exceptions goods and services are delivered by markets. Those are amorphous mostly bottom up structures. They are not “world wide systems”.
Markets are themselves inhernetly a form of voluntary collectivism – we are all working together for our own self interests, but the net effect is the common good.
Insurance is no different – until government gets involved.
Involuntary collectivism NEVER works.
If you do not want what you argue – why are you having a discussion at all ?
“And your response is, as we know, that the very idea of you going away is oppressive.”
You really are completely incapable of perceiving any aspect of the world as anything but the use of force.
Your posts do not and can not oppress me, not only have I never claimed that,. I have vigorously asserted that you do not have the right or power or ability to do so, nor can I in the context of blog comments use force against you.
There is no “oppressor” nor no “victim”.
Saying “no” when you attempt to make demands you have no power to enforce, or make claims regarding me (or anything else) that are ludicrously stupid – is not claiming to be oppresed or your victim. It is exactly the opposite. It is claiming that there can be no victims here.
That you are using an abysmally bad metaphor that demonstrates a delusional understanding of what is and is not force, and what constitutes oppression.
BTW, this “I have not said what I want” – crap is thin and nonsensical.
I would be shocked if I had to go far to find a post by you advocating SP.
But I do not care the argument is not about SP, it is not about knowing precisely what you want.
It is to use your terms about the failure of top down collectivism in any form.
Regardless, either you know something about you want, or you just look stupid or decieptful arguing.
Dave, you are mostly just incoherent. Various disconnected gears and springs and sparks fly out when someone shakes you slightly. Gibberish. When you do say something actually coherent its some new Dave denialism howler like “The impact of smoking is actually extremely low” or “the effect of smoking on the average only shortens their life by about 6 weeks.” Flat Earth stuff.
An amusing sort of fellow, seen in the proper light. Carry on.
“Dave, you are mostly just incoherent. Various disconnected gears and springs and sparks fly out when someone shakes you slightly. Gibberish.”
This would be mild ad hominem – an attack on the person rather than the argument.
Regardless, Insurance is about wealth not health. My arguments support that. But more important the facts and studies do. You assorted responses are little more than “I disagree”, “that makes no sense to me”, or “I do not feel that is true”. None of which are arguments.
“When you do say something actually coherent its some new Dave denialism howler like “The impact of smoking is actually extremely low” or “the effect of smoking on the average only shortens their life by about 6 weeks.” Flat Earth stuff.
An amusing sort of fellow, seen in the proper light. Carry on.”
More ad hominem – Your “Argument” above simplifies to:
“I do not beleive what Dave said, therefore it is not true”.
Facts, logic reason, that is the way you make arguments, and if you are wise the way you make choices. More importantly it is a REQUIREMENT when you are making choices for others.
We have had decades of people thumbing their chests screetching “smoking is bad”.
And it is. But you are not going to die of lung cancer if you light up a single cigarette.
The actuarial data is out there. Beleive it, don’t. I do not care.
Nor does it matter.
The Argument YOU made fails the more harmful smoking is.
So you have trapped yourself between a rock and a hard place
But go ahead – rather than support your argument – and the entire smoking debate is a meaningless tangent that you introduced.
And just another example where you substitute feelings for facts.
YES, I DENY ABSOLUTELY that your feelings trump actual facts.
With respect to Smoking and life expectance – China is relatively unique in that about 1/3 of males smoke, but 1% or less of women smoke – while there is a sex difference in smoking elsewhere in the world the largest difference where we have good data is in China.
Smoking is a factor in the death of 20% of Males – that means it is not a factor in about half of all male smokers. The difference in Life expectance between men and women in China is just under 5 years. That is about the same as global averages – including nations that have virtually no smoking. One of the things you do not seem to be able to grasp is that there is a differences between “smoking is a factor” and the point being actually argued.
Smoking can be a factor in 100% of the deaths of smokers, and still have the life expectance of smokers overall only a few months different from that of non-smokers. Further you can have radically different QOL between smokers and non-smokers and still only have small differences in life expectance. You can have radically different costs of healthcare – and still only small differences in life expectance.
You made a claim based on life expectance. You chose the claim you made I didn’t. Now you are unhappy that it is the wrong ground to be making the argument.
I have not argued that you should smoke, or that smoking is not harmful.
Only that your Smoking and life expectance argumnet fails.
Frankly if fails worse if Smoking is more deletorious – but you are clueless to even that.
You are busy insulting me because I note that the effect of smoking on life expectance is not that large. Attributing to me as a consequence all kinds of other views regarding smoking that I do not have.
But why not – if you “feel” I am wrong on one fact, you can then logically impute beleif in every other thing that you “feel” is wrong to me.
I really can not beleive that you are a micro-biologist. You can not do science as disconnected from facts, logic and reason as you are. The only thing that makes it possible for me to accept your claimed GRE scores is that Ted Kazinsky has about the same IQ as your scores predict.
Regardless, your ability to process anything logically is very poor – as is self evident from the arguments you make here.
Its so simple Dave. While smoking is terribly harmful, quitting tomorrow will not save you from the harms of many years of smoking. The benefits at a statistical level would be phased in very slowly over the scale of a human lifespan. In 30 years there would likely be a noticeable affect on the American population as a whole. Since it is only 20% of people who smoke and not 100%, the effect would not be as dramatic as one might imagine. As well, it would be mixed in with all the other positive and negative influences that occurred during the period. Thus, although quitting smoking is clearly related to an improvement in health, the statistical effect would still need to be teased out of the data and would be lost in the noise for quite a few years.
This is not difficult stuff and if you have a basic knowledge and statistical and epidemiological issues it is quite easy to grasp.
My analogy was pretty good. The phased in over time effects of the say 20 million people we are talking about out of 330 million getting health insurance under Obama care would be lost in the noise for quite a while, and since that is about 6% of the population and the improvement in their health would be phased in over time, as with the hypothetical case of smokers all quitting, it would be very hard to distinguish the signal from the noise. Ron and I went over this and we had no trouble having a meeting of opinion. Its really a very basic simple set of ideas.
Now, you are the sort of amusing fellow who believes its an act of intelligence NOT to understand a simple point and dispute it. Actually most of us find that NOT understanding simple points when it is habitual is a sign of some mental issue.
You are the only person I have encountered who could try to pass off the idea that smoking is of extremely minor harm and then claim that they won an argument with someone who knew the real situation.
It goes without saying that you are at a spectacular level of obtuseness and hypocrisy on the matter of ad hominems and who is using them and who understands what they are between the two of us. I can guarantee that your reaction to my statement is going to be more hypocrisy and obtuseness and more ad hominems. But, I have decided to enjoy the ride of observing your nonsense and have a good laugh at the mess you are producing in the name of your ideology.
Carry on.
You are debating yourself over smoking and beating the crap out of a straw man.
I made a specific claim regarding the impact of smoking on life expectance related to your idiotic hypothetical about the vaporization of all tobacco tomorow.
Keep beating the shit out of that straw man.
While your rant has a number of errors – as I recall, within about 2 years of quitting smoking your statistical risks revert to nearly those of a non-smoker. There is even biological reasons for this.
The nicotine in smoke paralyzes the Mucosilliar transport system making it difficult to remove not merely the other bad components in cigarettes, but those you breath it. Shortly after quitting smoking that system recovers and eventually cleans the built up garbage out of your lungs.
And that is only one short term mechanism of improvement.
But hey, who cares about reality when we can just make things up.
You are wreaking havoc on your own argument.
Regardless, it does nto work however you play it.
Worse still you are looking increasingly ill informed about biology – something you claim to have a doctorate in.
Njo this is not difficult stuff – and yet you can not seem to grasp it.
The biology is relatively simple – and you have it wrong.
The math is relatively simple – and you have it wrong.
I should have left you with your false claim that the effect on life expectance is large – as that makes your mathematical problem even worse.
Regardless, even with a minimal impact of smoking on life expectance, an immediate end to all smoking would have a measurable impact on life expectance within two years.
If the impact on life expectance is even larger – the effect will be larger and likely faster.
Finally lets actually pretend for the moment that your argument is correct.
If something with the overall health impact of smoking – which though you are overstating its impact, is still one of the larger factors effecting health, if that behaves as you are positing in your hypothetical, then PPACA will cost us Trillions of dollars and have next to no measureable benefit.
That is what YOU are saying. If it takes half of forever to see results and the results are tiny, then we are spending a small fortune for next to nothing.
You do not seem to grasp that a measurable impact on life expectance trends is the ONLY meaningful proof that what you are doing has value.
Because if you do not get that – then you have by definition wasted an enormous amount of money.
Your argument that even the effects of smoking would take forever and be nearly unnoticeable basically says – what I wish to do is a gargantuan waste of money.
BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS.
The GRE’s you claim you have impute skills in logic that you are not even close to demonstrating.
“The GRE’s you claim you have impute skills in logic that you are not even close to demonstrating.”
Ad hominem, Again. Ho Hum, this is what happens when someone tells Dave he is wrong and he gets caught defending a series of absurd statements.
Dave, talking with me brings out the worst in you, it takes every negative tendency you have and amplifies it. If I were a cruel person I could continue this conversation ad nauseum and push you truly over the edge. Fortunately for both of us, that is a project I will not carry out.
There are times when you are not arguing with me, (or some other person you perceive as a so-called destructive left wing nut) when you even say things that I can find interesting and reasonable and that I can agree with. Get into an argument with me and within a few posts you sound like a complete nut case, obtuse, illogical, dishonest, rude and insulting while being hypersensitive and whiny.
You might want to consider avoiding this pattern.
“Ad hominem”
Yes, but you will not actually argue facts, you make yourself or me the subject of the argument
That is essentially the issue with ad hominem – it shifts the argument away from the actual issue.
I have lost ? How would that be ?
The argument you just made was that something with the massive impact of smoking – while you and I disagree on the actual statistical magnitude of the impact of smoking.
I do not disagree with out at all that it is likely on of the single largest factors in health, anyway your argument is that even if we obliterated the largest single factor effecting life expectancy – who could not expect to see noticeable results for a long time – if ever.
And there the argument should end. You can not accomplish what you claim. You know you can not, so you “declare victory”.
From Stalingrad to to the fall of Berlin Nazi radio proclaimed regular victories.
If this is you being right, if this is me losing arguments to you.
Please sir, can I have more ?
“Dave, talking with me brings out the worst in you, it takes every negative tendency you have and amplifies it.”
That would be correct. You epitimize what I dislike the most – smug intellectual hypocracy.
You went on your rant about sandernistas.
Who cares ? They are mostly harmless. Their ideas are so bad it is highly unlikely even they will dare try them. And if they do they will fail quickly.
You want destruction by have measures. You want crap that is not so great a failure that it immediately gets discarded. You want to impose misery on all for decades.
Worse still – if the things you calim about yourself are true – you either know better, or are capable of knowing better.
The sandernistas are idiots. They do not know better, and few of them are capable of knowing bettter.
I can tolerate Moogie easier than you. You have been given the intellect, the skills, the tools to do better – to actually do good, and yet you do evil, and claim it is good.
I do not know whether you actually beleive your own crap. I hope not.
But it does not matter – you have the intellectual capactity to grasp your own error, to understand the real harm you are doing to the very people you pretend to be helping.
Yes, you bring out my anger. Justifiably.
We have gone round and round over whether PPACA has a measurable postive effect on life expectance. Which is just a special case of whether health insurance has an effect on health.
The answer is no. Your argument ultimately boils down to Trillions for butterfly wings – in a decade or two maybe.
And after that you declare victory ?
IYI
“Alas alas for you
Lawyers and pharisees
Hypocrites that you be
Searching for souls and fools to forsake them
You travel the land you scour the sea
After you’ve got your converts you make them
Twice as fit for hell!
As you are yourselves!”
“Get into an argument with me and within a few posts you sound like a complete nut case, obtuse, illogical, dishonest, rude and insulting while being hypersensitive and whiny.”
More of this – if you say something that makes it true.
If an argument is obtuse – you can point it out.
I am not the one who took this into mythical vanishing tobacco.
And in your fairytale land – my noting that the impact of smoking on life expectance is small – that is obtuse ?
illogical ? Logic is a system of rules. Logic errors are identifiable. They are identifiable facts – not feelings. Belief that an argument is wrong – or right, is neither logic nor evidence of error.
Dishonest ? Again something demonstrable. And again a claim that when you make bets your own integrity.
Why do I have so much problem with you – this would be part of why.
When you have nothing lieft to argue – and you never have anything to argue,
You devlve to character assassination – that is the real meaning of ad hominem.
You convert the argument into an argument about the other person.
You do not like an argument – the argument is “obtuse” or “dishonest” or “rude” or “:insulting”
Read your own posts.
I rarely attack you personally – until you convert the argument into a personal attack.
You have again drug me to YOUR stupid dark place.
But I will leave you with
“a complete nut case,
obtuse,
illogical,
dishonest,
rude and insulting
while being hypersensitive
and whiny”
None of those are arguments. None of them are relevant to any argument.
None of those are in my arguments.
All of them are projection of your own flaws onto anyone or anything you can not deal with.
So back to the actual argument.
Neither PPACA nor health insurance as a whole has a measureable impact on life expectancy.
You have not only accepted that, you have argued it.
The argument is over.
Move on.
I should stop point out the stupid mistakes you are making – because in the end you are arguing MY case.
PPACA – or your hypothetical – it does not matter.
Has a very high yearly cost and no measureable benefits.
Got it, Agree, now can will kill it ?
Do you not agree that if we are going to blow $1T of wealth per year that we should get some value in return ?
“The modern state of healthcare is based on people paying collectively for the system, and in general not depending on paying out of pocket for anything other than the least expensive health care.”
You broadcast these ignorant blanket statements as if they were somehow universal truths.
Yes, what you say is true for some people some of the time. It is not universally true, nor is it even a good ideal.
Again go take a look at the stossel video.
Collectively providing any good or service FAILS, absent tight controls on moral hazard.
Fully private free market health insurance controls MKoral hazard a verity of ways – including deductibles, and making the cost of insurance that covers nearly everything prohibitive.
It is STILL typical in the US that the difference between health insurancee with a $10K/year deductible, and health insurance with very low deductible – is a bit more than 10K a year.
Anyone not an IYI will grasp that it is a poor fiscal choice to buy low deductible insurance.
We tend to only see that being common either in employer provided coverage – and even their it is fading, or government employees.
It NEVER makes economic sense to cover basic health care with health insurance.
Insurance covers us against unexpected costs. It is fiscal stupidity to cover expected costs through insurance.
Anyway collectively providing basics requires either very high costs, or the use of force – AKA government.
“Health insurance, health, and mortality are inseparably linked at the societal level.”
Because you say so ? You have not even made an argument in this regard.
“You are wrong, you have lost, just wasting your time fighting reality.”
I have lost ? How so ? You have practically ceded the ground in what little rebutal you have made.
The actual argument in your responses is:
Colonoscopies are good.
But it takes a long time for the results to show up,
and they will be small no matter what.
Accepting your entire argument at face value – despite the fact that it has numerous flaws.
You would STILL lose.
Essentially you are claiming we MUST pay $1T a year for improvements in mortality that will take a very long time to show up and will be very small when they do.
Even when I assume ALL of the benfits you claim, and NONE of the 2nd or third order costs,
You STILL fail, because the first order costs dwarf YOUR best case benefits.
If this is “losing” – Please sir, can I have more!
BTW, I do not know HOW my name got changed from Roby to V………. It was nothing I intended.
“BTW, I do not know HOW my name got changed from Roby to V………. It was nothing I intended.”
Don;t care. Don;t care if I know it is you.
I am interested in the argument not the person making it.
WORD PRESS SUCKS!!! SECOND TRY
Dave, I dont buy it that we would not be better off with more centrist candidates on one side or the other.
https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/steve-bannon-2018-1.15214274
This article demonstrates to me the problem with both parties. Bannon is going after anyone with positions other than his insane extremist right positions. So we have 30% GOP that hold his positions and we most likely have 30% that hold positions like Pelosi. That leaves 40% that hold more positions that are centrist, but most likely split between independent, democrat and republican. So the 30% in the democrat party get their extreme views represented and the 30% in the GOP get their extreme views represented. So now the majority in the middle have to decide which extreme view is less of a turd than the other.
If we could get money flowing to candidates with more tempered libertarian views that I believe are closer to my “moderate” definition of government, then I believe we would be much better off. Government involved less in personal issues and government spending only after a balanced budget has been submitted (except for natural disaster spending and declared wars by congress). LESS GOVERNMENT, but still involved in consumer protection ( (which I know you disagree with)
Ron
“Dave, I dont buy it that we would not be better off with more centrist candidates on one side or the other”
That is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that there is no inherent reason that centrism is superior.
So Bannon is going after some candidates, and Sorros ois going after others. And the Koch’s are supporting they own slates and opposing others and …..
That is exactly how we want things. We make the best choices when even the most vile people get their best opportunity to shred principles, values and ideals we hold sacred.
We not only can not trust our values unless they are tested by fire – by the best (or worst) counters that can be made, but if they are not constantly challenged – even if they are right, they ultimately become weak – because we lose the understanding of how to defend them.
I am working through John Stuart Mill “on liberty’ again.
It is an incredible essay. Mill shred’s all the arguments against the expression of competing values – even vile ones.
One interesting insight I picked up from him is that it is not just the debate among the elites that matters – that each of us is obligated the understand the important debates of our era – because they effect us, because our freedom is at stake, and because whether we like it or not, either by our explicit informed consent or by our implicit trust is elites or authorities we end up making the choice anyway.
Roby recently noted that he does not give a crap about philosophy.
While I personally do and find it difficult to perceive that one would not.
I leave people free to decide what is important to them.
But Mill argues that while we might be free to be ignorant of philosophy, we are morally obligated to know sufficient to make the choices we do.
Roby like nearly all on the left puffs his feathers and steps up onto the moral soapbox about nearly every issue. But he openly admits to eschewing philosophy – that is the same as saying I am free to deliver moral pronouncements on others, but have no obligation to have the slightest clue about morality.
Anyway back to your argument – I have no problem with centrism. I have a problem with the presumption that centrism is inherently superior.
I think as an example that the principles I argue are clearly right.
Often those are as some here would say “extreme” – oddly they were on the extreme left 200 years ago, aparently they are now on the extreme right so I am told.
And in truth they are the “liberal” values that created this nation and pbrought it to prominence – as opposed to the progressive and conservative values that represent the current extremes and have histroically failed everywhere.
Regardless my “extremist” positions represent some positions of the right, and some of the left.
They are neither left or right – but what I see as the best of the left and right.
They are not mostly “compromises”
But they are “centrist”, “moderate” – to my way of thinking.
They are also vastly superior to either taking the left as it is, the right as it is, or creating a third choice by splitting each conflict down the middle.
The compromise centrism or moderation advocated here, is not only not superior to the extremism of the left or the right, but it may well be inferior.
That does nto mean I reject the concept of centrism or moderation. Just the assumption that it means spltting the difference between the exptremes rather than taking the best that each extreme has to offer.
I also beleive that we test values – both by free speach and debate – including allowing Bannon to go after those he wishes to, and by seeing how they work in the real world
I am at odds with Bannon on many things. But not on everything.
I beleive as an example that we should leave afghanistan.
I think that the “neoconish” solution of “the generals” is wrong – even though I think they are likely more morally decent people than Bannon. Regardless on this issue Bannon was right, they were wrong. Trump fought and ranted and raved, and ultimately went with the generals and the wrong choice.
The point is I am not knee jerk opposed to Bannon and everything he does.
I am hopefully well informed opposed to MANY (not all) of what he does.
And if he goes to battle – his ideas – both the bad AND the good will get voiced, and that is GOOD.
Dave, in most all comments I make concering moderate political views, you have related that to compromise being a tool.
I DO NOT relate moderate politics to compromising ones positions.
Examples:
Progressives want abortion and paid for by government for the poor
Conservatives want most all abortions banned.
A moderate position is libertarian in nature where abortion is allowed, but no federal support.
Progressives want single payer health insurance
Conservatives want government out or paying for most all health care
A moderate position is realizing government should not interfere with the free market, but also realize the free market may cut out groups needing coverage and supporting government programs for those individuals.
Progressive support increased taxes on the rich
Conservatives support reduced taxes for the rich
A moderate position is reducing government spending, cutting special interest loopholes and reforming tax laws where each entity and individual pays their fair share of government programs.
Moderates hold a centrist losition to begin with
Compromise requires the extremes to move to the ” Moderates” positions.
In response.
All conservatives do not want the same thing.
Progressives tend to be more homogenous – though they might not agree on priorities.
You offered what you claim are moderate views on a number of different issues.
Those views are in some cases compromises
in others they are just alternatives.
They essentially reflect a “third party” with no more or less claim to be extreme than the existing parties.
I do not think I straight up agree with any of the positions you offered. Though I am close on one or two.
Regardless, I and libertarians want less government – in all of these.
We might not perfectly agree on how much less,
but still we want less.
That quite often coincides well with what Conservatives want on many issues.
But it also coincides with what the left wants – or atleast it did when they wanted actual tolerance rather than the outright supression of disent.
Regardless, your “moderate” positions are not inherently more right (or less), than republican or democrats.
Nor are they inherently less divisive.
Nor do they address my argument that sometimes there is a right and wrong position on given issues.
You seem so fixated on avoiding conflict than you lose interest in right and wrong.
Though both the left and the right are often both certain they are right and at the same time wrong, They are also each right some of the time.
I have more problems with the left – because today – even where they are close to right, they inevitably goo too far, Your abortion example being a good example.
Having a right to something, does not mean having the right to have others provide it for you.
I guess Bette doesn’t agree with you critics
You (and Bette) seem entirely clueless.
Credit is something that you must earn. No one just gives it to you.
The Financial crisis was a consequence of government pushing the financial institutions to extend credit when it was not earned.
The CFPB is regulating credit in part so the financial market that did not have problems in 2008 – of course that is true of the entirety of Dodd Frank – it is a fix for a problem we did nto and will never have.
The reason no one went to Jail for the financial crisis is because the only actual crimes were committed with the blessing and involvement of government and congress.
The financial crisis is the perfect example of how abysmally stupid it is to involve government in credit in any way at all.
Norway Is Happiest Country in the World.
No way, right Dave- Leftie Faux Propaganda.
How could a country with free healthcare & education, high wages, a strong middle class and nearly a month paid vacation time by law be happy.
It’s illigical. It’s fantasy. It’s TOTALLY Un-Libertarian!
Get on it, Dave. Tear those lefty socialists a new one. And a one, and a two…
http://time.com/4706590/scandinavia-world-happiness-report-nordics/
Jay comparing a country about the size of Florida and with a population the size of Minnesota with a high white Norwegian percent population, low immigrant rate, low poverty rate and a good average income, all much like Minnisota’ s to the United States with a higher illegal immigrant population and a higher poverty rate amoung a higher percent of minorities is like comparing a hot dog to a hamburger. Compare Minnesota to Norway and post your findings. Then we can discuss.
Jay fixates on the wrong things.
I happen to like Norway. I would like to visit,
I do not want to live there – and that is really the critical measure.
While comparisons to simliar parts of the US are more reasonable.
Overall I do not have that much problem with Jay’s fixation on the Nordic social democracies.
As I noted – Norway’s standard of living has been increasing at a rate less than 1/2 that of the US since atleast the early 80’s. It is currently less than 1/3 that of the US.
Norway has become incredibly dependent on its enormous relatively oil reserves.
Regardless, Norway is in trouble, and it knows it is in trouble – as all of those nordic social democracies do. Swedens average improvement in standard of living has been about .5% since 1980. Denmark was below 1% in 1980 and is now about .25%
Over the same period of time the US rates have been 3 times as large.
During the Obama and Bush administrations – miserable economic times for the US, our growth was higher than those Nordic Social Democracies were at anytime since 1980.
In otherwords our worst improvement was better than their best.
There are about 45M people in the US that were not born here – that is more people than all the nordic social democracies combined. That is about 15% of our population.
And with 15% of the population coming in dirt poor with each new generation we have an improvement in standard of living 3 times that of those nordic social democracies.
Whether you are doing as well as the norwegians or swedes or not.
You can be sure that you will be doing better in the future and that your children will be doing better still. And that is true even if you are a poor immigrant from Mexico.
The norwegians and Swedes and Danes can not say that.
BTW they know this. Further it is not intrinsic in their people – it is a facet of their government – and they know that.
Sweden studied swedish expatriots extensively in the 80’s.
They found that leaving sweden for another country nearly doubled the average swedes income.
AND that when they moved back that increase disappeared.
This told them that the ability of swedes to be more productive and to have a much higher standard of living was limited by the swedish government, not the people.
Also, Jay, keep in mind that Norway has refused to become part of the EU, so it doesn’t have to kowtow to Angela Merkel’s decision to accept millions of Middle Eastern migrants and fake refugees.
“The Norwegian model, she says, is very different and very clear. “If you are an economic migrant, you are declined in Norway,” she says. “We send people back to Afghanistan if they are not in need of protection; we send them back to Somalia if they are not in need of protection.” Isn’t this a rather expensive process? “Yes, but it’s well worth it.” Police are also sent out to areas where illegal immigrants are suspected of living and working. “If we find them, we send them out. That has also decreased crime in Norway, that’s very good.”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/norway-is-hard-on-migrants-but-tough-love-works/
Keep in mind that the Scandinavian Nations together have dominated that most happy list for decades.
Of course they have – and they likely will remain at the top of a list that you can not possibly create in anything resembling an objective manner.
You can not measure the happiness of others without imposing your definition of happiness and your criteria for measuring it.
I doubt that you and I agree on what happiness is.
Regardless, if you like scandinavia go to scandinavia.
I do not think it is a hell hole.
I have a friend who spent 15 years geting a 4 year degree in math in sweden – before they threw him out. He now works as a packer at Fedex and is still desparate to get back to sweden.
I have collaborated with swedish and finnish software developers in multi-nationals that I have been part of. Those myriads of vacations and benefits meant that actually accomplishing anything was done primarily by the US portion of the development team.
It meant when the swedes and fins could not deliver, missed deadlines of produced crap that we – often I had to fix it.
I am sure they were happy not actually doing their job.
Generally I found working with younger Swedes and Finns great – they still thought they had to prove their worth.
In 40 years the US has increased its population solely as a consequence of immigration, almost entirely of people At the bottom by over 15%.
During that same period we have managed to average about 3% increase in standard of living per year.
Not one of those Nordic social democracies has managed to average 2%, and most of them are below 1%.
Further the US after two decades of 2% growth (still better than northern europe) is trending back towards 3%, while ALL of these countries are trending DOWN.
Increased standard of living means people will be better off each year,
They will do better than their parents, and their children will do better than they do.
If you like the nordic model – go to Denmark, Norway. Sweden.
But please do not inflict it on the rest of us by force.
What exactly is your point, Jay?
Ron pointed out that it’s a fallacy to compare little Norway to the US. I added that Norway has had to crack down on its borders and tighten its immigration policies to keep out those who would consume more than they contribute to the Norwegian economy and society.
Norwegians (and Scandinavians in general) value their welfare state, and do not value or encourage “getting ahead” in the same sense that Americans do. They value equality of outcomes more than equality of opportunity.
Which is just the opposite of American culture. Granted, the leftward drift of our politics has possibly changed things, but I doubt that even the clueless followers of Bernie Sanders would be happy if they had to pay income taxes of 50-60% in addition to a VAT of well over 20%. Most of them still want new cars and iPhones….and very few of them would be happy to downsize their own lifestyle so that they could subsidize the lifestyle of others, and keep everyone at the same level.
Right or wrong, we’re a more competitive and ambitious society.
Priscilla, you could add one more comment to your discussion on Norway. I may be wrong, but I believe one underlying reason for restrictions on immigration is, unlike America where we support those that come in illegally through various social programs and don’t blink an eye doing it, the Norwegians like their social programs, but want it restricted to native Norwegians and not used to support immigrants that would add additional cost to an already high cost system.
Norway also restricts work permits to 5000 (2011) per year, so the number of immigrants for work is very small and then they almost have to know the language as there is no “bilingual” status in the country. Last, if you are a child and born to two immigrants while they are in the country, you are not a citizen and have to wait until your 18th birthday to apply for one of the citizenship slots when it opens up. Even a child born with one immigrant parent has to apply for citizenship and may hold duel citizenship for two countries once they achieve one for Norway.
“Norway Is Happiest Country in the World.”
I have no idea, nor do I care. “Happiness indexs are statistical crap”
They inherently measure the preferences of the people creating the index.
I doubt you and I define happy the same.
Norway BTW also has nearly the highest GDP/PPP per capita in he world – mostly thanks of about 6K in government oil subsidies per person.
Regardless, since GDP/PPP per capita is an accurate measure of peoples ability to meet THEIR preferences, I am more interested in that as a measure of consequence.
“No way, right Dave- Leftie Faux Propaganda.”
Have not said that. What I am saying is that Happiness indexes can not measure something useful. They are inherently biased by the definition of happiness of those who product the index.
With respect to Norway.
1) They have the highest spending in the world on healthcare.
2). There system is not entirely free for adults, there is a deductible that must be met first.
3). Norway’s system covers basic healthcare – many many things like specialists, or advanced treatment are not covered.
4). Norway dramatically increased opportunities for Private education in 2005 and those have been increasing rapidly since.
5). University students do not have to pay much in Norway, but addmission is purely on the basis of merit – If you do not do well on exams you do not get in. Period.
Norway has a separate private higher education system that you pay for.
Of the top 10 universities in the world – aside from Cambridge and Oxford – the rest are ALL in the US, In the top 20, All but Swiss Federal, and University College London – are in the US. Of the top 100 Colleges in the world 75 are in the US.
I do not beleive one is in Norway.
6). Norway is comparable in size to Connecticut – do you think that overall Norway will fare very well in comparision to Conneticutt ?
“How could a country with free healthcare & education, high wages, a strong middle class and nearly a month paid vacation time by law be happy.”
Wages, and benfits are paid for by what is produced – there is absolutely no other way on the planet. You can not consume if you do not produce.
With respect to your purported benefits Excluding the national oil Subsidy Norway’s people have the same per capita GDP/PPP as the US (much less than conneticutt)
If they have all of these wonderful things that you claim that they have and purportedly we do not – then they MUST have less of other things – again it is called MATH.
You left wing nuts get this delusional idea in your head that what you dictate that is provided to people does not have to be paid for somehow, that it appears magically.
The US produces about 19T in wealth per year. WE spend about 17% of that per year on Healthcare. It does not matter whether rich people pay for that, poor people pay for that, or government pays for it – it still paid for from the $19T in wealth we produce each year.
And that means we have LESS to spend on other things.
The same with paid vacation, and Education.
The entire objective – which you left wing nuts are completely clueless to is to produce MORE value with LESS human effort.
Many people want an education, long vacations, and healthcare.
But each of us has other things we want more. And each of us values each of those things differently. We do not universally share the same value of things.
We do not all want Healthcare to the same extent, vacations to the same extent, education to the same extent.
An actual free market optimizes the extent that each of us is able to get what each individual wants – not what some idiot like you wants for us.
When you dictate that healthcare will be provided to everyone equally that means:
People get it whether they want it or not.
Those who do not want healthcare as much – do not get what they want more.
You deliver it less efficiently – because you do not have to persuade people that they want it mofre than something else.
Basically you ensure that everyone gets less of what they acutally want.
If this were not all true – the USSR would still exist.
I would also suggest that you become actually familiar with what has been occuring in those great nordic social democracies that you are fixated on.
These countries and people are not stupid. There systems are falling behind slowly and they have been actively working for decades to slowly transform to the free market capitalist systems you loath.
Most of Europe – particularly Northern Europe – particularly those nordic social democracies have far less regulation of business than the US does. In fact their governments are almost entirely absent in the economy. While they have high taxation and broad social benefits – both of which they are actively seeking to reduce, they do not muck arround with the rest of the nonsense that we do.
Further these countries are all monocultures – they have near non-existant diversity – though there have more recently accepted large influxes of immigrants that are seriously straining their social fabric. These are nations that do not have a clue how to incorporate broad diversity.
If you are worried about some true fascists arrising – rather than fixate on the US and Trump, you should look to european nations that have had low diversity for centuries who are currently seeing millions of immigrants from the mideast and dealing with it very badly.
If you think Norway is hot chit – move there. It is that easy.
But quit trying to do the impossible and convert and extremely diverse nation of 330M people to mirror a country with 5M people that is fortunate enough to have the 21’s largest of the worlds oil reserves, and less than 1/1000 of the worlds population.
“But quit trying to do the impossible and convert and extremely diverse nation of 330M people to mirror a country with 5M people that is fortunate enough to have the 21’s largest of the worlds oil reserves, and less than 1/1000 of the worlds population.”
Oddly enough, this is exactly my opinion as well. I must have stated it 20 times here in the last year. Some people will probably even remember that fact accurately, Priscilla? Ron?
The Sanders/progressive movement is based on a delusional attempt to convert the red counties of America to the lifestyle of a region, Scandinavia, with a different history, demographics, culture and set of circumstances in dozens of ways from ours. It will happen over their dead bodies as well as the dead bodies of those trying to force them. I have typed very nearly exactly this sentence here at least a dozen times in the last year. Often it has been attached to the issue that in my opinion the Sanderistas have the chance of a snowball in hell of converting the US to single payer. This is why I have zero interest in single payer, it will not happen until or unless there is a giant cultural shift in America. I really do not wish to witness the chaos that will break out if the Sanderistas win an election and try. There is still more than 50% of the Dem party that I believe is closer to my position than the Sanders one, but I may be wrong. Time will reveal all. I’m not looking forward to it.
I may have more sympathy with the left of center than the right of center, but I am not stupid or naive.
Roby, There may be more congressional members on both sides of the isle that have political positions very close to yours that would vote for programs like you support, but they compromise those positions to follow the leadership of their party. In this case the compromise is bad because some good legislation does not get passed because it is either not progressive enough or conservative enough.
Again, individuals like you and I are left wondering what the devil needs to be done to get more sensible positions supported by elected officials.
We do not need more government programs.
We need less. We need to get rid of those that have failed.
But that is a major problem – because even people like Roby can agree that there is a large amount of failure to be cleaned out of govenrment.
But when you confront it head on – suddenly failure is not failure.
PPACA costs alot, and delivers no value. To me that is FAILURE.
Roby very nearly agrees with that. Aparently as I understand his argument, sometime in a century or so, with the addition of raspberry scented unicorn farts we will have a real – but unmeasurably small impact that will justify the trillions it has cost.
If we can not manage simple cost benefits analysis where the benefits are nil and the costs are huge, how can we expect to address cases that are harder.
Dave, “We do not need more government programs.
We need to get rid of those that have failed.”
I think most of us here realize if congressional reps voted their convictions and not running off the cliff following their parties leaders we may have less government programs. And the ones we have might be working better. We most likely would have something in healthcare reimbursement far different that works better and would be far less costly than PPACA. There were far to many special interest with their hand out when that program was designed.
And the ones that have failed would ge terminated, but progressive and conservative political leaders do not want any discontinued social programs tied to their regime, so we are stuck with bloated govt and wasteful spending.
Yes, rather than argue for a system so bad and so expensive that it can not ever happen – because even Vermont and California could not make the numbers come anywhere close to working.
Instead you argue for something half assed.
Personally I prefer left wing nuts that argue purist approaches like SP where the arguments are clear and the fact that it will not work so obvious that no matter how popular it is no one is insane enough to try it.
I am not worried about Sanders getting elected and imposing SP.
It is so obviously bad an idea that even committed lefties can not make it work int he real world.
The more dangerous idea is the the less bad less expensive one – like PPACA – things that cost allot – but not so much that the system completely fails, and deliver absolutely no benefits close to worth their cost, but have a few benefits that are appealing – if we forget the very high cost.
YOU are more dangerous than the sandernistas.
They will fail. In the unlikely event they gain power – they will not do what they propose.
In the event they do it will fail catastrophically and quickly.
They are a flash in the pan.
You are a serious long term danger.
You are the modern equivalent of social security.
Intellectually stupid, fiscal garbage, a ponzi scheme, so obviously stupid and illegal no one but government could pull it off.
But unfortunately like all ponzi schemes it works out very well for those who get in early. and
becomes worse and worse overtime, until someone gets left with a bill and no benefit.
Yet, anyone with the slightest grasp of compound interest would understand how stupid an idea it is. Even FDR thought it was a bad idea and resisted for some time – until he thought he needed it to win an election.
We have gone round and round.
It is obvious to pretty much anyone who has looked at life expectance rates – that 8 years of PPACA has not changed the trends at all.
At the same time a program that was supposed to save money has cost the government alone 1.6T and consumers directly atleast as much more, and the economy as a whole atleast double that.
So we have gotten no improvement in outcomes, and great cost – and you are still arguing ?
“YOU are more dangerous than the sandernistas.
They will fail. In the unlikely event they gain power – they will not do what they propose.
In the event they do it will fail catastrophically and quickly.
They are a flash in the pan.
You are a serious long term danger.”
Well, I should be flattered. But, mostly your tirade is a function of your unhealthy and wildly distorted obsession with me more than anything real.
Sanders has planted a seed, and its a dangerous one. It does not have to culminate in a truly left wing nut government and SP to be fully dangerous and destructive. The seeds that are planted by the furthest left and right but still at times electable political personalities in our country yield the bitter fruit of division and interfere with rational conversations, opinions and decisions. They are one giant red herring (as is your dave flavored extreme libertarianism, although it has, as yet, zero traction), like free silver, and yet they capture the national energy and divert it into division and cultural decay.
Meanwhile you obsess about one old guy in semi retirement, who is mostly voting for moderate Republicans at the Vermont state level where his vote actually counts.
Tell me Dave, what specific thing do you believe that I am doing that makes me such a threat to your ideas? Posting on TNM? Is that how I am overthrowing your vision?
Dave, its the the world itself that is overthrowing your ideology. Its history, vast impersonal forces. I’m just one tiny moderate, less than a grain of sand on the beach.
Maybe you are a bit obsessed and overwrought on the subject of Roby?
Roby;
My anger at you is not individually personalized.
There are lots of people on the left exactly like you.
My reaction is the same.
It is not “unhealthy” to be seriously concerned about those who will use force against others.
As noted, I am more concerned about those who would do so successfully than not.
I would be far more worried about “sandernistas” than you – if there was any practical chance of their implimenting their nonsense.
Conversely Obama was elected, and he did greatly expand the “imperial presidency” and though he did not impose Sanders style socialism, he did somewhat successfully impose myriads of stupid policies.
Further according to the Pew data on polarization – the largest shift came during Obama’s presidency, and the largest portion of that shift – was a shift of democrats further to the left.
Yes, I am concerned about you – because your nonsense is the real danger facing the country.
It is not even slightly “unhealthy” to be concerned about real thugs, who really are trying to screw up the world, rather than the “Sandernistas” Who most certainly would wreak far more havoc if the could. But are highly unlikely to ever get the chance.
It is also “healthy” to be concerned about self proclaimed geniuses, who are seeking to impose their views by force, who stand a chance of doing so, and whose logic skills are extremely poor, but whose skill at persuading themselves of their own merit – and unfortunately too large a portion of others, is too high.
“It is also “healthy” to be concerned about self proclaimed geniuses, who are seeking to impose their views by force, who stand a chance of doing so, and whose logic skills are extremely poor, but whose skill at persuading themselves of their own merit – and unfortunately too large a portion of others, is too high.”
If by that characterization you mean me, just ask around TNM if any other poster recognizes me in this. If you can find one person here to agree with you that this describes me I will be properly humbled. If not, I say its your own distorted and unhealthy obsession with me, based on having remarkably little understanding of my opinions, semi miraculous as that is by now.
The funny thing is that I have almost no particular solutions that I promote here that I want to impose via government. The problems and issues that we discuss are complex beyond imagining and well beyond my pay grade or training to solve. I am no more trying to force my views than any other person who has just the most basic belief in our government or even the concept of government. That is damned near every liberal or conservative. And yet you obsess with me.
I guess this may be because I tell you straight out that your beliefs on the evils of any kind of regulation whatsoever and the badness of government are pissing in the wind of history. Its the current of time you are at war with but you blame me as the messenger.
Roby;
“If by that characterization you mean me,”
It is not all about you.
Roby
“If you can find one person here to agree with you that this describes me I will be properly humbled. If not, I say its your own distorted and unhealthy obsession with me, based on having remarkably little understanding of my opinions, semi miraculous as that is by now.”
1). It is not all about you.
2). It is not all about you.
3). To the extent that I even post about you – it is because YOU want it to be all about you.
4). My posts are primarily about principles ideas, values. If they are replies to you – that would be because your posts about principles, ideas and values motivate me to respond – usually because your posts about the principles, ideas and values I care about are wrong.
5). Its is not all about you.
6). I really do not care about YOU very much in the literal sense. More you in the generic sense of others who are similar.
7). Facts are not decided by consensus. I have no idea what the description that you think is of you that you think is wrong even is. But whatever it is, it either correctly describes you or it does not.
8). My understanding of your opinions is limited completely to what you have posted. I do not know what you think – beyond that I trust that you are not lying about yourself. To the extent that I may inaccurately represent what you have said – that would be because either deliberately – or because you have not bothered to think about much of what you say, you are often unclear.
As an example – you have made it crystal Clear you are not a Sandersnista, and do not support SP. But you have never made clear what distinguishes you from Sandersnistas.
i.e. Not merely where do you disagree, but why. What value or principle separates you from them.
With extremely few exceptions it should be trivial for most anyone who has read more than a handful of my posts to figure out what my position would be on nearly any issue involving government – though amazing you are constantly unable to do that. Regardless, I have stated repeatedly – to the annoyance of all. The core principles that I use to make choices regarding what constitutes legimate government action. Anyone who does can not fairly accurately predict my view on any hypothetical question of government action – either can not read or can not comprehend the principles in a few relatively simple sentences.
That is what having principles means.
The same can not be said of you.
I can note you are to the left of Priscilla, Ron, and I, but not so far left as Sanders.
On some specific issues that you have taken a position in the past, I might be able to echo your position. But you have left no clue why you hold that position.
You have said that there is much about you that I do not know – that would be correct.
Frankly, I do not think you know yourself.
I do not think you have principles. I think you have a left ideological tilt and after that you pick and choose positions based on feelings. Or some internal sense that you know what is right and wrong, and that you are right – because your internal voice says so.
Its perfectly simple, my principles are common decency and common sense. Yes, the very opposite of a rigid concrete dogma.
What you call your principles I would call rigid Laissez-faire dogma. You appear to me to be one of its last standing adherents.
The conversation you with to have with me about principles, force, and government is one that I would gladly have with, say Pat Riot. Having it with you is not a good use of my efforts.
Here is something that is a good use of my time: Fernando Sor study 17. I recorded it decently last winter but I want to much improve it, put in 40 or 50 hours on it making it really flow. Or I could get into a head banging debate with you about force and principle.
Anyhow I leave you to to your philosophy. Enjoy this:
Common decency and common sense are not principles, they are not even values.
They are precisely what I claimed is wrong with you.
They are consulting your gut not your brain.
There is no clear meaning to common sense and common decency – as an example by my understanding of each – you have neither.
This is not about “rigid dogma” it is about meaning.
It is about your unwillingness to commit to the meaning of anything.
It is about your actual desire to make everything fungible.
If you are going to make rules that government the lives of others, you are OBLIGATED to be clear, to be “rigid” as you say.
No one cares how you make choices in your own personal life – but if you are going to make decisions regarding the lives of others, you are not free to do so on whimsy.
It is irrelevant what you call my principles – though these are the same principles of John Locke, Henry Thoreaux, John Stuart Mills, … none of which talked much about markets or Laissez-Faire.
They are principles about how and when force can be used against others.
You call those “dogma” – do you think that we should be entitled to use force against others willy nilly ?
You can not have a conversation with me about the use of force – until you have had it with yourself. Which you have practically admitted you never have.
In the end you are prepared to use or advocate for the use of force – without haven ever given any serious thought to when the use of force is justified.
Again that is self-evident from your posts.
While I do not think you are a sociopath or a criminal – there is nothing that distinguishes you from them – beyond the hope of the rest of us that your “common sense” and “common decency” do not today allow you to justify theft, murder, or other vile conduct.
“No one cares how you make choices in your own personal life – but if you are going to make decisions regarding the lives of others, you are not free to do so on whimsy.”
Who says I make decisions regarding the lives of others? I wonder who you think I am actually? The Shah of Iran.
I find it ironic how many times you use phrases such as “you are not free” and “you are obligated”
Doesn’t seem, somehow, very libertarian.
And, while you say (as usual, hyper repetitively) that “this is not all about you” upon inspection you will find that your recent posts ARE all about me. Remove the words “you” and “your” and a whole series of your posts, addressed to me will disappear. You are clearly obsessed with me. And obsessed with telling me what I am obligated to do.
You said somewhere that if trump disappears Jay will lose the purpose of his existence. Yet you are more obsessed with me than Jay is with trump. Believe me, its not something I want or find flattering. I find it pretty damned creepy. I find you pretty damned creepy.
“Who says I make decisions regarding the lives of others? ”
You do when you advocate for things like PPACA or you vote for people or policies that will impose force on others.
Decisions regarding the use of force against others are completely unavoidable.
Even anarchists must do so.
Anyway who accepts government – accepts that force will be used in their name with their blessing against others.
You are just arguing nonsense.
“I find it ironic how many times you use phrases such as “you are not free” and “you are obligated”
Doesn’t seem, somehow, very libertarian.”
That would be because you confuse libertarian with anarchy or chaos.
Is there anyone who thinks they are free to kill others on whim ?
Is there anyone who thinks they may use force against others without being obligated to justify it ?
Are you reading the nonsense you are writing. ?
“You said somewhere that if trump disappears Jay will lose the purpose of his existence. Yet you are more obsessed with me than Jay is with trump.”
Roby, I can go out on the way to the comments section of just about any political editorial and find atleast a half a dozen other roby’s.
There is no shortage of IYI’s
You should not be flattered in the slightest.
The fact that you have chosen to be the token left wing nut IYI on TNM and therefore the person expected to defend atleast your own personal flavor of leftism – does not make you the victim or the target.
Again, it is not all about you.
If you do not wish to defend ideas, values, principles – that is easily accomplished.
“To Avoid Criticism, Say Nothing, Do Nothing, Be Nothing”
Again I know nothing of you beyond what you write here.
It is those bad ideas that I attack.
I would be attacking them in the same way regardless of who offered them.
Intuition leads to the fat Earth society and bloodletting; experiments lead men to the moon and microsurgery. – Seth Mnookin
You claim to be a scientist – do we accept “spontaneous generation” ? “Alchemy” ? “astrology” ?
Or does science have principles – some that defy “common sense” ?
Are the laws of thermodynamics – just suggestions ?
Is F=Ma “fungible” to our whim ?
Is science “dogma” because it rests on principles ?
If someone takes a hammer to your skull – is that acceptable – because they did not think it would harm you ?
Sorry, Roby, you are not free to use force against others as you please.
Call that “dogma” if you wish. Only sociopath’s believe otherwise.
Your personal understanding of “common sense” or “common decency” is not sufficient.
When you have bashed someone else’s skull in, the courts do not ask – did you violate your understanding of common sense or common decency.
They will determine if you have violated the law regarding the use of force against others.
Law that is rooted in identifiable and expressible principles.
“I guess this may be because I tell you straight out that your beliefs on the evils of any kind of regulation whatsoever and the badness of government are pissing in the wind of history. Its the current of time you are at war with but you blame me as the messenger.”
That would depend on what you mean by history.
The left has held great influence over the 20th century – and the consequences were disastrous.
So what is “history” to you ? The fact that the ideas of the left have frequently been popular and unfortunately are rising in popularity again ? That is History – and you are correct, I am on the wrong side of that.
But it is also true that the ideas of the left have universally failed, and brought misery to the extent they were implemented – that is also History – and I am on the right side of that.
More recently you have increased the frequency of Argumentum Populum fallacies:
Ask anyone about me,
or you are on the wrong side of history
or I am only the messenger.
or ….
Sorry, Roby, but if you think I care much how many people hold what view – then you do not know me at all either.
I am interested in what is right.
Not what is popular.
Particularly on a internet blog post.
My self esteem does not rest on how many real people in the real world like or agree with me,
though I do fine.
It certainly does not rest on how many internet personalities like or agree with me.
How can something like that even make sense ?
Why would anyone both to post on the internet if it is not to discuss ideas ?
Honestly, who even cares if you are liked on the internet ?
“What specific thing …”
I will be deaf to your complaints about this post as you specifically requested this.
Not “asked” in the sense that your conduct demands it, but asked in the most literal sense.
This post is about you because you requested that.
1). You are prepared to use force to impose your polices limiting the freedom of others.
2). You are prepared to do so, either directly or through government as a proxy.
3). You do not feel any need to justifiy doing so.
4). You do not feee any need to prove that what you wish to do will produce the results you claim.
5). When you do not get the results you hoped, when you get results so bad that you called anyone who suggested that outcome while you were proposing, and evil liar, then – when you have failed – you declare victory.
6). You have done all the above repeatedly in the past,
7). You continue to seek to do so in the future.
8). There is a reasonable chance that at some point in time you will get the opportunity to F’up again.
Jay as an example is just an annoyance. He foams at the mouth and spews anti=trump spittle,
“a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
If Trump vaporized tomorow – Jay would have no reason to continue to exist.
His life would have no meaning – atleast here.
But you still want to “change the world”.
You want to do so, despite the great harm you have already caused.
You want to do so despite the fact that you have truly screwed the very people you claim to want to help.
You are either blind to the consequences, or you just do not care.
Separately – as I addressed before – I do not know you. I have never met you.
What I know of you is only what you post here.
What I am critical of is what is posted here – and what that inherently means about the person posting it.
Nor is my Ire “specific” to “Roby” – I Jane Doe showed up tomorow posting the same things as you – I would respond the same way for the same reasons.
And there are many much like you
Naseem Taelb’s IYI’s.
As he like’s to note – people with “no skin in the game” who feel perfectly justified in controlling the lives of others.
The quote from Godspell is Mathew 23:13
The imagery is perfect, those who see themselves as righteous and burden others with their crap while not actually having to live with what they inflict on others.
Roby;
I am interested in the real world. I am interested in fact, logic data.
To a very small extent you are correct – history has rejected my ideology.
It keeps getting rejected – infavor of yours – which then fails inflicting suffering and bloodshed on all, and then we go through it all again.
History tells us over and over – that your way will never work.
That you can not get it just right so that it works, you can not get the right leaders,
and that in the odd chance that maybe you succeed brielfy – even they will repidly be corrupted or replaced.
You are right, history tells us that people will constantly buy the garbage you sell – to their detriment. Again and again.
Regardless, I will be here offering something that history shows works. That works even when implemented badly – as compared to your way which fails even if done perfectly.
It is not about “roby” – please do not flatter yourself.
Even the “jabs” I take at you – are just the carciture you make you yourself.
There are myriads of other “robies” out there indistinguishable from you in any consequential way.
Roby, I know that you are opposed to the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrat Party. You have been calling Sanders a left-wing loon as long as I can recall.
Honestly, the things that Sanders says, and the policies that he advocates are so economically illiterate that it’s shocking to me that anyone takes him seriously. Yet, as you point out, the Party is moving in his direction and advocating not only single-payer, but massive wealth redistribution, based on punitive confiscatory taxes for the wealthy, for the purposes of expanding the welfare state to include a $15+ minimum wage, “free” college.
The problem is that, although you may be right that 50% of Democrats are opposed to the Sanders/Warren wing of the Party, the party itself is trying to appeal to that wing. There are no more “blue dog” Democrats. Heck, most Republicans today are more to the left on economic issues than the blue dogs were!
Not a good situation, to say the least.
Priscilla, Well thanks to you and Ron and least someone here has got some idea of my ideology and politics ☺.
As to the Party, there is no party. Its a mirage. There are tens of millions of random pieces acting chaotically in a political party or political movement. There is no there there, its like flying into a solid looking cloud and finding only gog once you are in it.
When I almost ran for State Senate as a Republican due to my anger with the statewide property tax, I found that there were (1) the GOP general election voters, (2) the GOP Primary voters (a very different group than (1)) (3) the state party officials, and (4) the elected politicians. After a couple years of my anti-progressive activism I had been to quite a few of the GOP events and dinners and I was a known person to most of the well known state GOP personalities, etc. I found that that my groups (1)-(4) were very distinct groups that had often no love for one another and were pulling in very different directions. So, any talk about The Party, Dem or GOP, is to me talk about a chaotic mirage. From a distance it might look like one distinct unified thing with a direction. But it isn’t.
Vast impersonal forces control politics at least as much, if not more than organized efforts.
Our next presidential election will quite likely be turned by something that happens in some foreign country that is as yet not even on almost anyone’s radar.
Its like combining a child, a piece of paper, and 4 colors of finger paint and then trying to predict what the picture will look like when done.
Roby;
I do not think any of us are confused about your ideology and politics.
I do not recall you attacking me for mis stating your views.
Our problem is not one of misunderstanding each other.
It is a disagreement of the consequences of your views.
Though I would qualify this, as you do not take clear positions of princple.
You are left of center, but not so far as Sanders. Sanders is an idiot, but you are unwilling to specify where the line between your “rational” leftism, and Sanders stupid leftism. lies.
You are not even willing to concede that such a line exists.
Your principle is that there are no principles, but that the truth lies somewhere between idiots to the right of you and idiots to the left of you, and where are you ? Somewhere between, which by your own assertion – is rational, without and basis for why.
You are free to correct me if I am wrong.
While I know that you think Sanders is stupid
Why is sanders stupid ?
Not as a matter of practicality, but as a matter of principle.
Not what Policies of Sanders are stupid – but what are the wrong Principles that Sanders adheres to that are different from yours that lead him to error while protecting you from it ?
I have begged and plead with you to offer actual principles that matter to you.
Never getting anything of consequence.
You are the ultimate eclectic – picking and choosing – as best as anyone can tell moorred only by your feelings.
Some questions ?
Outside of your own life – where you are free to make your own decisions on whatever basis you wish, do you see feelings as a reasonable basis for making decisions that impact others ?
Ultimately nearly everything we debate here is about compelling others.
When you are contemplating how control should be excercised over the lives of other people,
what are the criteria that are important to you ?
Are your feelings sufficient ?
Must something actually acheive the goal claimed for it ?
What would be sufficient for you to say “no! No further !” ?
What in your “ideology” Makes Sanders wrong ?
Again I am not after a bunch of policies that Sanders is wrong about but WHY those policies are wrong. Why is it that they will fail ? And why is it that Sanders’s policies will fail, while yours will not ?
As I noted with Priscilla, economically PPACA is atleast as flawed as SP.
The flaws are mostly the same.
SP atleast does nto suffer from being too complex and arbitrary to possibly work.
Priscilla;
PPACA is actually more economically illiterate than SP.
While SP would be expensive and fail,. it is simple.
PPACA is ridiculously complex.
So complex that while it was trivial to foresee its failure it was impossible to see precisely how it would fail.
Regardless, it is every bit as economically idiotic as SP.
Trumps economic nationalism is equally economically idiotic – but he speaks it, he does nto implimented it.
Democrats were stupid enough to actually impliment PPACA.
Trump is more complexly economically ignorant on immigration.
Immigration is an obvious economic good.
But it is not compatible with the social safety net.
Neither party is prepared to confront that.
Wait, I’m at a loss here. What is SP?
Also, you and I have disagreed on immigration before, but I would point out that I am NOT opposed to immigration, nor am I a nativist. I oppose uncontrolled and illegal immigration, and support current immigration law, or legislative reform of current laws, if Congress determines that current laws need such reform.
Priscilla;
SP = Single Payer.
I was primarily commenting on your response to roby.
Roby, complains that I have taken over the debate here.
But in truth – he and Jay primarily have.
I may post more, but the debate is entirely about the nonsense of the left,
When Roby has not succeded in making it about himself personally.
I can probably guess many of your views on many subjects,
but there is little or no debate on TNM about any value system other than that of the left.
And as Roby has just posted – his principles, his values, his core, is essentially the standard academic post-modernist bunk that is essentially “I can beleive whatever I want at the moment, and apply it to you, and need not explian myself”.
In otherwords he has no principles, Everyone else is wrong. And he gets to decide what is right and wrong for the rest of us, on his whim or the day. He can not be criticised or even understood – because he has no core. Nothing that actually guides him.
God forbid he should get indigestion, he could confuse it for his internal voice of “common deceny” and everyone would end up executed for crimes against humanity.
“Roby, complains that I have taken over the debate here.
But in truth – he and Jay primarily have.”
You’re deluded or a liar or most likely, both.
Or maybe you just can’t COUNT!
Oh, wait – you’re a mini tRUMP: too insecure to admit your faults for more than a moment, before reversing into absurdity.
““Roby, complains that I have taken over the debate here.
But in truth – he and Jay primarily have.”
You’re deluded or a liar or most likely, both.
Or maybe you just can’t COUNT!”
Reading still not your forte.
The next line notes that the topic of most discussion on TNM is Your or Roby’s posts.
There is little debate of what Priscilla posts, or even what Ron posts.
The volume on TNM is driven by the topics you and Roby push, regardless of who is countering them.
“Oh, wait – you’re a mini tRUMP: too insecure to admit your faults for more than a moment, before reversing into absurdity.”
What total nonsense.
As I noted to Roby – this is not all about him.
It is not all about me either
This is not some maoist site were we are all compelled to engage in “self criticism”.
“SP = Single Payer”
Oh, of course. DUh! I needed that second cup of coffee this morning 😉
Dave :”If you think Norway is hot chit – move there. It is that easy.”
Now here I can almost say with 90% surety that you are wrong. Check out the requirements for immigration to Norway. They are highly restrictive in their immigration laws and have strict requirements for staying in the country. In 2015 they only allowed 21,000+ new immigrants into the country and 25% of those came from two countries, Lithuania and Poland. Only 400+ came from the United States. And in total 88% of all immigrants in Norway are from European countries.
So it is not just that easy!
“Now here I can almost say with 90% surety that you are wrong. Check out the requirements for immigration to Norway. They are highly restrictive in their immigration laws and have strict requirements for staying in the country. In 2015 they only allowed 21,000+ new immigrants into the country and 25% of those came from two countries, Lithuania and Poland. Only 400+ came from the United States. And in total 88% of all immigrants in Norway are from European countries.
So it is not just that easy!”
While you have a point – particularly if you are a young male of mideastern decent.
If you are white and american this is not that hard.
First your data is on immigration.
The US is quite different from most of the world in that regard.
As difficult as it is to become a US citizen, it is nearly impossible in much fo the rest of the world.
Moving to Norway from the US is easy – becoming a norwegian is not.
I beleive I noted that I have a friend who spent much of the past 13 years in sweden and loved it.
Getting into sweden was not hard – but he was NEVER considered an immigrant.
He was there on a student visa, and possibly for some time on a work visa.
Generally the nordic social democracies are extremely happy to accept americans – particularly skilled americans – scientists, programers, etc – they are experiencing a drain of their own native talent and will often waive taxes for several years for skilled people who are willing to relocate.
Roby says he is a molecular biologists. He will have no problem getting into any nordic country.
Further – If I am wrong – that would be a valuable life lesson for these utopian left wing nuts too.
Norway’s improvement in standard of living has not exceeded 2% yearly average since 1981,
Further it is trending downward and has been below 1% for the past decade.
Please move to Norway!
I have posted this link already two or three times previously. Its actually quite a well written pretty objective piece, not that I agree with every word or the writer’s political opinions.
https://nypost.com/2015/01/11/sorry-liberals-scandinavian-countries-arent-utopias/
An excerpt:
“Want proof that the liberal social-democratic society works?
Look to Denmark, the country that routinely leads the world in happiness surveys. It’s also notable for having the highest taxes on Earth, plus a comfy social safety net: Child care is mostly free, as is public school and even private school, and you can stay on unemployment benefits for a long time. Everyone is on an equal footing, both income-wise and socially: Go to a party and you wouldn’t be surprised to see a TV star talking to a roofer.
The combination of massive taxes and benefits for the unsuccessful means top and bottom get shaved off: Pretty much everyone is proudly middle class. Danes belong to more civic associations and clubs than anyone else; they love performing in large groups. At Christmas they do wacky things like hold hands and run around the house together, singing festive songs. They’re a real-life Whoville.
In the American liberal compass, the needle is always pointing to places like Denmark. Everything they most fervently hope for here has already happened there.
So: Why does no one seem particularly interested in visiting Denmark? (“Honey, on our European trip, I want to see Tuscany, Paris, Berlin and . . . Jutland!”) Visitors say Danes are joyless to be around. Denmark suffers from high rates of alcoholism. In its use of antidepressants it ranks fourth in the world. (Its fellow Nordics the Icelanders are in front by a wide margin.) Some 5 percent of Danish men have had sex with an animal. Denmark’s productivity is in decline, its workers put in only 28 hours a week, and everybody you meet seems to have a government job. Oh, and as The Telegraph put it, it’s “the cancer capital of the world.”
So how happy can these drunk, depressed, lazy, tumor-ridden, pig-bonking bureaucrats really be?
Let’s look a little closer, suggests Michael Booth, a Brit who has lived in Denmark for many years, in his new book, “The Almost Nearly Perfect People: Behind the Myth of the Scandinavian Utopia” (Picador).
Those sky-high happiness surveys, it turns out, are mostly bunk. Asking people “Are you happy?” means different things in different cultures. In Japan, for instance, answering “Yes” seems like boasting, Booth points out. Whereas in Denmark, it’s considered “shameful to be unhappy,” newspaper editor Anne Knudsen says in the book.
Moreover, there is a group of people that believes the Danes are lying when they say they’re the happiest people on the planet. This group is known as “Danes.”
“Over the years I have asked many Danes about these happiness surveys — whether they really believe that they are the global happiness champions — and I have yet to meet a single one of them who seriously believes it’s true,” Booth writes. “They tend to approach the subject of their much-vaunted happiness like the victims of a practical joke waiting to discover who the perpetrator is.”
Danes are well aware of their worldwide reputation for being the happiest little Legos in the box. Answering “No” would be as unthinkable as honking in traffic in Copenhagen. When the author tried this (once), he was scolded by his bewildered Danish passenger: “What if they know you?” Booth was asked.”
http://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-clinton-apos-white-house-191309536.html
Will these stories never end?
Our current relationship to Russia is “being owned” ?
Putin has gained one benefit from all of this.
We have little ability to complain about the corruption in his elections – because the left has convinced itself that our own elections are irredeemably corrupt.
Beyond that Russia has less of a world Role under Trump than Obama.
So if Russia “owned” anyone – it was Obama and Clinton.
And it appears that Putin litterally owned the clinton’s.
But please go one about Russia owning Trump.
We have had 3 successive quarters of 3+% GDP growth something that has not occured in 8 years, possibly not 16.
Of Course Trump is not working for america first.
IYI
Don’t thank Obama, and in spite of Trump, thank the economy.
You are correct – government does not make the economy work – free markets do that fine on their own.
But government does to varying degrees make the economy fail.
Under Obama the federal govenrment was a larger negative impact on the economy than under Trump.
Or do you believe in magic ?
And this Rationalizing mental defective who experiences a warped reality in his head hourly is President?
DUMP THE SCHLUMP!
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/donald-trump-believes-access-hollywood-tape-is-fake
Why does this matter ?
Most os us beleive it is not.
Trump was still elected.
Its being proven to be true would not change anything at all.
Trump claiming it might be fake – will not change anything at all.
But finding that it was edited – however unlikely that might be – that could be a big deal.
Regardless, the left constantly makes exactly this kind of crap up all the time.
PP made these claims about the video from the Project Vertias Sting.
If you want to listen to hours and hours of the unedited recording – nothing changes.
But huge numbers of those on the left beleive that PV’s recordings of PP are a giant hoax.
That is despite the fact that PP essentially admitted the content.
The point is that the left constantly claims something damaging to it is altered and gets away with that regardless of the fact that the claim has no merit.
I see no reason Trump can not try the same scam.
I am not likely to buy it.
At the same time my world does not end, and foam does not flow from my mouth because Donald Trump spoke.
President 💩💩💩💩 For Brains has completely lost it!
“Donald Trump is a madman: The President’s Wednesday Twitter spasm confirms what many Americans have long suspected”
This MORONIC cancer is DESTROYING the Presidency!
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/donald-trump-madman-article-1.3665163
Your link spends a great deal of time disparaging the women who originally tweeted the video’s – as if the content of the videos is actually different depending on the person who posts them ?
Aparantly that woman was convicted in england of verbally insulting a muslim.
Possibly rude, but the fact that it was a crime only speaks badly of england.
Regardless, of the video’s:
Here is the BBC – which though still not freindly to Trump is atleast not insane.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-42165942
Here’s what the BBC has to say about President Rectum’s Stupid, petulant, unpresidential tweet to their PM
The video’s are just video’s depicting what was being photographed at the time.
If reality is actually in some way ideological – that is not something that you can do anything about.
You seem more interested in what someone says, someone else says, someone else says about this, than in the video’s themselves.
I do not care if hilter recorded these with his iphone.
The video itself is not “far right”. Who recorded it is independent of what is on it.
Anyway the video’s are available for you to watch and judge for yourself.
Or you can just abdicate personal responsibility for what you think and just accept what someone else tells you.
Separately the UK political group that Trump retweeted is right of center but LEFT of UKIP.
It was unwise of May to remark on Trump’s tweet and equally unwise of Trump to respond.
At some point hopefully soon the US and UK are likely to work together on a trade deal.
At that time it would be best if May and Trump were friendly.
But thus far Trump’s tweeting has not interfered in his ability to get good deals in foreign policy.
With respect to the UK – though I would have prefered both May and Trump were quite – the UK has an increasingly serious problem with islamic terrorism, and more generally a serious problem with integrating muslims into the country resulting in an increase in violent crimes and push back from ordinary citizens. The UK’s laws restricting speach are making things worse.
“Here’s what the BBC has to say about President Rectum’s Stupid, petulant, unpresidential tweet to their PM”
Because without input from the BBC you are unable to think for yourself ?
I would have prefered that Trump not retweeted JadyaBF’s tweets – though I would note, none of them were IK specific. Trump’s retweet’s were not an attack on the UK.
Even more so May should have remained silent. The only nexus with the UK was that the original Tweets were from JadyaBF. Is May obligated to insert herself into anything that involves Trump and any UK public figure ?
Trump’s response to May was appropriate.
You BCC link is ludicrous from the top.
The video’s are video’s. They are not video’s of nazi marches,
They are video’s of muslims – no one in the far right is in them.
Aparently the BBC’s and your defnition of Far right – is anything that interests anyone not on the far left, or is critical of some intersectional victim group.
Aside from the meaningless tiff over whether the Danish muslim committing assault is a migrant or not, which is part of a caption – not the video itself, is there some factual error in the actual videos ?
Or are you claiming that reality has a far right bias ?
Or is it that you can not trust reality, if it is recorded by someone you label as “far right”. ?
Or …. ?
Frankly I can not tell what it is that you mean except – I woke up today, Trump was still breathing and therefore I am offended.
Here is Trump’s twitter feed.
Rather than spewing nonsense – you can actually look at the feed.
Look at these video’s as well as anything else he has tweeted or retweeted.
And judge for yourself rather than having to rely on whatever froth sprays from someone else.
Currently the “offensive” retweets are about 20 tweets down
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/11/trump-spreads-false-anti-muslim-tweet/
WASHINGTON (AP) — Like much other propaganda, the anti-Muslim videos spread around by President Donald Trump mix grains of truth, fakery and shades in between, overlaid with a message meant to be a blunt hammer blow for a cause.
https://apnews.com/eb026d8eea96430e8369b502bd18f777
Your factcheck fails.
Given that I – not a Trump supporter, do not find this debate over whether the teen was an “immigrant” significant – the orlando shooter and the boston bombers were not “muslim immigrants” either, but both were children of immigrants.
The teen in the video is not from a dutch family that had been in the netherlands for generations,
BTW – while not an expert on Dutch law, I would presume that the teen would be prosecuted under the same laws whether he was an immigrant, native, or just a visitor.
Criminal laws punish acts not status.
Finally, the video’s speak for themselves.
The speak regardless of their source.
And he’s STUPID wrapped in DUMB
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-tweets-wrong-theresa-may_us_5a1f55e7e4b037b8ea1f8ae5
wow @realdonaldtrump missed an underscore !
Impeach now.
BTW, I check the other “offensive” Tweets – they were retweets without comment.
Any errors – to the extent they were actual errors were on the part of @jaydaBF.
Did you actually read this before posting ?
Or do you actually think it is significant ?
Various different mass shooters in the US have shouted “allah Akbar” before or during their killing spree – but the press and the left do not think that is significant?’
There are so many ways this is meaningless.
If even this guy gets it, what kind of dull tool do you have to be not to?
Piers Morgan is an idiot who has sometimes supported trump and sometimes attacked him in the past.
But mostly he is an idiot. He was an idiot long before Trump came around.
You’re right, he was an idiot for supporting trrruuummmppp at all.
But the broken clock is right on this criticism
Piers morgan was a world class idiot long before he supported Trump.
The Archbishop finds tRUMP’S tweets offensive as well.
Will Elizabeth give him the diplomatic finger too?
We are talking about a country where is it criminal to say things that are deemed insulting to muslims, and at the same time crime by muslims in the country is skyrocketing.
What Trump noted to May is also appropriate here. The UK should get its own house in order before complaining about Trump Tweets. ‘
I know that you left wing nut idiots think that the implication that any country should be warry of inviting in people who seek to destroy the way of life of the country they are entering is racism and islamophobia. Tell that to the people who died in the recent london bombings.
Jus Soli is almost unique to the western hemisphere – aside from Pakistan and some east african country. Therefore if the person in the video is the child of an immigrant, in the netherlands – then they to are an immigrant.
This is a major issue in Europe and is one part of the major differences in the immigration problems that the EU is having as compared to the US.
As hard as it is for an immigrant to become a citizen in the US – it is far harder in the EU.
In the US, an immigrant atleast knows that their children are americans, so immigration related societal stresses fade over time. Europe has massive enclaves of muslims many who were born in Europe who are not and may never be citizens, and they are pissed.
So your factcheck is both wrong and irrelevant.
The fact is Europe has a very large problem with a growing and very angry muslim population.
Whether all of those people are “immigrants” by the US meaning of the word is a tangent.
They are all muslims who are not being incorporated into their new homes, and they are angry and violent.
We can fight over whether the violence is a consequence of being muslim or immigrants, or the poor treatment they receive from the country they live in.
This is less of a problem in the US – but it is even a problem here. A substantial portion of US islamic terrorism is NOT from “immigrants” but from their children.
The actual immigrants tend to be grateful because the US is better than where they came from. Their children do not have that experience and only see that they are scorned in the land they were born in.
Trump does not appear to grasp all of this.
But he grasps there is a problem – which is more than those on the left.
dduck “Don’t thank Obama, and in spite of Trump, thank the economy.”
We won’t thank Obama. What was the best quarter he ever had even after the meltdown of 2008? After that and with his reelection, there should have been one year with substantial growth. The best he could do was 2.5% in 2010 and 2.6% in 2015. With a 2.8% decline in 2008, there should have been years with mid 3% or more growth just to recover.
As for Trump, I think we CAN thank him. After his taking office, he rescinded over 800 proposed Obama regulations on business that had not taken effect yet. In February, Trump signed an executive order to place regulatory reform task forces and officers within federal agencies. This was to stop further over reach by government into business.He’s proposed killing two regulations for every new one which by early in his administrations almost 50 regulations had been terminated.
Less regulation allows business to focus on what they do best. Produce and employ. The unemployment rate is down to 4%, almost a 1% decline. The consumer confidence hit a 17 year high at 129.5. The best Obama could do was 100.7 when a new administration was foreseen and all his others in his last year were 93.4 (July 2017) to 98.5 (January 2017). The current numbers have not been this high since 1997-2000 during which we had exceptional growth and a balanced budget. The current indicators suggest economic growth in the 3.1% to 3.3% range in 2018 (could be more with any tax reform) and signal a holiday season that has not been this good in the last 20 years.
We can all moan, groan, bitch and belly ache about Trump and his ability to step on his agenda, but these economic numbers are his, not Obama. He owns the numbers. He just has a fantastic ability to take good news and turn it into snooze time with crap like the Muslim tweets. And that is what the media is focusing on, not that people are doing much better today than in January 2017.
Obama had two successive quarters of GDP over 3% once in 2013 and once in 2014 – these ares the only time in his presidency. The first is the only time he had 3 successive quarters of growth. Trump will not clearly have exceeded Obama until and unless 4Q 2017.
Presuming that continues as expected Trump will then have a longer rising run and a longer period above 2% than Obama.
Anyway thought there are clear signs that things are different, it is too early to celebrate.
What is true is that Trump has already matched in his first 3 quarters, Obama’s best 3 quarters.
Dave, I knew you could find something wrong with my data. I am not someone with a lhotogenic memory with encyclopedic data stored, so without spending alot of time in research, the data was the first few websites to pop up.
So, did the consumer confidence numbers a quoted, which gives a good barometer on future growth, pass your smell test?
Is word press a Chinese product? Second try!!
Dave, I knew you could find something wrong with my data. I am not someone with a lhotogenic memory with encyclopedic data stored, so without spending alot of time in research, the data was the first few websites to pop up.
So, did the consumer confidence numbers a quoted, which gives a good barometer on future growth, pass your smell test?
Ron,
I am not trying to poke holes in your data.
I beleive that all of the improvements seen in the past year are driven by both the changes in regulatory policy and the perception that the future environment will be less hostile to business.
But I am deliberately trying to keep expectations from getting too high.
Government has done ALOT of bad things to the economy in the past 20 years.
There are ALOT of things I remain worried abotu that have nothing to do with Trump that could still blow up in our faces.
I do not think they will. I think the market given the chance will slowly clear up most of the damage.
I also think a 3% economy is many many times more resilient than a 2% economy.
Beyond that, though I am caustiously optomistic we are on an upward trajectory.
I do not beleive there will be no bumps.
There is a good chance that atleast once between now and 2018 or 2020 we will see a bad quarter. I fully expect the left to a=go apeshit if we get a 2.5% growth quarter – saying see, its all a fluke, just natural variation.
Anyway I think we are in agreement, I am just less ready to celebrate prematurely.
I do not think we have arrived. but I do think we are on the way.
And finally there are myriads of problems left to tackle.
There is ALOT wrong with the GOP tax bill. And I do not think it is going to shoot us to sustained 4% growth.
But I do think it is enough better to go forward with it.
Then congress is going to have to knuckle down and confront spending.
ObamaCare is going to have to get revisited.
Democrats appear prepared to shutdown government over dreamers.
I think Republicans should use that.
Give the left some reasonable accomodation regarding the dreamers,
but demand concessions elsewhere – like:
Deficit reduction,
Law requiring an up down vote by congress on all significant regulation.
Making the tax cuts permanent.
Getting rid of the CFPB,.
A balanced budget amendment.
Social Security reform.
Medicare Reform
……
I do not care exactly what – but something.
The dreamers is a big deal, the left should be prepared to cede something equally big.
You touch on regulation.
I would note that aside from the psychological impact of Trump as president, which we can debate both sign and magnitude, that the only real impact Trump has had as president is on regulation.
It is still early to say that the current economy is specifically a consequence of Trump – though it helps that the economy was trending DOWN through 2016 and the election – which is not unusual as election years are full of uncertainty.
The projections are for this to continue.
If that is so, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue against the assertion that the economic cost of constantly adding federal regulation – as in the Obama administration, is about 1%..
That is about $200B in new wealth each year – and that is a compounding value.
And that is just the difference between slowly growing regulation and rapidly growing regulation.
It has been argumed that the cost of federal regulation alone is atleast $1T in lost growth per year.
That is more than we spend on SS, and more than we spend on Medicare, and More than we spend on social welfare programs, and nearly half of what we spend on all of those combined.
I would also note that there is an obvious and strong correlation between a growing economy and job growth and income growth – particularly for the “90%”.
I am happy to see the tax reform proceeding. I am not fixated on the details – I expect there are good and bad ones. Further I think that the ability of GAO and CBO to predict the actual impacts is extremely poor.
The primary gain is through simplificiation. I would prefer to see even more of that – even if the results were higher taxes.
I expect some serious short term gains as a consequence of reductions in corporate taxes.
These will bring investment to the US in several ways – both short and long term.
The correct corporate tax is zero.
But I am not expecting the Tax Cuts to have more than specific and limited short term economic benefits. The more important factor is the presure they create to cut spending.
Contra “supply siders” it is not reducing taxes that fosters economic growth, it is cutting government spending.
If taxes decrease – particularly if the benfits are primarily to those of us with limited oportunities to invest, the economic gains are small.
If you want to actually increase economic growth you need to shift capitol from funding government to actual investment.
If you merely decrease taxes without decreasing spending – borrowing increases, and that still keeps capitol away from investment.
I’m putting this at the bottom the thread was getting impossible.
““Who says I make decisions regarding the lives of others? ”
You do when you advocate for things like PPACA or you vote for people or policies that will impose force on others.
Decisions regarding the use of force against others are completely unavoidable.
Even anarchists must do so.
Anyway who accepts government – accepts that force will be used in their name with their blessing against others.’
I don’t like the PPACA. I have never advocated for it. If you do not believe me, ask Priscilla or Ron, who can read and understand my posts in the manner in which I write them, to explain that to you.
If I understand the meaning of your posts correctly, your idea is that if I vote I am obligated to have put a great effort into developing a deep philosophical understanding of the principles of force and their application through government.
What if I vote anyhow and my ideas on the subject are insufficiently profound, according to you?
Roby;
Thank you. An almost reasonable analysis, at first I mistakenly assumed the post was from Ron.
First – I want to state, because I think that we agree, that:
The use of force is unavoidable – as I note even anarchy involves the use of force.
The social contract is the agreement of the people to surrender their right to “initiate force” to govenrment, in return for governments protection of their rights.
You are likely to argue that the social contract, and government is more than that – but can we atleast universally agree it is that ?
Next, I am not SPECIFICALLY arguing about PPACA. You claim never to have advocated for PPACA, I do not have the time or the interest in reviewing the past to verify that.
Regardless, as I have repeatedly stated recently “this is not about you”
If I make an argument that doing X is ineffective and stupid – the fact that you read that as purely saying “roby is stupid” because you like X, is your problem. As I have noted with regard to your remarks, the addition of adjectives and other decorations to speach does not alter the underlying arguments. Calling an argument stupid is not “ad hominem, merely because some people support that argument. There is no transitive property of ad hominem. Calling my ideas stupid is not the same as ARGUING that I am stupid – and the converse is also true.
My rhetoric would likely inflame you less absent my own “adjectives”, but inserting them makes me happy. I will further note that while not specifically fallacy – there is still an argument if you remove the adjectives, spicing up an expression with adjectives does not add to the argument.
skipping past the digression on adjectives.
YES, all actions by government are FORCE. All uses of force MUST be justified.
If you use force, or if you advocate for the use of force – either directly or through govenrment,
you are personally, ethically, and morally responsible.
If you supported laws barring the sale of lose cigarettes, then you bear some moral responsibility for Eric Garner’s death. Just as if you support laws incarcerating people for stealing you bear the moral responsibility for the consequences of that incarceration.
All laws can ultimately result in death, if someone refuses to obey them sufficiently, or if something goes wrong in imposing them – and the world is not perfect things go wrong often.
And all of us are to some extent culpable in those results.
If a rapist spends much of their life in prison – I am comfortable with my personal responsibility in that outcome.
If a murderer dies resisting arrest, and the police took reasonable measures to arrest them peacefully. – I am comfortable with my personal responsibility in that outcome.
Expressed differently the power of the state – its use of force, is ultimately the power of the people,
and we are responsible for it.
I cite this paragraph in the Declaration of indepence constantly.
It is the encapsulation of the social contract. Jefferson stole the words from Locke.
It is the most important words written.
It is philosophy in action. It is the bold assertion that centuries of debate on philosophy have real meaning in the real world. It is not only the claim to legitimacy of the United States,
but a very real world and meaningful philosophical statement about government and specifically about self government. It not only empowers us to govern ourselves it OBLIGATES us to, and it makes us culpable for the government we institute.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
You keep trying to dismiss philosophy. The declaration quite above is philosophy.
The entire declaration of independdence is not only the bold PHILOSOPHICAL statement of the SOLE legitimacy and right to self government, but it was also a JUSTIFICATION for the use of force against King George.
Governments use force – that is what they are, it is how they function.
ALL government action is the use of force.
It therefore requires justifiation.
Just as it was not sufficient for the colonists to claim a right to self govenrment, it was also necescary to JUSTIFY the use of force to acheive it.
The declaration of independence JUSTIFIES the killing of people to accomplish its ends.
“I am obligated to have put a great effort into developing a deep philosophical understanding of the principles of force and their application through government.”
No! Whether you have read Kant, Plato, Hamurabi, Aristotle, …. is up to you – though those and many others might be helpful.
But when you use or advocate for the use of FORCE – even through government you are morally responsible. You are responsible whether you know everything about philosophy, or nothing.
When you authorize the use of force you are culpable for its use. You are culpable – whether you went to the trouble of justifying it or not. You are culpable whether you understood the moral ethical and philosophical issues useful to aide in justifying its use.
Just as you are responsible when you cause actual harm to others – whether you understood what you were doing, or not.
Your ignorance of morality, and the philosophy that justifies morality, does not alter your culpability.
When you kill someone – we do not decide whether that killing was justified based on what you felt in your gut, or your heart, or what YOU think is “common decency” or “common sense”.
But based on moral and ethical rules, that arrise from philosophy and are the basis – if sometimes imperfectly for our law.
The courts engage in a legal excercise when they weigh your actions against the law.
That – not common sense or common decency, determine whether your actions were justified, or whether the use of force against you is justified.
The legislature engages in a moral an ethical process when it constructs those laws.
And it does so at your direction. It power comes from your consent.
Philosophy is essentially the science of morality and ethics.
There is much we do not understand about the nature but science has allowed us to divine many of its laws and principles – even if there is much – such as why, that we do not understand and may never understand.
Philosophy is the process of determining the laws regarding human behavior. It is the process of raising to conscious understanding and expression as much of what lies within us and drives our behavior as we can.
You talk of “common decency” and “common sense” – ultimately those are just less rigorous emotionally laden shallow philosophy. You are still seeking to find the same principles for human behavior, even if you are oblivious to the fact you are doing so.
Your understanding of “common decency” and “common sense” can be shallow, intuitive, or it can be studied. That is up to you.
But you are responsible regardless.
“What if I vote anyhow and my ideas on the subject are insufficiently profound, according to you?”
It is not about me. I am not responsible for your actions. I am not responsible for actions done by others with your impramatur.
You are responsible for your choices. You are responsible, whether I agree, or whether you agree.
You are responsible whether you are informed or uninformed.
I keep citing my Grandmother who always voted for the most handsome.
I should note that my Grandmother was a teacher, and that she graduated from University of Pennsylvania I beleive prior to WWI. In otherwords she was a rare well eductated woman.
She aparently had an affair with Eugene Ormandy and corresponded with him through her life.
Anyway her vote went to the most handsome candidate.
And she is responsible for the consequences of that.
Just as you are responsible for the use of force that you advocate for.
Abdicating responsibility, does nto relieve you of responsibility.
Wrapping yourself in reliance on “common sense” and “common decency” is only beneficial to the extent that they lead to justifiable rather than unjustified uses of force.
When you can not describe them as testable and understandable rules and principles,
that makes them less meaningful that the superstitions of shaman’s.
Schlump continues to trample on long standing friendships with our oldest allies, and the Idiot Class here continues to shrug their shoulders in silence.
I’m probably missing something, but how is it racist or fascist or even stupid to tweet videos of Muslims committing heinous acts? Simply because they had been posted by a right-wing group? Europe has a serious problem with non-assimilating Muslims, so it seems faux-naive for everyone to act “shocked” that Trump would tweet these videos as a warning to Americans. As long as the videos aren’t faked, they should be fair game. Sure, it’s cherrypicking — but the biased media on both the right and left (and even CNN) are masters at cherrypicking. It’s how we ended up with the deliberately distorted “Hands up, don’t shoot” narrative.
As long as Trump and any other propagandist shows balancing clips of Muslims being mistreated. But then again that would not be propaganda, which is what Trump has done and continually does. That is not the job for a president to be performing, when all it does is fan flames of racial divide.
This guy hardly ever tells the truth.
I have no problems with clips of muslim’s being mistreated.
I have no doubt that too occurs. I beleive some portion of the tension in the EU is that muslim immigrants are littlerally 2nd class. They are not citizens, in most cases they can not get to be citizens.
But the obligation to be “fari and ballanced” does not rest with Trump or propogandists.
It does not even rest with the media.
We get balance by allowing all voices to be heard,
not by requiring every speaker to present all sides.
I have no problem with the left tilt of the media.
So long as we tolerate right tilts with the same freedom an liberty – whether in the media or elsewhere.
Freedom means we get bad speach with good speach and have to sort it out ourselves.
We are responsible for that sorting out.
We always were, but where there is no pretense of “fair and balanced” we know that sorting it out is on us.
I do not think the european mistreatement of mulsim’s is an excuse for muslim violence in europe.
While the two are connected – we can still judge them independently.
I also do not think Europe has an excuse for bringing muslims and then treating them like dirt.
Rick, how about a new thread like ” Any comments about A,B,C,D,E, with just 4-5 words per sentence, just so we have a clean thread for awhile. Word Press is fine for about 500 comments, then begins to clog between 500-800 and after 1000 it begins to vomit comments back to some trying to post. With 1200+ it doesnt post, then reposting unclogs the pipes and bkth comments post.
Thanks
You’re missing somethings, plural.
To clarify, I didn’t call him racist, fascist, etc. – those are the charges being leveled AT him, by numerous high ranking Britons quoted in the link. However STUPID is an apt description on numerous levels. As president he exhibits the same insensitive stupidly to race and cultural norms as Archie Bunker, without any of Archie’s redemptive charm.
Dumbbell Donnie linked to those clips, from a far right group with an unsavory reputation for promoting, as PM Theresa May said in her response to tRUMP, ”hateful narratives that peddle lies and stoke tensions. They cause anxiety to law-abiding people. British people overwhelmingly reject the prejudiced rhetoric of the far right.”
BUT dumbbell Donald keeps retweeting them, even after learning the clip purporting to show a “Muslim migrant” beating up “a Dutch boy on crutches” was reputed by the Netherlands Embassy in the United States. The attacker wasn’t an immigrant. “He was born and raised in the Netherlands. The embassy chastised the U.S. president for spreading false information. “Facts do matter,” it said in a statement on Twitter hours after the president’s retweet..
The fact that some of the clips show actual Islamic acts of violence committed in other nations is irrelevant in context to its source and sender. They would be comparable to Putin linking to doctored anti abortion video clips from the Planned Parenthood activist culprits.
You seem to be suggesting it’s appropriate for the President of the US to be tweeting these kinds of visually inciting propagandist videos. If so, I’m surprised that you’re giving him a pass on this kind of buffoonery.
Rick;
The implications of your remarks are enormous – just as the theme of your initial article.
I am not presuming you are becoming a Trump supporter,
I think nearly all of us can agree that Trump is an asshole.
But he is also president, and he is not the first asshole we have had as president,
I would really really like it if there was a correlation in the real world between assholery and failure, or character and success – but unfortunately there is not.
I think Bill Clinton is a Liar, Rapist, pervert and serial sexual abuser despicable person.
But with a few exceptions he was a pretty good president.
I think Jimmy Carter is an incredible person – and there are many unheralded accomplishments of his presidency – but he is generally regarded as a failure.
Anyway, Trump is an asshole, and mostly deserves the crap he gets.
Though the exact same is true of most of the people he dishes it out to.
I am not unhappy that Trump and the press and the left are in a food fight.
It makes all of them look bad. And that is good for all of us.
But your response to this is significant – not because I agree or disagree.
But because even though I think you are wrong on alot of things, and lean more left than you grasp, you are in my view a canary with respect to a significant portion of moderates and independents – particularly the less libertarian portions of the middle which includes a large body of essentially republicans who are unwilling to be called republicans because of republican positions on social issues.
Regardless, the point is that even though I think your comment is spot on correct,
what is more significant is that I think it reflects the views of lots of actual moderates – not me.
And this is something that should scare democrats approaching 2018 and 2020.
Those on the left here so absolutely loath Trump, they are incapable of grasping that with a strengthening economy, some foreign policy accomplishments, no new fruitless wars, no actual actions that truly come off as nazi authoritarian, and the power of the incumbancy, Trump could do very well in 2020, and republicans may not be in so bad a shape in 2018.
The left and the media has spent the past 18 months pummelling Trump.
They have been able to keep is negatives above his positives.
But he still defeated Clinton.
I do not honestly think that the press and the left can keep his negatives down forever.
The twitter outrage at him gets old quickly. You can only be outraged so much.
Even Roy Moore has managed to turn things arround in just a few weeks and is likely to win in AL. I can join those on the left in pummeling Moore’s character,
but he is still going to win. He should not. But he will. And he might not be the most repugnant politician in Washington.
Tangentially I would note the difference between government, politics and markets.
The NFL and ESPN are in deep shit because the players are on the wrong side of something the fans value.
Right and left we are seeing media icons being dumped – Lauer, Rose, Weinstein, Keellor, …..
The market – without “regulations” and “laws” works fast to punish misconduct – given a sufficient minority of customers is offended.
We are mostly getting stories of sexual harrasment of women in the workplace.
What is going on I think is game changing.
I mildly agree with those who say “wait” every allegation is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt – some are false.
But this is the market – big powerful people are losing jobs. No one is going to jail. No one is having something that actually belongs to them taken.
Had we not passed the civil rights act – this same thing would have eventually happened with respect to race.
The markets do not work like regulation, but they do work.
Further they get alot more right.
Does anyone give a damn if 1/3 of the stories about Weinstein are made up ?
Further, though again I am not inclinded to beleive every allegation being made.
I am not unhappy that people who have been abusive of women are being canned all over.
Nor do I care alot if a few actually innocent people lose their job over this.
No one is going to jail. That standard is rightly higher.
When you talk about jailing people – they get every benefit of the doubt.
It is one thing to beleive all the allegations when you are deciding to fire someone,
and another when you are deciding to jail them.
But back to my point – maybe late, maybe imperfectly, but the market is working here.
I am encouraged to beleive that this will seriously improve the workplace.
The effects are far beyond the few heads that have rolled.
The swiftness with which people have been canned is reflective of the change in business understanding that people are not going to accept this.
I think the changes will be permananent. That does nto mean we will not have details to work out.
It would be unreasonable to presume that the workplace must be sexually and romantically sterile. But the market will figure out the difference between repuganant harrasment and pervsion and ordinary acceptable human romantic and secxual interaction.
Not perfectly – but well enough. Far better than any regulation can manage.
And the nobel prize committee gave Obama the nobel peace prize for “hope and change” before he triggered the russian invasion of crimea, destroyed libya, empowered ISIS, and ignored North Korea for 8 years.
I am not especially concerned about the rantings in the house of parliment.
I am concerned about what the US and UK do together.
I would also suggest that Trump might have a better grasp of the wants of ordinary people in the UK and EU than their own leaders do.
I think it is pretty clear that the people in the UK are very upset about the violence that immigration forced on them by the elites has wrong, and myriads of other ways they have lost control of their own lives.
Parliment might want to listen.
And add a $Trillion to the Deficit.
Serial liar lies again and again, and needs a daily fumigation. I love this column by NYT Linda Liu on the tax plan: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/us/politics/fact-check-trump-tax-cuts.html
We can’t believe anything he says to 20 million followers, much like the crap he re posted on “immigrants”. You can’t unring a bell. The harm is done, and can’t be refuted or corrected when one side has the giant bully pulpit. Gross propaganda.
Given that the CBO and GAO and everyone else have never come close to accurately preduicting the real world effects of any tax cut, or change in spending ever.
Given that no economists have ever been close to accurate in predicting these effects.
Given that spending increases are ALWAYS higher than predicted – usually MUCH higher,
That wars ALWAYS cost more, and that every significant US tax cut ever has been followed by increasing revenue, Why should I beleive
“Linda Qiu is a fact-check reporter for The New York Times, based in Washington. She came to the Times in 2017 from PolitiFact, a fact-checking service of the Tampa Bay Times. ”
Given the NYT’s abysmal record at “fact checking” given the abysmal record of politifact and other non-partisan – aka highly partisan “fact checkers”.
Sorry dd – but I could care less what Linda Qiu and the NYT says.
My ouija board predictions – which has as much (or little) credibility as anyone else’s.
The corporate tax cut will result in between 1/3 and 2/3 of the several Trillion that US corps are keeping offshore because they do not want taxed twice, will return to the US as investment.
Generally the US will become significally more attractive to investors.
The result of this alone should be a solid increase in growth.
The upper margin tax cuts are too small to be meaningful.
The small business tax cuts if I understand how they work correctly could prove to be a huge impetus to small business – this will also have an improvement in growth – but the largest effect will be an increase in employment. Small Bussinesss has essentially been in recession since 2008. What recovery we have had has entirely been driven by larger corporations.
This will likely bring the recovery to small businesses.
Given currently low unemployment – that means wages must rise – more competition for labor drives wages up.
This will also increase Labor force participation – additional labor has to come from somewhere and UI is already low – more people will return to the workforce.
The middle class portions of this will have ZERO economic benefit.
It has been long well known that cutting taxes on the middle class has negative economic benefits. The middle class has low rates of investment and investment is 3 times more important at increasing growth than spending.
The elimination of SALT will increase the migration from blue to red states, boosting the economies – particularly of the south even further.
The elimination of tax deductions will have a small stimulative effect as taxes will be factor less in investment decisions.
The effects on the deficit will be substantially smaller than predicted – but hopefully this will not be discovered prior to congress taking action to significantly cut spending.
Overall my ouija board guess is after short term effects – the long term benefits of this will be to raise growth to a bit above 3.5% from what I expect will be abit under 3% as an average for Trump primarily from deregulation.
If we can cap that by finally killing PPACA we should be able to get long term grown close to 4%.
In the short term we could see a growth spike to between 4-6% but that will not last.
This could be better – much better.
But it is a start.
Saying things rarely causes harm.
That comes from doing.
Nonsense.
Jay, it appears your desired outcome for Trump is getting closer to reality than before after Flynn making a deal to save himself. Could be Trump or Jared. And then if they go after Jared, would he turn on Trump to stay out of prison for 5-10 years if there is anything there?
What would I like to see happen. A quick end to this circus. If there is anything there, get it over with! Stop screwing around like everything else in government. Get to the impeachment phase, get Trump out by the end of 2018 and let Mike Pence take over for two years and be the incumbent running for reelection. He has supported Trump, but has kept a somewhat low profile and is not covered with Trump S^%$ to make himself toxic in an election.
My forecast: if Mueler has Jared tied up in criminal charges, Trump pardons him, claiming the charges are part of the political vendetta against him. And then he tries to weather the storm from the public outcry that follows. In the debauched partisan environment we live in now, unless Dems have a strong majority in office then (doubtful) he doesn’t get impeached.
However if in fact he faces some kind of legal jeopardy (also doubtful in this environment) he works a deal with Pense to pardon him if he resigns, like Nixon was pardoned after watergate. At least he’d be gone from the White House. But I don’t expect to see true justice for him. Only a lot of rationalization and whataboutism from Trumpsters and Tin Hat conspiracy conservatives who will blame it on Soros and Hillary and Obama and CNN.
I’ve given up on American politics
Land of the feeble minded
Home of debauched righteousness
Jay, I dont care what happens after he leaves office. I am concerned about 2020. I believe now that it will take a miracle for him to be reelected if he runs and I want either the Libertarian or Republican winning, not the left wing wacko the democrats will cramb down our ballots. That just leads to 4-8 more years of dems and GOPing almost anything of substance.
I heard the following comment by a well known national reporter. … “The Democrat leadership in the senate has told its memders that they will be allowed to vote their beliefs concerning the tax legislation given the tight races in some states”
So isnt that sweet. Joe Manchin is being told by daddy he can vote for it or not and wont be punished!!!!!!….Your right to give up on our government. They cant represent their constituents without facing disciplinary action. At least the GOP does not seem to retaliate.
The GOP the party in power is pushing through a massive tax reconstruction bill as I write this, with DOZENS of on the fly changes that members of both parties have not seen, exceot for scribbled undecipherable amendments on PDF printouts, have not discussed, have not gotten any feedback on consequences, except for the widespread belief from many sources that the plan will add a trillion or more to the deficit.
This bill is going to effect the entire nation, individuals and businesses, for DECADES.
You OK with Republicans shoving it through this way?
Well the GOP learn well Grosshopper.
Using the same tactic that passed the PPACA.
But I believe if you look into this further the changes being made are being published and the senators know about them. That is why they keep flippng from suppot or non support. And I belive the basic info is geing shared, unlike ” read the bill to know whats in it” after it passes.
Nothing is going to change regardless of party control, but elected officials should be allowed to vote up or down based on their beliefs and that of their constituents , not what a leaders constituents want
My “guess” is there are two things going on.
This is MUST PASS legislation for Republicans.
While I do not think failing to pass it will result in democrats winning more elections.
It will mean more republican legislators facing tough primaries.
So there is alot of attempts at horse trading to get to 51 votes – just as there was with PPACA.
But horse trading has problems – give Collins what she wants, and you lose Paul or Cruz or Lee.
And Visa Versa.
Also there have been hints for some time that for the Tax Cut several democratic senators may be in play.
Even one or two radically changes the calculus.
On the one hand Republicans want the biggest stimulus possible.
On the other – the biggest stimulus is the bill least friendly to the middle class and to democrats.
So all that is going on is a bunch of games to get the bill with the most of what the GOP wants.
One of the things I think it actually does want – is some democratic support.
Also flexibility on the Tax Cut could result in more GOP flexibility regardin the Dreamers -which is threatening to shut down the government for christmas.
While I would like some support that we have another version of “you have to pass the bill to read it”.
At the same time I absolutely support having both the house and the senate publish all bills atleast a week prior to voting.
Amendments are more difficult.
I am absolutely in favor of maximizing transparency in government – including in the legislative process.
I am not sure that I accept your claim that we are seeing a GOP verions of PPACA essentially passed in secret.
I think that Democrats are following normal procedure – rather than that of PPACA.
But I would agree that our normal procedure should be more transparent.
Ron.
My prediction – Trump is winning in 2020, and Mueller will never come up with anything that ties to Russia.
Further we are tiring of this even Mueller needs political support.
I grasp that the Flynn Plea is serious. But it does not actually change anything.
Flynn plead to exactly the same thing that required him to resign.
This gives Mueller a tiny bit of breathing room.
On the one hand Flynn is a bigger window into the Trump campaign.
On the other – still nothing that ties the campaign to Russia.
The longer Mueller goes without progress on that the weaker he gets.
My guess is that Schumer knows the Senate is passing the Tax Cut.
I suspect he knows that it is actually likely to be popular after it is passed.
Democrats in red states can not afford to vote against it.
And the 2018 Senate map is strongly anti-democrat.
Do you want to be a democratic senator running in 2018 having voted down the Tax Cut, but having it pass, and running aginst a growing economy ?
I believe there were hints that McCaskill was considering voting for it for some time.
And Trump has been actively courting pretty much all the red state democrats running in 2018.
Trump asking them for their vote, faliing to get it, and then it passing and succeeding is a very bad scenario for democrats.
This is how it’s going down, Ron.
On the fly, or more aptly, like crap flung against the wall to see what sticks.
The is BS. pure and simple.
Jay, you sound just like me when the PPACA was being legislated in the house. Didnt do any good, no one listened to me either.Yes it is pure BS but thats the government we have and neither party is going to change it. In fact, on the Senate side, Reid made it possible because he did not want GOP input, so he changed to rules to simple majority. If they are the majority, it gives them a tremendous amount of power without the 60 vote requirement.
Trump does not need a deal with Pense.
There is already precident, the courts have already decided that a party with the power to pardon can pardon themselves.
If Trump thinks Jared is in danger – I think it is more likely he fires Mueller.
I would also note that thus far Mueller has come up with NOTHING with respect to Russian Collusion.
It is argueable that the indictments and pleas he has thus far are more a desparate attempt to keep the investigation alive, because we are getting bored and it is increasingly obvious there is nothing there.
Mueller had better make his next strike be SIGNIFICANT and have something meaningful to do with Russia.
I am also sensing from your own tone – that even you are starting to grasp that there may not be anything there.
There are alot of things Trump could do right not that I do not think he will, that would be interesting.
As an example I think he could right now announce that he will leave the Mueller investigation to proceed – but that If Mueller does not connect his investigation and future charges back to Russian interferance int he election, he is probably going to pardon everyone.
Compared to the build up, the Flynn plea was a fizzle.
The “lying to the FBI” charges were EXEACTLY the same issues that got him fired.
This is also one of the problems with many stupid crimes such as “lying to the FBI”.
Flynn is pleading guilty to making an incorrect statement about something that was not a crime.
This is a big issue that goes far beyond Trump and Flynn.
There are many many instances of less than desirable actions that should not be prosecutable – unless there is a separate actual crime also prosecuted.
We had this nonsense with Scooter Libby. Who misstated something totoally irelevant to the leak that outed Valerie Plame. Worse:
Outing Plame was not a crime – at the time she was outed she held a public role in the CIA.
You can not expose an agent that is already public.
Further EVERYONE in washington knew exactly who outed Plame.
Fitzgerald was investigating a non-crime that everyone knew who did, and caught somebody for saying something that had nothing to do with any crime.
—–
BUT, I am guessing that there is more to this. The speculation regarding Flynn for sometime is that he could be made to deal – to protect his son.
Though agains we are talking about to protect his son from prosecution for something that there have only been something like 5 prosecutions in 50 years – and 4 of those resulted in aquitals.
regardless, my guess is what he plead to is meaningless, Flynn’s objective was to get himself and his son out of Mueller’s gun sights.
There are several more important questions this raises:
Is the Mueller investigation going to end up being Mueller collecting a bunch of scalps of people whose only “crime” is mishandling their role in the investigation.
Kushner is purportedly the next domino in Mueller’s sights. If Mueller keeps climbing the ladder by going after people for things that should not be crimes and have absolutely nothing to do with anything then I for one will be very angry.
This is one of the reasons Rosenstein was required by the SC law to specifiy a CRIME that was being investigated.
Mueller is collecting trophies – not actually investigating Trump Russia Collusion.
Mueller’s objective is not to investigate a crime, but to convict people for not cooperating with him in the way he wants.
It is likely that Flynn is now cooperating with Mueller.
Jay is likely dancing in the streets. But this is entirely meaningless – unless your objective is to get scalps rather than to investigate the underlying crime.
If in some hypothetical world, there was actual collusion between Trump and Russia – Flynn would likely know something about it.
At the same time – if as the evidence thus far pretty damingly demonstrates – there was not, then Flynn’s value to Mueller – aside from being another notch in his belt, would be to help trip someone else in an unrelated mis statement to the FBI or some other such nonsense.
I would also suggest looking at the purported lie by Flynn. it is essentially not accurately reporting in detail to the FBI the conversation that Flynn had with Kislyak.
The “lie” is not telling the FBI that Kislyak wanted to discuss the sanctions and Flynn said such discussions were not happening until after the inauguration.
This is something you want to send someone to jail for ?
Please lets have the left apply this kind of standard to Clinton!!
We had Comey come before us all and say “Clinton committed a crime – recklessly handling classified documents is a crime, but because I find she did not intend to commit a crime that does nto have intention as an element that she will not be prosecuted”.
But here we have Mueller saying – because Flynn did not tell the FBI the WHOLE TRUTH, in exactly the way I think he should have, in Dec. 2016, he is a quitly.
Please use that same standard against Clinton and her aides and Lois Lehner, and pretty much the rest of the Obama administration and we can fill the jails.
There are three different scenarios here:
The first is I think the idea that Kushner is rolling on anyone, or that Trump is letting Mueller at him is quite stupid.
Flynn likely plead to protect his son. Protecting family is a really really big deal.
Kushner is not rolling on anyone, and Trump is not letting Mueller at Kushner, and Kushner knows that and Mueller knows that.
Trump will protect his family too. But he is more likely to do so by firing Mueller.
Right now if Trump fired Mueller – there would be a firestorm.
There would likely be impeaching hearings, possibly a vote and maybe a referal to the senate for trial. But there would not be a conviction. However the government would become about this for the next couple of years. BTW I would remind democrats that impeaching Clinton made him MORE popular.
Trump is not going to be removed absent something we have not turned up, and are not going to turn up.
The left is so wedded to the presumption that there is a “there there”, that they can not grasp that Whether Flynn is cooperating or not – the most likely things he can give Mueller is not proof of non-existant Trump russia collusion. But clues that Kishner and others might have similar small technical misstatements in their statements to the FBI.
I would also note that an option that Trump has right now is to pardon Flynn.
The “crime” here is no secret. It was known since Flynn resigned. It is essentially why he resigned. Trump has consistently stated that the appropriate consequence was the loss of his job – no more.
I do not think that will happen for several reasons:
It is likely Flynn’s plea was to protect his son. If that is the case Trump pardoning Flynn will just make Mueller go after his Flynn’s son.
Mueller will argue it is obstruction of justice – it is not, but Jay and the left will buy it.
Given that there is no actual Trump/Russia criminal collusion, it is better for Trump to allow Mueller to wither on his own and put the Trump legal team to making sure none of Trump’s family gets sucked into this “lying to the FBI” sham.
Thank you for some evidence.
Why am I supposed to beleive the remarks in a tweet by an MSNBC political analyst reflect reality ?
still too many bad things of him
Obama and Hillarry need to be arrested NOWWWWW and all of you need your FU(*&&&*&ing TEETH KNOCKED OUT>
It’s hard to find educated individuals on this topic, however you sound like you understand what you’re speaking about! Thanks
https://www.houstonweddingsandmore.com
Your home is valueble for me. Thanks!…
There are some attention-grabbing closing dates on this article however I don’t know if I see all of them middle to heart. There may be some validity however I’ll take hold opinion until I look into it further.