America’s Mass Shooting Madness Deconstructed
America, we have a problem. Too many of our citizens have been releasing their pent-up furies by gunning down multiple strangers in public places. Just as alarmingly, these warped souls favor weapons specifically designed to gun down multiple strangers —20, 40, 60 or 100 fellow humans in as many seconds.
When three deranged mass shooters murdered 34 Americans within the space of a week earlier this month, we all started clucking at one another. As usual, our social media went haywire. (I can personally vouch for this, having triggered a Facebook firestorm that eventually gathered over a hundred comments.)
Who was to blame for our gun sickness? How would we solve it? Were guns themselves the problem, or could we point to the bubbling anger and fear that grip so much of America these days? How about the white supremacists, whose presence seems to be looming larger on the national landscape? Could we just blame the crazies among us? Or could it be something else, like the splitting of our country into progressive urban elitists and proletarian white reactionaries – two myopic and mutually hostile tribes? (Aren’t elitists supposed to be conservative while proletarians are socialist? Not in America!)
Of course, Trump emerged as a prime suspect, having allegedly incited the El Paso killer with his anti-Mexican rhetoric. Just a few weeks earlier, he had been skewered by the left for his “racist” putdown of the “Squad” – the four young Democratic Congresswomen who had been shifting their party’s goalposts sharply leftward. (Polite society apparently deems it racist if white people criticize individual people of color for any reason – Bill Cosby and a few other reprobates excepted.)
Trump knows how to rouse his base and alienate everyone else; he’s our divider-in-chief. The president might or might not be a racist himself, but he’s notorious for his “dog whistles” – those ill-disguised appeals to the racial resentments of working-class whites – especially the menfolk — who feel as if they’re being displaced and disrespected. If blacks, Latinos, gays and women can engage in strident identity politics, disparaging white males as perennial oppressors, it makes sense that some of those devalued white males would respond with identity politics of their own.
And yet… relatively few American mass shootings seem to be motivated by white supremacist politics, even if most of the shooters are white. In fact, the Dayton shooter was a leftist who endorsed Elizabeth Warren. (Did anyone blame her for inciting his rampage?) More typically, the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter simply announced that he was “really angry” as he shot random strangers before being cut down by the police.
What about those brutal “assault weapons,” then? Semi-automatic handguns and rifles — those with the capacity to fire a dozen, two dozen or more shots without reloading — have accounted for 24 of the 25 deadliest U.S. mass shootings over the past 70 years. And yet they’re perfectly legal and easily obtained. Even Walmart sells them.
Righteous liberals and moderates have called for semi-automatics to be banned or even confiscated. The latter scheme worked in Australia, where gun deaths promptly plummeted. (Of course, the U.S. isn’t Australia; half our population seems to venerate guns as if they were stone idols.)
It’s too late to confiscate semi-automatics on these shores. Guns actually outnumber people in our ever-rambunctious republic — and at least half those guns are semi-automatics. We can’t seize them (or even ban sales of new ones) without the possibility of triggering a right-wing insurrection, so I’m convinced we should try a third option: ban private ownership of magazines that hold more than six rounds of ammunition. Seems sensible, right? Does anyone not intent on mass murder really need 100 rounds to bring down a pheasant or an armed robber?
Of course, the National Rifle Association has no intention of letting our legislators create bothersome obstacles to gun ownership, even though NRA members overwhelmingly support stricter gun laws. As long as so many of our elected representatives are sponsored by the gun lobby, it looks as if “thoughts and prayers” will have to suffice –- at least until the American people resolve to drive the lobbyists out of Washington.
What about all the madmen lurking among us? Aren’t they the problem? We rarely confine them to institutions these days, so they’re free to express their florid revenge fantasies by acting them out in public.
But here’s the rub: every country has its share of mental illness, yet the U.S. leads all “developed” nations in gun deaths by a whopping margin. Are mentally ill Americans crazier than mentally ill Europeans or East Asians? Probably not, but they have easier access to guns.
Seventeen states have passed some form of “red flag” laws designed to separate mentally ill people from firearms, at least while they’re judged to pose a threat. That means 33 states have no laws on the books regulating gun ownership among unstable individuals.
Opponents of such laws cite the unfairness of punishing anyone for potential crimes, and in fact, only a small minority of mass shooters are clinically insane. Angry, yes. Maladjusted, certainly. But do we really want to enact laws that isolate and discriminate against neurotics? Tough call.
Let’s round up some other suspects behind our mass-shooting epidemic. For one, Americans still worship success. American men, especially, are pressured to win big, and those who fall short can ferment in their frustration until they snap. (This isn’t a problem in more egalitarian cultures.)
We’re also a culture that worships fame; celebrities are our royalty. Any nitwit with a semi-automatic and a grudge can immortalize his name by mowing down multiple people in an orgy of gunfire.
Bullying looms large among younger shooters as a rampage motivator. “I’ll show them!” cries the poor ungainly nerd whose self-esteem has been shredded by his tormentors. And show them he does, even if he picks out his victims at random. Even if it costs him his life.
And let’s not forget the copycat factor, which probably played a role in the three successive mass shootings earlier this month. Someone on the brink of disintegration hears about a gun massacre, and an evil bulb flashes inside his seething brain.
Finally, we can always blame the media, certainly among the most polarizing influences in our dangerously polarized culture. Partisan TV networks, websites and radio stations are in the business of creating tribes; they crank out slanted stories guaranteed to raise the hackles of the faithful and confirm their belief that the other tribe embodies pure evil.
Regardless of whether Trump deserves his nightly pummeling on CNN and MSNBC, agenda-driven news is a destructive force; its purpose is to generate anger and division as well as tribal loyalty. It might not be fake news, but it’s willfully distorted news that cherry-picks the stories and angles most likely to inflame its chosen audience.
I can almost believe that the Russians have been infiltrating our media to divide us and drive us mad –- all the better to destroy American civilization and win Cold War II. But let’s face it: we’re already an angry nation –- an angry nation with tons of guns and millions of alienated souls. If we keep encouraging anger and division, we have only ourselves to blame when some of our more volatile citizens lash out in deadly public rampages.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate. You can find his three collections of darkly humorous essays in e-book form on Amazon for only $2.99 each. (Just search under “Rick Bayan.”)
THE NEW MODERATE 
Good comments.But what is happening today in America is very different than what happens in foreign countries. Most of our issues rest in the trust in government, which began with the revolutionary war.
We can blame anyone, but we need to only blame our government. NRA? Just read the history of the NRA and they supported 99% of governments efforts to make guns safe. They supported almost every gun control measure until the 70’s. It was not until government got so big, began using force through legislation and divided the country did the NRA begin opposing any gun legislation. Trust in government began to collapse in the late 60’s with Johnson’s complete and total lies about Viet Nam. Then the FBI raided the apt.of Ken Bellew in 1971, shooting him during the raid. To this day, the evidence used to support the raid is questionable. Ruby Ridge was another issue.But that Bellew raid changed the positions of the NRA resulting in Charlton Heston to say “You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold damn hands”. They have only become much less a supporter of our government and much more radicalized in the support of the wording in the constitution.
Today one can look at the graph of peoples positions on the political scale. Up until the 90’s, it looked like a bell curve. Few at each end, with many in the moderate middle. Today, there are many more at each end, with the moderate middle a deep valley between two extreme mountain peaks on both sides. The left peak accepts and trust government completely, the right peak rejects and has little trust of government. This graph allows one to choose different years to see the changes over time.
https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-1-growing-ideological-consistency/
This is not a situation that is easily fixed especially with such divisive candidates
for President in Trump, Warren and Sanders. Biden could be exposed as being mentally unable to be president, but even he has adopted the extreme lefts agenda.
And gun control? These wackos will find many ways to kill multiple people. Just take a few minutes each time thinking about how one could kill many when you are in different environments. Its not that hard without a gun. Actually it is much easier if one justs thinks of the alternatives.
Ron: I guess the NRA has radicalized along with the right. And of course, the left has radicalized, too, leaving that crater in the middle. The biggest challenge for me, as a moderate, is to appeal to the more reasonable people (traditional liberals and conservatives) so they don’t latch on to the extremists’ world-view. We need to marginalize the intolerant ideologues at both ends of the spectrum.
I am not a member of the NRA, I do not care what the NRA’s oppinion is.
The FACTS – and everyone – including everyone here knows this, is that no proposed gun laws are going to do anything except make us “feel better”.
I oppose ALL stupid laws that are just an effort to make people “feel better”.
I do not know what the NRA’s position on “red flag” laws are – but in the past they have supported laws that bar specific people from gun ownership because of status such as mental health.
There are myriads of reasons that this is a ridiculously bad idea – and at times int he past even the left was smart enough to understand that reducing the rights of people with mental health issues, would pretty much guarantee that people with mental health issues would not seek help.
But the proposed Red Flag laws are worse. They would allow the police and others to screw over peoples rights subject to an incredibly low burden.
I have no problem denying a person who was CONVICTED of a crime of some of their rights – like voting and gun ownership. Though we do need to be careful because quite often reducing the rights of convicted criminals increases crime.
Regardless. there is not a principled issue.
I would not take the right to free speach from a person with a mental health problem without meeting a very very high standard – what the courts call “strict scrutiny”.
I would not take the right to self defense on a lower standard than I would use for free speach.
The 2nd amendment is little more than a reiteration that we have the right to self defense.
As with other rights you can not say – well you have the right to free speech – but you can not advertise on Television.
And none of this view comes from the NRA.
One of the reasons that I often characterize you as on the left, is you are constantly making this stupid argument that everything is about money or political clout.
NO, It is about RIGHT and WRONG.
When you target a group such as the NRA because they purportedly have influence you MAKE the issue whether they have influence, and not whether they are RIGHT.
If Adolf Hilter contributed $1B to political action to support individual rights – I would praise him for it.
“The biggest challenge for me, as a moderate, is to appeal to the more reasonable people (traditional liberals and conservatives) so they don’t latch on to the extremists’ world-view. We need to marginalize the intolerant ideologues at both ends of the spectrum.”
What does this mean ?
If you want to boycott Chik-a-filet – go to it.
Though I strongly suggest that you take great care to be correct when you morally condemn others – because if you are wrong – I am going to be standing here morally condemning you.
We are free to do lots of things that are stupid and make up look like fools.
Wise people think before acting.
Regardless, you are free to engage in persuasion – but you are NOT free to restrict the freedom of “extremists” to try to persuade too.
One of the other problems that I have about this nonsenical idea that there is some moral virtue inherent to “centrism” or compromise, or the middle – is that history does not support that.
Slavery was wrong, opposition to it was right. Those in the middle were morally compromised.
I get really tired of hearing words like “extremist” used as a means to discredit and ignore someone. And can not make your use of “marginalized” into persuade using facts, logic reason.
I do not care if a position is left, right, center, moderate, extreme, ….
I care whether it is right or wrong.
Do not tell me that you wish to silence someone because they are extreme.
Do not tell me you wish to silence or “marginalize” someone.
Tell me how you are going to carry the debate – with facts, logic, reason.
Tell me how your view is correct – using facts, logic reason.
I have little interest in where is falls in the spectrum of politics.
I care whether it is right or wrong.
Our founders were “extremists”, abolitionists were extremists, sufferagettes were extremists.
those advocating for equal rights for women, minorities, homosexusals were extremists.
They were also right.
Dave, there’s a huge difference between silencing and marginalizing bad ideas. Right now the extremists control the conversation, which only leads to more and more polarization. (We can agree that polarization is not in the country’s best interest, right?)
As for my role as a moderate, I’ve explained this before: I don’t necessarily favor a middle course on every issue. I’m a boat balancer: when SJWs collectively blame white males for all the world’s ills and fling the word “racist” at every opportunity, they’re tipping the boat dangerously to one side; I aim to tip it back upright. Same with my opposition to extremist right-wing views.
Am I more of a “statist” than you? Of course — you’re a libertarian, and I’m not. That doesn’t mean I’m in favor of the government running our lives. I believe in a sane balance between reckless extremes.
“Dave, there’s a huge difference between silencing and marginalizing bad ideas.”
If government is doing it – then absolutely not. There is no difference at all.
Subtle infirngement on rights is more dangerous.
One of the reasons I do not like Justice Kennedy AT ALL, and one of the reasons I am not ever going to buy compromise as a principle, is because quite often compromise is WORSE than bad decisions.
Bad decisions tend to fail bigger and tend to result in backlash – and we learn.
Bad decisions are easier to reverse.
Compromises are near impossible to get out of when we find they do not work as expected – and they rarely do.
I would rather that you and the left openly try to ban all guns ourtright – then we can have the real debate over the issue. Your faux “common sense gun laws” approach is far more dangerous. It ultimately ends in the same place, but without ever having to have the real debate about the constitution and rights.
“Right now the extremists control the conversation”
False premise – you remain as free as always to speak.
Regardless – Then do not listen.
You are litterally making the same arguments that others here were making to try to silence me. That somehow the frequency of speech by one party imposes any limit on the speach of others.
“which only leads to more and more polarization. (We can agree that polarization is not in the country’s best interest, right?)”
The polarization is NOT being caused by our speech.
Again you are not paying attention to posts here.
I can go anywhere in this country. I can go to a grocery store, I can go to a mall, to work, to a concert, to a ball game …. pretty much anything, and not encounter polarization or division.
Even on private things we sometimes fight about bitterly – like sports.
With very few exceptions – we are not going to shoot each other, or ban relatives from Thanksgiving.
There is only one issue that actually polarizes us. That is when one group of us – right or left seeks to impose their will on all of us using the force of government.
That is it. That is the ONLY place we are seriously polarized.
And the moment you grasp that is the problem – and it quite obviously is.
Then you also grasp that at this moment the problem is not with Trump or the Right.
It is solely with the left.
If you doubt that – listen to the democratic debates.
They are falling over themselves talking about how when elected they are going to impose their will on all of us by force. Trump comes up, but constantly things come up that have nothing to do with Trump.
You say you want gun registration and restrictions on semi automatic weapons.
Almost every candidate has demanded MUCH more. Several intend to acomplish that throudh exectutive order – despite the fact that Executives orders can only be used to:
Direct those in GOVERNMENT, and then only as to how an existing law or an existing executive power is to be carried out.
Regardless, we will have ‘polarization” – no matter who is president – we were highly polarized under Obama, as well as Bush and Clinton. Yes, it is getting worse.
But regardless of when it was, the root was always the same – some of us trying to use government to impose their will on all of us by force.
Nothing else polarizes us to that extent.
And yes that polarization is dangerous.
Ultimately when words and elections fail as the means of stopping one group from imposing its will on the other by force, what follows is violence. That was how we got to the revolutionary war. It was also how we got to the french revolution, and the civil war.
So yes I am concerned – about the CAUSE of our polarization.
I do not give a rats ass whether we agree on things politically.
I would prefer a presidency that was calm and quiet – but NOT at the expense of diminished liberty.
And that is the problem. the SOLE problem, the DANGEROUS problem.
Not Trump, Not mythical white supremecy or inconsequential racism.
I do not care what SJW’s SAY. Bad or stupid speech – whether from the left or right is not the issue.
It is what SJW’s etc DO that is the problem. Barring speakers from campus, heckling them until they leave. Demanding that force be used to not only prevent them from hearing ideas they see as unpleasant but to prevent ANYONE from hearing those ideas.
I do not care how load you are. I do not care how much you speak.
I care what you DO.
No one is tipping the boat over with their words.
It is with their actions or the actions that they intend to take if they ever get the power to do so.
While I have problems with the screetching “racism” at everything. The problem is that it is false and it is backed by the demand that you be silenced.
Calling Trump or anyone racist – is meaningless, if there is no expectation that the allegation results in action.
Slurring someone is a prelude to violence. against them. It is the violence that is wrong.
“Am I more of a “statist” than you?”
This is not about comparisons, nor about labels.
Labels are usefull when they efficiently communicate.
But they are a problem when they are an excuse not to listen.
It is irelevant which of us is more of what label.
What is relevant is what works and what does not.
I am libertarian because the older I get and the more experience I have the more I realize how incredibly rare success on the part of government is.
Even those things that I – the libertarian think are actually the job of govenrment – government does badly. I can not think of a single example of anything ever that can be accomplished without government that is not far worse when done by government.
You want me to share your views – to become more “statist”.
Then PERSUADE me – using facts, logic, and reason that I am wrong.
that the things you wish government to do – will actually work, will not on net be WORSE than doing nothing.
If you can not do so – then government can not act on your wish.
That is not libertarian – that is just the only moral way to act.
Compromise, balance – all the other words you use – they are nice words.
But they are just words. They are NOT principles.
Compromise can be good or bad, Balance can be good or bad.
Saying Compromise or balance answers no questions.
There are situations where compromise or balance are a solution – sometimes the correct solution. But that is determine by the facts, by logic, and reason and by principles.
Saying that something is a compromise does not add information. Nor does saying balance.
Libertarianism does not give us the answers. It provides principles to help evaluate the facts and logic.
But 95% of the issues can be resolved without a single libertarian principle – through simple utilitarianism.
I am not personally utilitarian. I think utilitarianism is dangerous. I think that if the only principle you have is the greatest good, it is very easy to act immorally. I think that there are some instances where the greatest good is the WRONG answer.
But the debate between utilitarianism and libertarianism (or anything else). is only relevant when what you seek to do can atleast meet utilitarian constraints.
If you seek to do something where you do not KNOW that you are going to accomplish the greatest good – then you had better have a damned good principled argument for what you wish to do. Atleast 95% of the time pure utilitarianism gets us the right result.
BTW I think utilitarianism is much like compromise, balance and your idea of moderate – it is a tool not a principle. But it has an advantage over compromise, balance, … it provides/demands measurable results, and if a utilitarian approach does NOT deliver the greatest good – that would be because you made a logic or factual error.
One of the other reasons I am not utilitarian is that factual and logic errors are extremely common. Utilitarina approaches combined with bad facts or logic will produce bad results.
But atleast utilitarianism should be self correcting – if you do not deliver the greatest good – you must correct your error.
So I will make a very utilitarian proposal to you – and the entire left.
I will agree to pretty much any law that the left or you wish to pass
If and only if,
That law includes explicity utilitarian provisions to measure its success – that I agree to.
AND a reversal clause – and by reversal, I do not mean simply repeal.
I will as an example allow you to impose whatever gun control laws you wish.
But after 10 years the data MUST show a reduction in violent deaths AND overall crime in excess of existing trends. Merely continuing current trends is not sufficient. We get that by doing nothing. Merely reducing mass shootings is not sufficient – if the number of people killed in home invasions or other crimes rises more.
If you do not get that result – then we are going to use the current law as a baseline and we are going to go the OPOSITE direction – just as far as you went.
If you expand background checks and fail – we eliminate background checks.
Regardless, the law YOU pass, must specify what you will do, a measureable beneficial NET benefit – not an artifact – it is not sufficient to reduce mass shootings, it is not sufficient to reduce gun deaths, you MUST reduce deaths from violent crimes. The law must also specify NOW exactly what happens when it fails – and that must happen automatically and must be allowed the same time to demonstrate success using the same terms.
So tell me why that is not “moderate”, “Compromise”, “reasonable”.
I will make a further prediction – if we had something similar as a requirement for all laws, we would pass almost no laws.
I think that you know that gun control laws are not going to work, and you are not going to be willing to bet that they will where you have “skin in the game” where there is a consequence if you are wrong.
“reckless extremes” – putting two words next to each other does not make a true assertion.
Sometimes the extreme is reckless, sometimes it isnt.
Sometimes it is reckless NOT to do the extreme.
As we go batshit crazy over “white supremacy”, I found this TED talk by a black man who essentially went “undercover” within the “alt-right” and discovered …. people, not all that different from himself, experiencing the same problems as he had.
We will have assorted ism’s with us through to the end of humanity.
But if we can not grasp that we are WAY past there being significant problems we are blind to reality.
Every time I post
“facts, logic, reason”
What I am stating is that you can do anything you wish entirely inside your own domain.
inject heroin, commit suicide – I may care, but it is not my right to interfere with your choices – even bad choices, so long and your stupidity does not cause actual harm to others.
But when you seek to use force to constrain others – at the very least you need to be right.
You can not use force against others to impose “your truth” on them.
The only “truth” you are ever free to impose on others by force is THE TRUTH.
One that is completely consistent with
Facts logic reason.
Approximately 4000 people were lynched in the United states from after the Civil war through to 1981 when the last lynching occured. There were only a handful of lynchings from the 50’s through to 1981.
In the 60’s we had race riots in major cities in this country. The last of those was in 1992 after Rodney king.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that institutional racism no longer exists in the US.
And racism in any form has inconsequential impacts on minorities.
When adjusting for all other factors – education, family structure, class,
the data shows that race plays no measureable part in anyone’s success in this country today.
You will do poorly – if you do not stay in school. White or black.
You will do poorly – if you commit crimes. White or black.
You will do poorly – if you get pregnant before you get married. White or black.
…..
There are numerous factors like these – all of which are inside our control, that have 1000 times the measureable impact of “racism” today.
Yet the public discourse is a fevered swamp of accusations of racism. Everywhere I turn one group is denouncing the other has “hateful, hating haters”.
To listen to the media, you would think that there is 20 lynchings happening a day,
that blacks have to ride in the back of the bus.
Again!!!
Facts, logic, reason.
If the world does not ACTUALLY match the picture being painted for you,
something is seriously wrong. and you should not trust those painting that distorted picture.
Elsewhere I just read that a single year in college increases the overall oppinion that students have of those on the opposite side of politics by almost 10%.
Righties with a single year of college increase their respect for those on the left by 8%, and lefties increase their respect for those on the right by 8%.
To the extent this is accomplished it is because college forces us out of our bubble and exposes us to people whose views differ from our own.
Or atleast it used to.
Regardless, if you are ranting about rampant racism, about some purported surge in white nationalism, or white supremecy, you are out there with tinfoil on your head ranting about “the grassy knoll”.
What is disturbing is that such a large portion of people today are suffering from this delusion that at a time when the US is the least racist it has ever been that race and white supremecy are somehow our most pressing problem.
This is a problem that should not even be on our radar.
“What is disturbing is that such a large portion of people today are suffering from this delusion that at a time when the US is the least racist it has ever been that race and white supremecy are somehow our most pressing problem.”
I accept the fact America is less racist today than ever before, but why does Trump use language and create situations that stoke those that have these views, specifically anti immigrant situations.
There are ways to say things and not create the backlash that he creates. He may not be racist, but you sure could not prove it by me. Not because hemay be racist, but because he sounds much like the red neck bubba’s at the local pool bars that do nothing but talk about what the n=gg@rs and wetbacks did at work or some other situation.
When one talks like a racist to generate the support of that group, one should not be surprised when you are identified as a member of that group.
Ronald Reagan could have held the same political positions as Trump and he would never have been identified like Trump is identified because he talked and acted like a leader, unlike Trump that talks and acts likea ignorant, uneducated, obnoxious thug.
It is not a dilusion. It is real because Trump makes it real. He feeds the left wing with sound bites daily and then when they use his exact words, he calls it fake news. The good news generated by his policies are being completely hampered by his tweets and spur of the moment news conferences.
That is why he is going to lose by a fairly large margin. And we will be stuck with something 10 times worse than Obama given Trump will take down enough senators with him to put Shumer in charge. The onky benefit there is maybe McConnell will decide to retire before next election.
Ron, this is an honest question: What exactly has Trump said that is or sounds racist? Exactly how has he aligned himself with white supremacist groups? Because I read and hear a lot about his “dog whistles” and “white supremacist” language, yet, despite keeping very current on the things that Trump says and tweets, I have not heard him say or tweet anything that I would label as racist. Am I missing something?
I remember when Obama inserted himself into the Trayvon Martin case by saying that, if he had had a son, that son would have looked like Trayvon. That, to me was a divisive and racially charged remark, which made it pretty clear that Obama was implying that Martin was the innocent victim of a racist cop. Is there a similar comment that Trump has made?
Or are we just being spoonfed a lot of BS by an anti-Trump media?
I read the El Passo Shooters “manifesto”.
While I has seen some on the right characterize it as an Eco Terrorist manifesto,
That is an exageration.
But it is true that the manfesto while more “right” leaning than left, is still a mishmash of right and left.
I do not agree with almost anything in it. At the same time, it is not obviously “racist” or “white Supremist”
Though I do not agree with the thoughts he expressed, they are not “way out there” – except that he was willing to murder for them
This was NOT a KKK manifesto. In some places he expressed sympathy for illegal immigrants. He merely did not want them in the US and was prepared to kill to accomplish that.
What disturbed me most about his “manifesto” is that, unlike that of the unibomber or Holmes, despite the political blending of ideas from the left and right (similar to the blending of Joseph Stack). it did not sound like the rantings of a paranoid schitzophrenic, and most of this young white male mass killers are paranoid schitzs.
I strongly suspect we will find that the El Passo Shooter is deeply mentally disturbed.
I suspect the same of the Dayton Shooter. Despite that shooter being practically Antifa – and no political confusion at all, AGAIN the reality is these guys are NUTS.
We are not going to make any progress – if progress is even possible until we grasp that we are dealing with people who are:
Near universally significantly above average in intelligence.
They are going to figure out how to work around whatever obstacles you put in their way.
Near universally mentally disturbed.
The media and the left have made a big deal about the large number of mass killings.
Most of these are NOT nuts. But those rarely make the news.
These are instances of people who know each other – often intimately,
they are tied to bitter divorces or personal conflicts like that.
and they become mass shootings – because the place the shooter knows they can find the person they wish to kill is a mall, or a church or some place like that.
But those stories do not make the national news – well except to identify the body count thus far this year and to have the media reassure us that all these deaths are the responsibility of guns, the NRA, republicans, racism, and Trump.
Trump is not “presidential” – he is not even trying.
Obama on occasions was un presidential, but he did actually try.
If the criteria is “presidential” Trump does not come close to any prior president.
The relevant question is – does that matter ?
Before Trump took office I would have said it did.
I did not like it when Obama stepped outside the constraints of being presidential.
Which he did not do that often, but still enough to annoy me and get my criticism.
But Trump is almost never “presidential”
So how much does that matter ?
We each get a vote on that every 4 years in November.
Personally, I am learning that it is much less important than I thought.
I used to wish our president were faithful to their spouses and did not have sex with interns in the oval office.
Clinton pretty much ended that fantasy.
I still think lying under oath – even about sex is a really big deal.
Nor am I happy with Trump’s past treatment of women – though he does not hold a candle to Clinton. Regardless, that was probably the key factor precluding me from voting for him in 2016. And may remain so in 2020.
But that is a choice I get to make.
I do not have a problem with the media – left right or otherwise – digging up dirt on candidates. I want them to vet them to find all the dirt their is.
What I do not want is for them to transition from telling me about Clinton’s dealings with U1 and the Russians, and Trump’s conduct with women to telling me who I should vote for.
To quite Sgt Joe Friday from Dragnet “just the facts Maam”.
I get to decide how those facts effect my vote.
Save the editorials for the editorial page.
After the most recent mass shootings, Trump addressed the nation, calling for unity, condemning in very specific terms, white supremacy and other racist ideologies, and stated clearly his intention to seek and to support legislation that might keep guns out of the hands of those who might commit these atrocities. It was quite presidential, but it was ignored, in the frantic rush to blame him for the El Paso shooting, and the usual cacophony of voices claiming that confiscating guns from law abiding citizens will stop deranged killers. So my answer to the question of if it would matter if he were more “ presidential,” is no. Not in the least. He could deliver a latter day Gettysburg Address, mouth phony platitudes, and turn the other cheek when he’s attacked. None of it would matter.
You make valid points.
The press does not Treat Trump or his administration “fairly”.
Each of us is individually the arbiter of what is “fair”.
I do not personally care alot what the press says – because I no longer consider most of it neutral and accurate reporters of fact.
I have little more respect for NYT or WaPo than for InfoWars.
I am not for the most part ‘happy” with Trump’s “presidential demeanor”
but Trump was inevitable. If he did not exist, he would have had to be created.
Trump has grasped that under the right circumstances it is possible to take on those who “buy ink by the barrel”. That the press has gotten so overtly biased that it is possible to go toe to toe with them and prevail.
I am not happy with the constant public combat between Trump and the press.
But the answer is not for Trump to retreat quietly to the Oval Office and let the press smear him constantly.
The press and the left has created a war, and the deciding factor in the war is ultimately going to be CREDIBILITY.
The press and the left constantly claim that “Trump lies”.
Yet Trump has been completely anally probed by the left, the press, the democrats, the FBI/DOJ and Mueller – and no one has found anything beyond the natural anger of someone forceably given a colonoscopy.
This is important. It is critical for those on the left to beleive that somehow something was missed. It is critical – because if that is not so – they have been lying for several years.
As I have said many times here. You can get past accusing someone of error.
But if you accuse someone of moral failure – of lying, of crime, then either you prove your case or YOUR credibility is shot. We can easily forgive people for errors about facts.
We can not forgive them for false moral slurs.
Nor is Trump/Russia the only area this is true.
I have also repeatedly said that ideas are important – and all of this exemplifies why, and it demonstrates why the LEFT is SOLELY responsible for the current bitter divisions.
The concept of “Your Truth” vs. “The Truth”, The idea that everything is an oppinion and that all oppinons have equal merit, or that the actual truth is racist or hateful – all of this and more originates SOLELY from the left.
Democrats as a whole may not grasp the fact that the philosophy and ideology that underpins the modern left drives the bitterness and failure that we face – but they are on the train none the less.
Ideas matter.
Absolute relativism leads to bitter conflict chaos destruction.
It is not accidental that so much of what we think we know to be true – so much of what we are taught – in school, by the press, by professors, is FALSE.
It is the direct consequence of the rise of an ideology and philosophy that subordinates facts to feelings and opinions.
We battle here over gun control – even Trump is not pushing “common sense” “red flag laws”.
Which are neither common sense nor will they be effective.
There are legitimate questions regarding the statistical data we have on guns.
It is arguable that OVERALL they make us safer – but it is not proveable to any high degree of probability. But the inability to prove that guns make us safer is NOT the same as proof that guns make us less safe. The data on that is pretty incontrovertable. From the absolute prohibition of guns, through to an assortment of restrictions there is no evidence at all that gun control in any form makes us safer.
So why is this even an issue ? Why are we discussing doing things that we know ahead of time with certainty will have no positive benefit ?
Because we live in a “post truth” society, because facts are just “my truth” – “your truth” is different. in the world of “your truth” “my facts” can be rejected, and substituted by “your facts”.
It does not matter whether the issue is global population, gun control, climate change, or any of an infinite number of things that – some “consensus” – often of highly educated people all agree on. What the facts tell us what the data says – that is irrelevant – because it is at odds with the “truth” of some group of elitists.
I have a great deal of respect for intellect, and I have objective measures like SAT’s and IQ that place me at 1 in 1000, yet I find more evidence of basic intelligence in the so called “deplorables”.
I do not see actual evidence that “white supremecy” is on the rise.
But even if it actually were – as wrong as white supremecy is – even it is by the evidence of history far less dangerous than views held by your average college professor.
Priscilla,
First, I was critical of Obama on many things he said and if one could go back on this site, you would see how I addressed certain issues. But to list a few.
1.Obama responded to the Henry Louis Gates arrest in Cambridge by saying “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.” The first two comments were fine, but the comment about African Americans and Latinos should have remained between himself and anyone investigating the issue and not made public.
2.You have already address the Trayvon Martin comments and how race was brought into that discussion.
3. After Ferguson and the policeman was not charged due to evidence showing how the incidence rally went down, Obama stated “I want my children to be seen as the individuals that they are, and I want them to be judged by the content of their character, I’m being pretty explicit about my concern. I’m being pretty explicit about the fact that this is a systemic problem,” Here again he brings race into the discussion which just fanned the right wing anti Obama rhetoric.
So now we have Trump. He may not be racist, but his language and tweets say something else when they are all put together. And he gives the liberal media something almost daily, while they can ignore the fact that the Dayton shooter was a Warren supporter and very liberal.( I have seen little to nothing in the liberal press about that)
1. Trump addresses the issue with Trump university and in that interview he states “Let me just tell you, I’ve had horrible rulings, I’ve been treated very unfairly by this judge. Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage.” And I can’t cut and paste his whole diatribe, but he goes on and on about the judge being Hispanic and belonging to some social club.
2. He then has an issue with the Khan family and the wife is standing behind her husband like so many politicians wives who say nothing when the politician speaks. Trump addresses this issue by saying “I saw him, he was very emotional and probably looked like a nice guy to me. His wife, if you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me,”. So here again the first part is fine, but why bring up the issue of the wife not saying anything with the history of him being considered anti-muslim. Why bring up the fact that those anti Muslims believe women are for sex and nothing else in the Muslim world and not to be heard from?
3. Finally the last example. Baltimore. Is Trump the president of the United States or president of the Conservative States of America? His comments about Baltimore were way off target. He could make a point concerning the conditions and how the democrats have run down Baltimore over the years without describing it like he would the “shit hole” countries he described in earlier tweets. When he said “His Baltimore district is far worse and more dangerous. His district is considered the worst in the USA, Cumming’s District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place.” In itself, this comment may not have been unacceptable, but put together with the multitude of negative comments Trump has made for years concerning immigrants, Muslims, blacks and Hispanics, it just was one more comments to build on the racist book. Describing Baltimore in this manner just gives the liberal press more gas for the fire.
If I had large amounts of money to bet, I would be betting it today on a significant Trump defeat. I can not see Trump capturing WS, PN or OH and I can see him losing FL and NC. And in any state where a senator like NC is running, I would wager money on the democrat defeating the incumbent GOP senator due to the anti Trump vote. We already saw that in NC local elections in 2018 with democrat sheriffs taking offices in counties that have not had democrat sheriffs in 20+ years.
Ron, I wasn’t implying that you haven’t been equally critical of Democrats, like Obama and others. If anything, you have been more critical of them, and I think that they deserve it.
My point in contrasting the Trayvon Martin comment by Obama and the rat-infested Baltimore district represented by Cummings comment by Trump, is that Trump’s comment was in direct response to Cummings’ remarks about the conditions at the border ~ remarks in which Cummings specifically blamed Trump for those conditions. Trump responded that conditions in Cummings’ district were worse, and he is right.
Extreme overcrowding at the border has been caused and exacerbated by multiple factors, but Trump’s neglect of the situation is not one of them. On the other hand, it is fair to say that Cummings has been in a position to have billions of dollars spent on Baltimore, yet conditions have worsened. So, I don’t consider Trump’s comments racist in anyway, merely because he pointed out that a rich and powerful black congressman has soent more time getting rich and powerful than he has representing his own district.
The press which went crazy over Trump’s comments, never pointed out that Cummings’ comments came first, and were direct attacks on the president for a situation that is largely the fault of Congress.
I don’t deny that Trump fights divisiveness with his own divisiveness. But that is not the same as racism or white supremacy, which is what he is accused of.
There is no doubt in my mind that the forces arrayed against Trump’s reelection will be massive, and may well be successful.
I’m simply suggesting that Trump is not guilty of the worst charges against him, and that we will be far worse off with any of the Democrats who seek to put the final nails in the coffin of American unity.
Priscilla, the issues with Trump are more his stupidity in running his mouth and saying the first thing that comes to mind than actually being a racist. After you stick your hand in the fire, it would seem like one would learn to keep it out. Trump has his base, always will. It is those in the middle that voted for him that may sit out the election and not vote at all this time that will lead to his demise.
Lots of us are bothered by Trumps language. But I think it is wrong to presume that what he is doing is out of stupidity.
It is a mistake to presume that people who have been as successful in as many different ways as Trump has are acting out of stupidity rather than intentionally.
If the response of those in the middle is to sit out the election – Trump will win.
Trumps committed base – despite the media is more than 50% larger than the committed base of the Warren’s or Sanders.
Hillary lost because more people would NOT vote for her than would not vote for Trump.
There is alot of evidence already that democrats have exactly the same problem they had with McGovern and Mondale and Dukakis.
Absolutely the far left of the country is energized. Democrats can count on 25% of the country coming out to vote no matter what.
But Trump can count on 40%.
At the same time HALF of democrats are uninspired and are unlikely to vote.
You can phone poll forever, what matters is who will get out of their chair, into their car, drive to the poll, wait in line and vote.
Further I see the enthusiasm gap tilting even more to the GOP as the election approaches.
Democrats have gone too far left.
They are fighting with themselves. Trump is doing everything in his power to encourage that.
Not only has Trump/Russia faded – but more and more the forces driving the story will favor Trump – the investigation of the investigation is on.
The more time that passes the more the impact of the Mueller investigation will help Trump and harm Democrats.
Trump must keep the economy afloat for another year, avoid a bloody war, and not have a health crisis. If he manages that – he wins – “biggly”.
It is not racist to make a factually true statement EVER.
If the facts do not produce the results that conform to “your truth” it is “your truth” that is wrong.
It does not matter if we are talking left or right.
I will be happy to see a serious discussion of how to better address immigration – particularly issues at the southern boarder.
I do not precisely share anyone’s views. To the extent there is a “right” answer at the southern border there is not a chance in hell either side is going to head that way.
In the meantime we enforce the law – AS IT IS TODAY, the actual law. Not the right spin or the left spin, not what we wish the law was, not by changing it with the phone and the pen.
Trump appears to be doing that.
If I or you or the left or the right do not like the law as it is,
it is WRONG to demand that Trump not follow the law.
We get our way by changing the law, and if we can not do that – then we enforce the law as it is – no matter how flawed.
Regardless, it is not “racist” to enforce the law as it is.
Here is Trump’s approval vs. Obama’s over the same point in their presidencies.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_aug14
You read the tea leaves differently than I do.
Absolutely there are plenty of bits and peices of data to suggest a massive defeat for Trump and the GOP.
But there are as many data points to suggest a landslide for Trump.
All of us care intently so we are desparately trying to predict the future, but it still remains to early to tell.
Except that I would bet – that despite polls, if the election were actually held today Trump would win, and that is likely to improve over the next year plus.
Trump will win because the devil you know is better than the one you don’t.
Because we do not jump ship in a good economy,
Because Biden is just Trump-Lite – as Romeny was Obama-lite – why take an immitation when you can have the real thing.
Because no matter how crazy the left tries to paint Trump,
he is the actual president and he has not actually done anything crazy – no matter how you characterize what he has said.
Because if the contest is about Crazy – Trump has incredibly effectively inspired Democrats to jump off the left edge of the planet.
Because every historical instance of the democrats going left has resulted in a republican landslide.
To beleive Trump is going to lose big – you have to:
Beleive that historic patterns will not hold – that is possible, but the burden of proof rests with you.
Beleive the press – something increasingly hard to do.
Finally, I am not worried about an anti-trump disaster.
The bad part if it occurs is that I am 61 and will have to live through 4 years of warren or harris or ….
But a Trump defeat will just mean the backlash against the following democrat will be all the greater.
How do you think 2024 will go if democrats wipe the floor with the GOP in 2020, and can not deliver 3% growth ?
I am not inclined to give Trump high marks for the economy – this is just an average economy.
But I think it is established beyond any doubt at all that the socialist lite approaches of Obama and Bush will leave the economy performing about 1% lower. 4 years of that will be soul crushing.
I am sure you can find rafts of experts who will tell us that Trump’s economy is really Obama’s creation or that things will not return to sub 2% under democrats.
But these are mostly the same people who told us that we could not do better than 2%.
When our model of how the world works – politics, climate, economics, ….. does not track reality – it is not reality that must yeild.
Much of the evidence you cite – is both true and was inevitable.
I beleive every single place in the south that you note flipping red to blue is an area that has experienced dramatic influxes of people from elsewhere – mostly the north.
We are in the midst of a sort of reverse great migration. Those red southern states that have become very prosperous, have also attracted masses of democrats to move in from the north.
But I would note that Republicans did extremely well in Florida in 2018 – which was otherwise purportedly a good year for Dems. Much of what I am reading is suggesting that FL is flipping from a battle ground to a red state.
And yes, I can absolutely see Trump winning the same – and more rust belts states he did in 2016.
There is absolutely no possibility that republicans are going to take California. But the current evidence suggests that they are likely to recoup all or most of their house losses in California.
There is a fair amount of evidence that 2020 will be a slaughter for democratic house moderates. They were elected on promises that they have been completely unable to keep.
Trump is running a massive campaign financial jugernaut, he is collecting more than all democrats combined. More importantly something like 63% of his donations are from individuals contributing less than $250. Even Sanders can not match that.
If everyone who has made a small donation to Trump votes for him – Trump has already won.
I do not think money is nearly as important in elections as the left things.
But I do think that small donations are a method of gauging ACTUAL support.
Like every election this one will be determined by independents and those in the middle.
But Trump has an absolutely rock solid base of about 40% of the country that he can count on no matter what. And not just for their vote, but for money, and to volunteer and to recruit others.
Democrats have a similar rock solid core – but because they have gone hard left – that core is only 25%. That 25% has massive press support, and has a voice that dominates everything.
But it is a shrill voice that alienates people, and it has zero effect on Trump’s base.
And I speak specifically of Trump’s base – because that is NOT the same as the GOP conservative base – though there is some overlap.
Democrats have done absolutely nothing to attract the democrats who voted for Trump in 2016. In fact they have further alienated them. it would take a miracle for Trump to lose most of the democrats who flipped in 2016.
I would also say that with respect to the middle – Trump has not done nearly the job of alienating the middle as the left.
Trump faces any democratic candidate with a larger and more solid base.
I suspect that polls probably give democrats an advantage outside those two base groups.
But those outside those groups must choose to vote.
Democrats have tried to make 2020 an oportunity to vote against Trump.
But they have not given us any sane reason to vote FOR any democrat.
That means people stay home.
I am not personally happy with Trump’s language, but I am atleast as upset with the nonsense claims that Trump “stokes” racism.
In fact that is absolutely false. Sure there are possibly two people in the country who are wingnut nazi/kkk white supremecists – who exactly like those on the left think that Trump is sending them coded messages. But the reality is that almost no one sane in the entire country thinks that Trump is telling THEM to go out and beat up black people, or muslims, or ….. And in fact hate crimes are on the DECLINE statistically – they have been for a long time, and Trump has not altered the trend. If Trump is “stoking” racism – ordinary non-racist people – i.e. 99.99% of the country have missed that “dog whistle” – because it is not there.
What Trump IS doing is “bear baiting”.
Trump is deliberately saying things that most people – and particularly most of the people who are likely to vote for him, either say themselves, or would say themselves if they did not know they would be called racist, things that are NOT racist, but things that he knows that left wing nuts will claim are racist.
Every single time that Trump says something and the left whigs out and screams “racist, racist, racist” and many of us listen to what he said and say not just “that is not racist”, but that is something I could or did say, Trump gains thousands of votes and the left loses them.
And the loses them point is really important – because the left loses those votes – even if the republican candidate is not Trump.
When the left screams “racist, racist, racist” in response to Trumps remarks, and lots of people think “they could mean me” – the left loses those people FOREVER.
You can not call someone a racist and ever expect them to vote for you.
You alienate them for ever.
You can argue with people, you can tell them they are wrong.
But when you move to telling people they are stupid, liars, racists, immoral, evil,
You lose them forever.
What Trump does is NOT issue dog whistles to white supremecists.
He issues “wolf whistles” to the left. He dares them to attack him.
Everytime that they attack Trump is a way that many many people can easily say “they mean me”, they left alienates more and more voters and empowers trump.
I would point something else out.
Trump attacked Cummings and called Balitmore rat infested. The left whigged out, and spent days ranting “racist, racist, racist”.
But a bunch of Trump supporters got together and went into baltimore and started cleaning up. They gave their time, they improved many city blocks, and got rid of 14 dumpsters full of trash.
Does not sound to me like Trump was spraying racist messages to his followers.
The left is making huge mistakes in their personal attacks on Trump and his followers.
When the left and the media called Trump racist for saying Baltimore was rat infested and full of garbage they were:
Boldy asserting that reality is racist.
Attacking people who want to “make america great again” and are ready to volunteer their own time to pick up trash in Baltimore, to improve a part of the country that may not appreciate what they have done and may hate them.
I do not have to like Trump to grasp that:
Trump is not the problem – the left is.
That the problem predates trump by more than a decade,
That the only thing Trump does is bear bait the left which is stupid enough to take the bait.
Apparently you have missed the recent stories criticising Ronald Reagan as a racist.
Reagan might have behaved differently as president if he were president today.
But he would face the same attacks.
The problem is not with Trump.
What they say about Reagan today is beside the point. The point is he was not accused of being racist while president.
You can defend Trump all you want. But I define stupidity the same way Einstein defined insanity. Trump keeps making ignorant comments about situations and uses language the liberal press can jump on as racist and then expects a different outcome. He is not going to get it.
This is not about “defending Trump”.
I personally disagree with Trump on more issues than you do.
We are not fighting over policies.
We are debating our different views into the crystal ball.
While I think I am right – I have zero problem admitting that this is all reading tea leaves and ouija boards. We are not mostly arguing about actual facts.
We are arguing about how people will vote in secret in a little over a year.
No this is not about how Reagan was treated as president.
It is NOT 1980. The democrats of 1980 were completely different people than today.
If Reagan or his clone was running today they would be treated EXACTLY like trump.
There are actual real world differences between Trump and Reagan.
But not a single differences that would protect Reagan from exactly the same attacks by the left as Trump experiences.
My point – over and over is – it is not Trump or the right that is creating our political divisiveness. It is the left – entirely.
At this moment democrats are actually turning on Obama. They are turning on Clinton.
Even Biden is facing many of the same attacks FROM THE LEFT as Trump.
The drum beat of racist, hateful hating hater are going to be present and LOUD no matter who is the republican candidate.
I completely agree with you that Trump is continually saying the things you are saying he is.
But I think he is doing so deliberately. And I think that it is not insanity.
It worked in 2016, and I think it actually works better over time.
Trump is giving the media and the left every possible oportunity to call him racist and deplorable.
That will doom him – if the overwhelming majority of people – not just those on the left and in the press beleive his remarks are racist.
But every single time that someone says “they mean me” when the press is talking about racists – the left loses a vote – FOREVER. You can not accuse someone of racism and expect their vote. Trump is very deliberately trying to bait the press and the left into insulting him in ways that alot of ordinary people think apply to them too.
While I think that Democrats are SOLELY responsible for the divisiveness of public life today.
Trump is absolutely taking political advantage of their mistakes.
“Trump feeds the left wing”
ABSOLUTELY – on that we completely agree.
Trump is doing several things – deliberately.
Not one of which is sending coded racist messages to white supremecists.
He is DELIBERATELY baiting the left, and they are taking the bait.
I do not claim to have a perfect crystal ball, but D’s took the house in 2018 on the promise that they would be sane and moderate.
Trump has played AOC and the squad like a fiddle. He has driven Pelosi into the left wing of her own parties arms. He has left the democratic house looking impotent, hyper partisan and on the left fringe.
Further the democratic candidates for president are falling all over themselves to move further and further left.
Every republican that has ever successfully painted their democratic opponent as far left has won in a landslide.
Democrats are bending over backwards to paint themselves as left wing nuts.
I do not know about you, but come November 2020, as voters enter the privacy of the polls, I think you are going to find a large number saying:
I really do not like Trump,
But the economy is good.
We are not at war.
If I stay off the internet my world seems peaceful and good,
and Trump’s opponent – Warren, Harris, Biden, Sanders, …. They are just completely nuts and it is just too dangerous to elect them.
And things are better than during the 8 years of Obama.
The best I can hope for from a democrat is 4 more years of Obama.
Except it is worse than that – democratic candidates are actually attacking Obama now.
I know that everyone here is fixated on Trump.
But what I see is a colossal train wreck on the left.
And just to be clear – that is NOT what I want.
I do not think that an insane democratic house that is fixated on Trump’s taxes and impeaching him by hook or crook is an effective check on Trump should he actually get out of control.
I am seeing something that is virtually unprecedented in my lifetime, possibly in this countries history. The destruction of a political party.
You can come back from being too far left or right.
You can come back from being wrong.
But if you call voters stupid, racist, hateful hating haters, if you have not lost them forever, you have lost them for a long long time.
I guess it comes down to how well the GOP can motivate their extreme and the numbers in that group that wlll vote compared to how well the democrats do in motivating their extreme and the number that vote in that group.
Because there sure is nothing left for a sane moderate centrist positioned voter to vote for.
Trump is not on the extreme of the GOP.
A significant portion of his “loyal base” is NOT traditional republicans.
They are “the deplorables”, they are the blue collar people of the rust belt who traditionally voted democrat – and Trump owns them. They are not merely for Trump – they are enthusiastically for Trump.
There is about 40% of the country that will support trump NO MATTER WHAT.
Democrats can only count on about 15%.
I would further note that while it has taken time, Trump has taken ownership of the GOP.
The never Trumpers are mostly gone – or atleast gone quiet.
Who comes out to vote in 2020 will matter alot.
Trump is way ahead on the votes that he can absolutely positively count on no matter what.
Trump is in a position to make a POSITIVE appeal to the center.
You can make 10,000 criticisms of Trump – but his message to the middle is still going to be:
You do not need to like me. You do not need to like the current political conflict,
All you need to ask is – do you like the economy, do you like the fact that we are not shedding blood all over the world. Trump will have many many things that he promises to deliver on that will keep or improve our lives. And Trump will be beleived – because more than any other president EVER he has delivered on promises.
While Democrats will be asking us to vote FOR some democrat who has spent the past 4 years making themselves look lije and extreme left wing nut, not becuase you are FOR the democrat – but because you hate Trump.
That is a lousy strategy.
I absolutely agree with you on what Trump is doing.
The question is whether it is stupid or brilliant.
I do not disagree that it is unpresidential and annoying.
People know the “good news”.
We do not need the press to carp on the economy, it speaks for itself.
Trump does NOT need to message on his accomplishements – though I am sure he will brag about them. All he must do is not screw them up.
Trump is playing an incredible game of chicken with China.
At its core I think he is doing everything WRONG.
But I am watching the data, and so far the risk of the same kind of disaster as Smoot Hawley seems remote.
The global economy we have today means that if Chinese by goods elsewhere rather than from the US, then other countries have to buy those same goods – from us.
Supply on a global scale is not elastic enough to meet China’s needs without creating a whole somewhere else.
Further China just devalued their currency – that is a HUGE deal. That will completely mitigate the effect of Trump’s tarrifs on US consumers, BUT it will increase the damage to the chinese. They will be able to sell more goods in the US – but for the same total amount of money as when they sold less. Americans will pay less.
It will make it harder for americans to sell into China, but it will do so by screwing the chinese people.
We are watching as Hong Kong goes slowly to hell.
We have some cognizance of the political factors – but most of us are unaware that there are economic factors. Growth in Hong Kong has weakened.
There appears to be a serious danger of another asian economic melt down like we had in the late 90’s – except lead by china. China has a very serious debt problem. It is hard for us to measure because of the closed nature of the chinese society. But it is estimated to be 300% of GDP If true that is a big deal. Further China has been financing this economic war with China, and it is not far from running out of money to do so.
China has been a global lender for a long time, they could be about to shift to becoming a borrower, and given their levels of debt they may not get good terms.
China appears to be trying to stall until 2020 in the hope of getting a democrat.
There are even stories that the chinese are actually trying to do on social media what Russia purportedly did in 2016.
All that Trump needs right now is enough wind behind stories suggesting China is trying to beat Trump in 2020, and voters are going to flee democrats.
Lots of this is speculation – based on stories and data I am seeing.
I am not prepared to bet my IRA on it.
But I am betting Trump gets a deal with China before 2020.
China appears to have more to lose than Trump
Look, I am opposed to this type of brinksmanship – even if it works.
But that does nto alter the fact that if this works and does not blow up in his face, it will make it far harder for D’s to nail trump in 2020.
In fact, it does not have to work. All that must happen is for it to not blow up in Trump’s face.
Trump will benefit politically from a trade war with China, that does not noticeably negatively impact the economy.
It does not matter if it is a wise move.
Among other things it will impress people like YOU.
McConnell is not retiring,
and Trump is not going to lose.
I think he is likely to win in an actual landslide.
I think republicans will gain alot in the house, and maybe take it back.
I am less sure of what will happen in the senate.
Trump has received record numbers of SMALL donations – that is abnormal for republicans.
He is receiving more donations below $250 than any prior candidate.
It is highly likely these donors are voting for Trump.
BTW after Castro Doxed GOP donors in texas GOP donations spiked.
That is my crystal ball
If you ever get to central NC after the election or I get to PN, the loser either provides me a Philly Cheesesteak or I provide some western NC pork BBQ because I don’t see Trump coming close to winning another term.
I will be happy to by you a cheesesteak – no matter who wins in 2020.
I will be happy to celebrate that it is over.
though no matter what the fights will begin again the next day.
I am not tied into NC politics. Though I am aware that NC is likely shifting from red to pink or even purple.
There are an assortment of trends like that throughout the country.
As I noted Florida appears to be moving from purple to pink or even red.
There are many red states that are moving towards Pink, and many purple states that are also moving towards pink.
I do not think local changes mean much nationally – though they mean a great deal for the people living in that state.
PA and the rust belt went for Trump in 2016. that was unexpected.
But Democrats have done absolutely ZERO to change that.
These states did not flip because Hillary did not campaign there much – though she might have eked out a win had she done so. They flipped because Trump is speaking LOUDLY to voters there – and not republican voters. And that has not changed.
There are going to be shifts throughout the country.
Though I think Trump will win – and in a landslide.
That will not have a huge impact on the congress.
I think republicans will gain in the house – not because of Trump’s coattails, but because democrats failed to deliver on the promise of 2018. They thought people wanted impeachment. What they wanted was good divided government. I think moderate democrats are going to get massacred – because they did not live up to their promises.
I do not know what will happen in the Senate.
One thing we should grasp is that red, pink, purple, blue – each election for each office is individual. the GOP did very well in the senate in 2018 – and came very very close to doing incredibly well – while getting mascred in the house.
Dog Whistles ? Honestly Rick ?
This crap is boring and tiring.
Absolutely Trump talks to his base.
But he does not use “code”. He speaks to it directly.
Regardless, the “dog whistle claim is jut more stupid nonsensical effort to censor speach.
If Trump was speaking to his base in “dog whistles” – by definition – you and the left would not recognize it. If you do, or think you do – then it is not a “dog whistle”.
Regardless, Trump does not need to speak in code. What he says quite up front is perfectly clear.
Whether we are talking about “dog whistles” or all kinds of other stupid claims to be able to read the minds of other people – and that is all that a “dog whistle” claim is – the belief that you can listen to what Trump (or anyone else) says and grasp the secret encode message that is being passed back and forth.
BUNK!!!
It is immoral to attribute to someone things they did not actually say, because you beleive that is what they wanted to say or what they thought.
You can not know the mind of another person.
When judging another person you FIRST and foremost judge them by they ACTIONS.
Even the Christian God who purportedly knows each persons heart, divides the sheep from the goats based on what they have done.
Not what they have thought, not what they have said, not what they intended to do.
Any claim you or anyone else has to being a good person, or a bad one is rooted solely in your ACTIONS, not your thoughts.
I do not care if like Jimmy Carter you lusted for other women in your heart.
What have you actually done.
Nor is this specifically about Trump.
I do not care whether you are making nonsensical claims that you hear and understand dog whistles, or know the intentions of another. I do not care who you claim to know more intimately than you possibly can.
You are deep into Orwellian territory.
Our public discourse is right out of 1984 with claims of thought crimes.
For that is precisely what you are claiming when you assert that you hear and understand “dog whistles”
A great deal of what is wrong with our public discourse, a great deal of what divides us is that much of out conflict is over things that no one has said or done.
There is plenty of room for public debate over what has actually been said and done.
It is nonsense to presume to fight over the idiocy that we know what other people intend, or are somehow saying in code.
Of course the left-leaning media brand Trump as a racist. (I challenge that view; I think Trump just likes successful people better than unsuccessful people.) But I still think it’s fair to say that his utterances, while not overtly racist, embolden racist sentiments that his supporters might have suppressed in the past. This isn’t entirely a bad thing: for too long we’ve been coerced into believing that any criticism of any person of color, for any reason, is racist. (That’s what CNN did to Trump when he criticized the “Squad” — every mention of his statement was preceded by the word “racist.”)
On the other hand, we have to be careful that Trump’s freewheeling approach to racial issues doesn’t trigger a real rise in white supremacist radicalism. Like you, I think the reports so far have been greatly exaggerated (there’s far more anti-white rhetoric out there than anti-POC these days). But Trump needs to watch his tendency to mouth off irresponsibly. We need out president to ratchet down the rhetoric.
By the way, I agree that Obama blew his chance to be a uniter. Here was an intelligent, judicious biracial man perfectly positioned to de-escalate the racial tensions that arose during his administration. Instead, he reflexively took the distorted Black Lives Matter position on every incident.
I think it is a really really bad idea to presume that you know what other people are thinking.
Whether that is presuming that Trump, or those on the left or …. are thinking something different from what they are actually saying.
It might be true that they are saying one thing and thinking another.
But there is still no way to KNOW anything except what they are saying.
That problem becomes infinitely more complex when you claim to know what someone is thinking based on what they heard someone else say.
Especially when there is no clear direction.
If we are going to presume that Trump’s remarks trigger white supremecists then we have to presume the rhetoric of those on the left also triggers people.
I would further note that generally people are more likely to be motivated to act by the words of those the DO NOT like that those the like.
Cuomo nearly punched some guy out for calling him Fredo.
A significant factor in Trump’s victory in 2016 is backlash of voters tired of being called racist hateful hating haters.
If you go down this “triggering” road, you should be prepared – it leads to hell and the inability to speak.
Between dictating that people can not say something because it might inspire some nut job to do something stupid, and saying that you can not say something because it might make someone angry and then retailiate against you or yours, ultimately you can not speak.
Finally you just plain can not try to attribute rationality to the conduct of irrational people.
If Trump “inspired” the El Passo Shooter as an example – then so did AOC, and Dr. Suess.
While I do not accept the characterization of him as an eco terrorists – there is an awful lot in his manifesto that is right our of Paul Ehrlich (population bomb) AOC – Green New Deal, and Dr. Suess – the Lorax.
Should we ban the Lorax now ?
If you are going to game things and try to say – hear is someone who did bad things – and he gave his reasons – and I am going to focus on the reasons that justify my attacks on ideologies I do not like – but completely disregard those that reflect badly on my ideology – you are drowning in confirmation bias and cherry picking.
We do not “NEED” the president to ratchet down his rhetoric – we WANT the president to ratchet down his rhetoric. They are NOT the same.
I WANT Trump to ratchet down his rhetoric – atleast sometimes.
There are times I get secret pleasure from his thrashing someone or group that I think deserves it, and who has no problem berating the rest of us.
Regardless, I would prefer a president who projected calm and chose words carefully.
I would also prefer a president who got government out of the way so that growth was above 2%.
It appears that we do not get to choose a president who can BOTH behave calm and considered AND get government out of the way of the economy.
Both Bill Clinton and Trump leave alot to be desired as persons, and their personal conduct as president was less than exemplary. But both are so far presiding over strongish economies. Conversely both Bush and Obama were softspoken and calming in their rhetoric. And both presided over weak economies.
My point is “You cant always get what you want”.
We get to pick – we can have Trump’s rhetoric along with the strongish economy,
the radically diminished participation in foreign wars, Or we can have a weak economy with a president whose speach does not offend our ears.
Or more accurately – when we vote – we are not going to get a choice that is what we want.
No matter what. We get to pick among what is offered and we are always essentially chosing the lessor evil.
If you think that is Biden – or Harris or Sanders – that is your choice.
My vote is almost certainly going to the libertarian candidate – even if it is John McAffee – and he is crazy. But if I was forced to pick only between Trump and the democratic candidates, there might be one or two who are polling at zero that I could pick over Trump – but not a chance I am picking one of the leaders.
In innumerable issues what bothers me most about Obama is not BLM or stuff like that,
it is that he did NOT do any of the things that he actually could have done something about.
This entire immigration mess was resolveable – in 2009 in any way democrats wanted, or after 2010 by compromising with republicans – and there was plenty of room for compromise.
Prison and sentence reform should have been Obama’s issue. Instead Trump has taken ownership – what Trump has done is too little. But Obama did nothing.
There was a real possibility for necescary reforms to policing in the US under Obama.
But instead of noting that mostly our police are good people, but there is room for improvement, he jumped into Martin and Brown and end up on the wrong side of the facts.
He actually made making progress harder.
Furgesson (and my community) has a real problem – there is massive policing for the purpose of taxing the poor to fund government – that is a problem that there are facts to back up. that is something that Obama could have done something about.
Instead he fixated on Martin and Brown and find that he had backed the bad guys and therefore could not accomplish anything.
Addressing “Dog whistles further”.
Approximately 65m people voted for Trump.
If we assume that somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 did so reluctantly – deciding that Trump was the lessor evil. that still leaves about 40M voters who actually voted for Trump because they wanted him as president. That BTW squares reasonably well with the portion of his support that is unshakeable.
When you talk about “dog whistles”, when you say that Trump is engaged in wink and nod racism, you are saying that 40M americans are white supremist, racist xenophobes.
There is a twitter storm over “Fredo” right now. As someone apparently called Chris Cuomo “Fredo”. Skipping the fact that Cuomo has called himself and others “fredo” on the air – including Donald Trump Jr.. And ignoring the fact that Cuomo threaten to beat the shit out of the person who said it.
Fredo has now magically become an ethnic slur – akin to calling a black person the “n word”.
I have zero doubt that the person who called Cuomo “Fredo” intended to insult Cuomo.
But now “Fredo” is coded speach for “racism” – despite the fact this was a white person calling another white person “Fredo”.
All this pretence that you know what other people really mean when they speak, is akin to calling 40M americans “racist”.
You complain about the divisions in this country. Calling 40M people racist does a pretty damn good job of dividing the country.
If Democrats wish to win the presidency, it should be crystal clear they are going to have to win in the rust belt.
Ranting about “dog whistles” and calling every white american in the midwest who shares Trump’s views on immigration or trade a racist, hateful, hating hater/xenophobe is NOT going to win their vote.
I am told that 2020 is going to be close. I highly doubt it. I think Democrats and the media are doing everything possible to alienate as much of the country as possible.
Purportedly the MAJORITY of registered democrats, are NOT keen on the long list of freebies that all the democratic candidates are throwing arround like candy.
Alienating democrats is not the road to victory.
Calling 1/2 or even 1/3 of the country white supremecist racists – is not the road to victory.
Regardless, claims about coded messages, dog whistles and racism say more about the people making those claims than they do about Trump or his supporters.
I am not a big fan of the average voter, but calling them all racists, or white supremecists, or deplorables, or russian stooges is not going to get their vote.
Rick, your treatment of the intractable gun debate is eminently fair, reasonable and moderate.
The problem is that the “debate” itself is phony. There really is no genuine debate. Those on the left want to remove all guns from the hands of citizens. They don’t give a good goddamn if those citizens are good guys, bad guys, or crazy-as-a-loon guys. They simply want a compliant populace, which will accept their rule, and, then, when that populace realizes that the leftist rule has destroyed their prosperity and taken away their rights and liberties…well, they won’t be able to do much about it.
Those on the right, who are constantly blamed for the fact that there are “too many guns” in America, are always on the defensive, and long ago learned that giving an inch will result in the left taking a mile. They are dug in.
It’s like a football game, one team always on offense, the other always on defense, and the vast majority of Americans playing the part of the football.
Do I think that there is something drastically wrong in our society, and that, whatever it is, it is causing young men to fall into nihilistic insanity, violence, and despair? Yes, I do. Do I think that this is happening because they have too-easy access to guns, or that reducing that access will solve the problem? No, I do not.
Moreover, the more that the left insists that guns are the problem, the more I believe that this is a cynical strategy, meant to move the football down the field. And the more I sympathize with those on the right who, in addition to bearing the brunt of never ending blood libel, have come to believe, not unreasonably, that they will be the victims of government force, should the left ever get its way.
Has anyone ever heard the liberals blame the gun when a white police officer shoots a black man?
Both Harris and Warren have come out and accused Officer Williams of murdering Micheal Brown.
I think there is alot wrong with Williams conduct. A lone officer in a cruiser should NOT be seeking out confrontation over jay walking.
But there is a gigantic gulf between Williams made mistakes and Williams was a racist murderer.
I want the rules changed regarding policing. I want the police to be less driven to resort to weapons. I want police officers fired when there are questions about their conduct.
Williams is not a murderer or criminal.
He is just someone who should not be a police officer.
There are alot of those.
You made my point that I asked in reply to Prescilla where she discussed guns in reply to Ricks article.
Warren and Harris were not the knly dems to blame Williams. In every police shooting by a white policeman on black violator, its the policeman that caused to death. But whenever a shooter takes out multiple individuals, it is the gun that caused the problem and not the shooter. The first thing that come up is gun control.
There is video from Hong Kong right now of protestors waiving the American Flag, singing our national anthem and demanding a bill of rights and specifically a 2nd amendment.
China will crush this. They cant afford letting it go on and spreading to the main land. It does not fit their 30 year plan, just like any trade deal does not fit their long term plan.
I expect they will – I beleive they have already cleared the airport.
Regardless, doing so comes at a cost. We both are old enough to remember first Poland, and then later the collapse of the entire USSR.
These things take time. There were several Solidarity uprisings in Poland that were shutdown, before progress was made. there were unsucessful revolts in Hungary and Checkloovakia. First Poland and then the USSR.
I do not expect China to remain authoritarian for the rest of my life.
But I can not tell if the transition will occur today or in 20 years.
I find myself once again recommending Coases’s “How China became Capitalist”.
It is a wonderful, book, easy to read, teaching economic and political concurrently.
Coase ends by nothing that economic freedom alone can only take China so far, and that there really is not some distinction between economic, political and other forms of freedom.
That China is close to peaked unless they improve political freedom.
I was in China in 1998 to adopt my daughter – china is MORE totalitarian today than it was in 1998.
We do not know enough about China to know for sure – but I think that Trump has china in a terrible bind. Devaluing its currency was a very bad sign (for China), It is a sign of serious economic weakness.
Again we do not know enough – but do not rule out things like Poland and Solidarity, or even The Fall of Honecker. Today is probably not that day – but it is coming.
Further Hong Kong is a big deal. At Tienamen square the protestors knew they were unhappy but did not know what they wanted. They had know understanding of western government, democracy or any of that. They had no exposure to those things.
Hong Kong was a british protectorate. The people in Hong Kong are not nearly so censored and deprived of political constructs as those on the mainland.
The chinese governments long term plan is SURVIVIAL.
And I would suggest that is far less assured than most of us perceive.
This is not about “giving an inch”.
Whether your “solution” is tiny or draconian, you are obligated to prove it will have a significant net positive effect before you may impose it by force.
That alone is NOT sufficient, but it is still necessary.
The data does not exist to support claims that ANY gun control laws are net positive.
That should be the end of the debate.
Nor is gun control unique.
Pretty much everything the elites you chastize propose – has no net positive effect.
I have constantly attacked the nonsense that is climate change.
But even if we accepted the climate change religion as absolute fact,
NOTHING that the left proposes would have a consequential net benefit.
If the claims of warmists are true – we will be 4C warmer by 2100 – NO MATTER WHAT.
If we implimented their schemes – most of which are litterally impossible – we would still be 4C warmer in 2100.
Just like Gun Control – we manufacture a problem – one that real or imagined has no actual remedy, and use that to justify doing things that will not help with the alleged problem.
What does it take before we cease beleiving people who have been wrong – Always and about everything ?
And these are the people calling Trump a liar, and half the country racists ?
Priscilla: I don’t think anyone but a lefty extremist would suggest that we ban all guns; the argument has always been centered over two things: background checks and semi-automatic (i.e., “assault”) weapons. The Second Amendment notwithstanding, we don’t allow private citizens to own functioning cannons, flame-throwers and other military hardware; reasonable gun control advocates would simply add assault weapons to that list. My own proposal was to ban high-capacity magazines that enable crackpot shooters to mow down dozens of people within a minute.
Will gun control solve everything? No, of course not. (That’s why I listed so many issues behind America’s mass shooting epidemic.) But if it prevents five or six mass shootings each year, it will have been worth it.
I don’t remember if you saw the lengthy comment thread on my Facebook page when I railed against semi-automatics. One of my conservative friends expressed a viewpoint that struck me as a perfect vicious circle of almost paranoid reasoning: “the government is coming for our guns, so we need our guns to fight back.” Aside from the fact that 1) nobody is coming for their guns and 2) their guns would be relatively useless against Army tanks and drones, it seems like a pretty poor excuse for hoarding assault weapons. If they didn’t have those guns to begin with, there would be no need for them to use those guns to defend themselves.
On most other matters, I believe that conservatives have taken it on the chin for much too long. But not on this one. There’s no need to fear a slippery slope scenario in which the government confiscates all guns; they’d have to repeal the Second Amendment, which would require the approval of 3/4 of the states. It won’t happen.
Rick is this Facebook page a personal page for personal friends or one where you make brief comments on current issues and followers can comment like on a open page? If so, what is the page name. I like Facebook as it limits the lenght of comments most people make. Ron
Ron: It was my personal FB page, which I use mainly to post photos of my walks. (Whenever I post anything on politics, it usually ignites a flame war between my conservative and leftist friends.) But I also have a New Moderate page on Facebook — really just a portal to this site.
“The argument has always been centered over two things: background checks and semi-automatic (i.e., “assault”) weapons.”
No Rick, the argument has not been centered on that.
First those are bad ideas – we know they do not work.
The Clinton era AWB accomplished nothing.
And adopting “assault weapon” rhetoric just proves what you DO NOT KNOW.
Nearly all handguns in the US are “semi-automatic”.
All semi automatic means is that the fire one bullet every time you pull the trigger and you can pull the trigger several times without having to reload.
Just about every gun in the country except bolt action rifles is “semi-automatic”
The fundimental differences between say a Glock-17 and an AR-15 is that the Glock fires a heavier projectile – but at a much lower speed – because the barrel is shorter.
But beyond that, the NRA and gun enthusiasts have made it perfectly clear they beleive the left has ZERO interest is “common sense” gun regulation – and it is absolutely clear they are correct.
Listen to every single current democratic candidate. They are all after far more than re-instating the stupid and meaningless AWB and implimenting better background checks.
BTW I do not think that a single gun used in a Mass Shooting was obtained without a “background check”
Regardless, the AWB did not work. A stronger AWB will not work.
Background checks will not work.
There will be as many gun deaths before as after any “common sense” law you propose.
Everyone knows that. Are you honestly going to argue otherwise ?
Unless you are prepared to make an argument for whatever gun laws you propose based on FACTS – and evidence. All you are doing is acting on feelings.
I do not want any laws about anything made on the basis of feelings. – not gun laws, not speech laws.
After you manage to pass whatever stupid laws you want. There will be more mass shootings, and we will have this entire debate all over again – and we all know where it ends – with gun bans. It took almost 60 years to destroy our healthcare system incrementally.
And we are still trying to bit by bit work our way to government provided healthcare – despite the fact that REAL DATA demonstrates conclusively that the less government the better and cheaper our healthcare will be.
Progressivism is CANCER – eating away at liberty in small bits. Slowing making everything it touched sick, and using that sickness as justification for more poison.
THIS STUFF DOES NOT WORK.
I do not care what the problem is. When you have a government solution that you can prove works – we can talk about making it into law.
Until they LEAVE THINGS ALONE.
Aparently you are NOT following the posts here.
TODAY (and for all of US history), it is perfectly legal for a private citizen to own:
A cannon – I know someone who owns about a dozen, and several other people who own one or two.
A flame thrower – infact you can buy a TF-19 Flame Throwing Drone.
Additional – you can own a Gatling gun – that was an immediate predecesor to the machine gun. It is perfectly legal as long as you do not attach a motor to the crank.
Despite the fact that people can own all of these weapons of war – I have not heard of a mass shooting with a cannon, or a gatling gun, or a flame thrower.
But if you make AR-15’s illegal – I suspect I will hear about them.
It all comes down to weapon of choice. Young white males use assault rifles. Muslim terrorist use pressure cooker bombs. Anti-government zealots use truck bombs. In Germany and Canada they use trucks driven into crowds. I believe that was also used in NYC on a bike path.
Just look around and anyone with one cell of brain material could find a way to kill multiple people, and in many case many more much easier than toting in rifles and multiple clips.
Ban the assault rifle and bombs will replace them, or a vehicle. In Charlottesville 1 died and 28 were injured. Had that been moving at a rate much faster than 25 MPH, more than 1 would have died.
“But if it prevents five or six mass shootings each year, it will have been worth it.”
There is no “if” – either you can demonstrate that it will, or you should be done.
We can not morally infringe on liberty if we can not at the very least PROVE that we will have a positive outcome.
Mass Shootings in Austraila, did drop (to zero) after Austrialia confiscated nearly all guns.
But mass killing deaths remain near constant, nut jobs shifted to arson.
Hope is not enough.
BTW even proving that you will reduce the number of mass killings is NOT actually sufficient – not even using a pure utilitarian justification.
You have to PROVE that net deaths will drop.
If whatever law you propose completely eliminates ever mass killing death in the US – average of about 29/yr over the lang run, but increases the number of people who are killed in home invasions by more than 29 – that you are actually proposing to change the law not merely to infringe on liberty but to actually make us LESS SAFE, and to increase the number of people killed – merely changing how they are killed.
I find the entire gun debate not merely tiresome but evidence of the fact that so many have stupid knee jerk emotion driven reaction that they then pretend are somehow rational.
“Aside from the fact that 1) nobody is coming for their guns”
Rick – that would be called misrepresentation – hopefully willful blindness – the entire purpose of the laws that you seek to pass is to prevent ANYONE even law abiding people from having guns that you have decided they should not be allowed to have.
Absolutely you are “coming for their guns”. Further unless you are deaf – you can watch the democratic debates – the democratic candidates are falling all over themselves to “come after your guns”. YOU might personally at this moment not be “coming after their guns” – atleast not the ones they already own. But you are blind and deaf if you are pretending no one is, or that nearly the entire democratic party isn’t. Further, quite honestly because you are unable to get past emotion and address the problem with facts – you are not to be trusted – not on guns, not on anything. We have myriads of examples where government infringed on our liberty – what it did failed – because it pretty much always does, and so government came back and infringed on liberty more.
There will be mass killings probably from now till the end of time. They will continue NO MATTER WHAT LAWS YOU PASS. But if you are going to pass laws based purely on emotion – not facts, all that will happen is we will get new stupid laws incrementally until there is nothing left of whatever right you started to infringe on.
“2) their guns would be relatively useless against Army tanks and drones”
In Philadelphia a few days ago – they proved VERY effective against the police.
If Criminals are capable of using guns effectively against government – why do you beleive citizens are not ?
Regardless, it is YOUR argument that is flawed.
If the citizens of HK had AR-15’s right now – do you think the police would be bothering them ?
Do you think the Chinese military would be thinking Twice about coming into HK ?
The purpose of an armed populace is NOT to directly confront the miltary in a set peice battle. It is to intimidate government, and to assure that government understands that if it goes too far there is a cost to pay.
Regardless the purpose of an armed populace is to threaten POLITICIANS not the military.
The purpose is to make sure that those who are holding weapons AND likely to be willing to use them, are the people not the government. While it is not impossible, it is damn hard (and unconstitutional) to use the US military against the US people.
But then if the 2nd amendment is not worth the paper it was written on – why should we beleive that the restictions on the use of the military as a police force are going to hold ?
Fact: 24 of the 25 worst mass shootings over the past 70 years involved the use of semi-automatic weapons. How is it “emotional” to conclude that just maybe these weapons don’t belong in private hands? We don’t allow bazookas and tanks in private hands, so how is it a violation of the 2nd Amendment to ban gadgets designed to facilitate mass murder? (By the way, I don’t think you noticed that I favor banning high-capacity magazines, not the guns themselves.)
As for the usefulness of assault weapons in fighting a tyrannical government… the Philadelphia police could have bombed that house, but they wisely chose to use restraint. (They didn’t want a repeat of the notorious MOVE bombing.) The government would probably respond differently if there were an armed insurrection.
By the way, who among the Democratic candidates favors confiscating all guns? I’d be interested in finding out.
Fact: just about every mass shooting ever was committed by a male.
Fact: 99% were commited by males under the age of 30
Fact: pretty much all of them had mental health problems.
Fact: a very large percentage have been diagnosed as paranoid Schozophrenics.
Every one of those facts – and then some have Actual significance.
You claim is merely correlation.
Fact: Mass killings in Austrailia did NOT decline after AU confiscated all guns.
Fact: The trends for Violent Crimes in AU from the gun ban to the present is indistinguishable from the same Trend in nearby and demographically identical NZ.
Fact: there is no statistically significant correlation between a decline in violent crimes of any kind at all and any gun law of any kind – anyplace ever. No gun law ever implimented ever has had any impact on any trend.
This should not be surprising because I do not beleive there is an example of ANY law ever successfully altering the trend it was implimented to “fix”.
So yes, belief that “this time will be different” is an EMOTIONAL response not a factual one.
Fact: 24 of the 25 worst mass shootings over the past 70 years involved the use of semi-automatic weapons.
Unless you are going to call hand guns Semi automatic weapons (which they are) then your “Fact” is false”, Semi-automatic Long Guns are only present in about have of Mass Shootings. The Columbine killers had handguns – semi-automatic, because pretty much all handguns are semi-automatic, And an italian carbine No semi-automatic rifle.
The Va Tech Shooter had only Handguns.
BTW you have autmoatically skewed your statics by starting with “”mass shootings”.
OKC involved no guns.
9/11 involved no guns.
Alone those two account for more “mass killings” than the rest of the entire last 100 years.
Prior to OKC and 9/11 the worst mass killing in the US was in the early 20th century, it was at a school and it involved Bombs.
“How is it “emotional” to conclude that just maybe these weapons don’t belong in private hands? ”
Because there are approximately 350Million guns in private hands in the US – and more people die from poisoning from the things you find under your sink.
Based on the numbers Guns – are SAFER than cars.
“We don’t allow bazookas and tanks in private hands, so how is it a violation of the 2nd Amendment to ban gadgets designed to facilitate mass murder?”
I have no idea whether we allow Bazooka;s and neither do you.
I do know that we allow CANNONS, and FLAME THROWERS.
I also know that even if we banned flame throwers you can make one from $15 in parts from Autozone.
I know that the overwhelming majority of “mass shooters” share several traits two of which are: Smart, and Nuts.
Do you really think that if you confiscated every gun in the US, that would stop them ?
Mass killing is a rare crime. It has no effective counter of consequence. It is near impossible to identify the perpatrators ahead of time – despite the patterns there. Are you p-repared to lock up everyone showing paranoid schizophrenic symptoms in the US ?
Diagnosed paranoid Schizes are only twice as likely to commit violent crimes as the rest of us – yet they make up about 50% of mass shooters – atleast the ones that are not estranged husbands killing wives and families – often in church – because church is a place that family anihilators know that they can find their victims.
We know alot about mass killings. We do not know anything that will help us prevent them.
Nothing. Banning guns is pissing into the wind. Columbine happened during the prior AWB.
As I haver said repeatedly – which you just keep ignoring. No gun law ever has had a demonstrable beneficial effect on a crime trend.
Expecting that “this time will be different” is substituting emotion for fact – and you know it.
You do not honestly expect that any Gun Control laws will work – not if you are honest with yourself. You are hoping against hope. You are chosing to act in the only way that seems possible in the futile hope that just maybe it will work.
But now some facts the other way. AR-15’s are used several times every year to successfully defend homes against multiple home invaders. Handguns are used hundreds of times a year to actively thwart crimes in progress. Home invasion rates are significantly higher in areas where criminals know there will not be guns.
“By the way, I don’t think you noticed that I favor banning high-capacity magazines, not the guns themselves.”
More ineffectual nonsense. No one is confiscating existing “high capacity magazines”.
We saw the effect of that stupidity during the prior AWB too. There were inumerable ways arround the high capacity magazine ban and millions were sold.
Both high capacity magazines and “semi-automatic” rifles sold in higher numbers after the ban.
And your ability to interfere is getting less every single year.
I have not tried to buy guns or high capacity magazines over the internet – but I doubt it is difficult. US Customs does not have the capability of searching every single package (or a tiny fraction) coming into the US. I have zero doubt that if you make something illegal in this country – you will be able to get it over the internet.
When RU-486 was banned in the US – women were buying it from France over the internet.
You can find the gcodes to build a perfect Colt 1911 on the internet – complete, no serial number. The equipment to make one costs about 1200, and you can make as many as you want. the same equipment will allow you to make the lower receiver for an AR-15 – that is the part that ATF licenses – every other part is readily available for purchase.
An M16 lower receiver is just as easy to make as an AR-15. I do not know that the gcodes for an M16 are available. But I would be shocked if they are not.
With a $100 3d printer you can make a one shot plastic pistol.
And none of this addresses the fact that you will always be able to buy guns from criminals.
There is not a law in all of existance that has EVER stopped a criminal from committing a crime. Someone who is going to murder alot of people does not give a flying fig about the laws you pass.
Maybe they will build their own AR-15 (or M16). Maybe they will buy one from a criminal.
Or myriads of other ways. Maybe they will build a flame thrower. Or use Bombs.
The Anarchist’s cookbook is readily available on the internet for free. I have a print copy that I received from a friend who was a bit squirrely 20 years ago.
What every law you pass – will absolutely guaranteed has a small but noticeable NEGATIVE impact on the safety of actual law abiding private citizens. It will have ZERO effect on mass killings and probably none on mass shootings.
And you either know that or you are willfully blind. It is not like the actual facts have not been readily available for a long time.
While the only documented beneficial effect EVER of gun control – is a slight reduction in GUN Suicides – over the long term the suicide trend is undisturbed, there are numerous documented negative impacts. Obama commissined the CDC to report on guns – hoping for a CDC report that would provide “ammunition” for gun control laws. But the CDC actually did a good jobs and found that the evidence strongly suggested that guns were actively used to thwart more crimes than were committed using guns. That more burglaries are thwarted by homeowners with a gun that all gun crimes put together. And the CDC estimated that the PASSIVE effect was about 3 times larger – that is the deterent effect on burglars who avoided homes and communities where guns were likely in homes.
“As for the usefulness of assault weapons in fighting a tyrannical government… the Philadelphia police could have bombed that house, but they wisely chose to use restraint. (They didn’t want a repeat of the notorious MOVE bombing.) The government would probably respond differently if there were an armed insurrection.”
Do you read what you write ? I thought I was the one who was presumed to be nuts here ?
The Philadelphia incident was an extremely rare event – a drug arrest where the drug dealer actually decides to shoot it out. That almost never happens – even though we have over 200 swat raids in the US every day. It only qualified as a “mass shooting” because 4 or more people were shot. It had nothing to do with most of what we call mass shootings.
Regardless, it is the job of police officers to arrest criminals. That is sometimes risky – as happened in Phila. Though Policing barely makes the top 10 riskiest jobs and is far less risky than fishing or farming. It is what police sign up for. It is their job. I expect them to do it.
I expect that they will do it without killing innocent people – as they did at Waco and Ruby Ridge – and as you note Move. I expect them to do it if possible without killing the criminals.
I have no problem with police working to keep themselves safe – But the sagety of the rest of us comes FIRST.
If you can’t deal with that – and I personally could not, then do not become a police officer.
“By the way, who among the Democratic candidates favors confiscating all guns? I’d be interested in finding out.”
Its the internet – do you really think I can not find plenty of examples of that ?
“Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo opined. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”
Poughkeepsie mayor John Tkazyik wrote an op-ed in which he claims Michael Bloomberg’s gun control organization MAIG (Mayors Against Illegal Guns) “intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.”
Following a Senate Budget Committee hearing, a hot-mic caught several New Jersey state senators disparaging gun owners.
“All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them,” one Senator said. “They don’t care about the bad guys.”
Another stated that the Senate “needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”
Steve McLaughlin introduced a wish list for Senate Democrats that included plans to confiscate so-called “assault weapons,” confiscate ten-round clips, and set up a database for every gun in the state.
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, the front-runner in the Democratic race, said he would create a gun buyback program and remove military-style rifles from people’s possession once the weapons are banned.
“They should be illegal, period,” Mr. Biden said on CNN. “Look, the Second Amendment doesn’t say you can’t restrict the kinds of weapons people can own. You can’t buy a bazooka. You can’t have a flame thrower.”
Sen. Kamala D. Harris said she was open to a mandatory gun buyback program. She also suggested that she was fine with police knocking on doors and taking away weapons. When she was California attorney general, she said, authorities took guns from felons and people deemed dangerous to themselves or others.
Kamala Harris has previously stated that if she were elected president, she would use executive action to enact control, including banning entire classes of weapons she and liberals think look scary.
Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas said he was willing to impose an Australian-style mandatory gun buyback and national gun licensing programs.
Early in the Democratic race, Rep. Eric Swalwell of California presented himself as a leading gun control voice and was the first candidate to propose a mandatory buyback program.
The federal government must ban assault weapons and implement a buyback program to get assault weapons off the streets. – Sander Tweet.
BTW gun buyback programs have been extensively studied – they probably make things worse. They are alot like “cash for Klunkers” – and that worked so well.
Generally damaged, defective old guns get turned in and bought back and far to often the money is used to buy new better guns.
Honestly Rick I do not know why any debate on this issue remains.
There are zero actual facts in favor of gun control – even the UK with its draconian gun laws has LESS gun deaths before its gun laws – that was a long time ago.
Dave..Rick
If I am looking at the statistics correctly for Australia, from 1971 to 1994, a 24 year period, Australia had 20 mass murders for a total of 120 people.
From 1995 to 2019, a comparative 24 year period, Australia has had 26 mass muders and a total of 128 dead
!971-1995 averaged 5 dead per murder
1996- 2019 averaged 6 dead per murder
No significant change in the numbers per murder.
(Source wiki)
They find other means!
Ron,
I have thrown out lots of statistics – and particularly statistics about Austrailia – BECAUSE we had a nearly controlled experiment with Austrailia. For 2 decades AU switched to draconian gun laws while NZ with identical demographics did not.
It is extremely rare that we have direct comparisons that require so few adjustments.
At the same time we must be careful with statistics. We must make sure the statistics we are looking at actually measure what we want to look at.
As an example AU’s gun laws DID reduce – even eliminate “mass shootings”.
It did not however have a statistically significant effect on mass killings.
What is your goal ? To stop killing people with guns ? or to stop killing people ?
Scottland which is very white, has draconian gun laws, and almost zero gun violence.
But the homocide and violent crime rates are slightly higher than caucasions in the US.
The scotts kill people with knives.
What do you want to stop – killing, or killing with guns ?
AU did have a brief significant decline in suicides. It also had a sustained decline in gun suicides. But over the long run the suicide rate reverted to the trend – people just found other ways to kill themselves.
I am making arguments about guns here.
BUT my core argument is NOT about guns. I really do not care alot about guns.
I do care about the steady errosion of our rates through feel good laws that DO NOT WORK.
In another post I addressed childrens car seats – same problem. We do not care whether the law actually does any good. We know – atleast some of us that we have a costly law with no benefit but we are not going to do anything about it. Because that is the way government works. We make laws that do not (and can not work) in order to “feel good”, and then we ignore it when they fail.
Fact: – in all mass shootings since 1982 there were 141 handguns, 53 rifles, and 30 shotguns used. BTW all the rifles were NOT semi-automatic. I have not been able to separate out the semi-automatic rifles yet, But I know there were ZERO semi-automatic rifles at columbine.
There were handguns a shotgun and an italian carbine.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
The most deadly US mass shooting remains Las Vegas – 58 dead.
In Nice the same year 86 people were killed by a truck.
Since 1982 there have been 434K gun homocides.
Mass shooting make 0.2% of that total. Mass shootings over more than 40 years total about 1/4 the number who were killed at 9/11. Assault weapon deaths by mass shooting are 0.06% of the total.
Your odds of being killed in a mass shooting are just under 1:400K
The NRA estimates that there are about 5M AR-15’s in the US – that is a bit more than 1% of all guns. Politifact puts it at 6-10M.
The odds of being killed by an assault rifle in a mass shooting are less than 1:1,000,000
Since you like “facts”
Twice as many mass shootings have taken place in Blue states than red states.
Though “swing” states edge out blue states by a little.
8 States and DC still have State assault rifle bans that are stronger than the Clinton era AWB. All of these are still in place. 31% of all states have not had a mass shooting.
Only 1 state with an AWB has not had a mass shooting.
Only 14% of states have had a mass shooting involving an “assault rifle”.
Clinton purportedly ran an oped recently praising his AWB.
Depending on how you slice the data you can in SOME permutations claim that there was a decline in mass shooting during the AWB – the deviation is very small.
However the frequency of assault weapon use was unchanged.
Further since the AWB expired almost 50% of the Assault weapon fatalities in mass shootings have been police – there have been several mass shootings specifically targetting police and these have used assault rifles.
The narrative that “assault rifles” have been used in nearly all mass shooting is FALSE.
The semi-automatic weapons claim is spurious – nearly all guns are “semi-automatic” but only a tiny portion of semi-automatic weapons are rifles. In fact I beleive 100% of all handguns are “semi-automatic”.
If there are 5 million people that own 5-10 million AR15’s, are they the ones that would trust government, or are they the ones more like the red neck bubba’s, four wheel raised oversized tire truck owners, western ranch owners and other rural conservative gun owners? Would they line up at the doors of the BAF waiting to hand over their AR15’s.
My brother -in-law is in that rural gun owner category. Has 3 AR’15s. Has them stored in different places. He would be like Charlton Heston. You would have to pry them from his dead damn hands before turning them in. And if a democrat wins, I bet he will be buying more.
If merely 1% of AR-15 owners resist violently having their guns taken away there are only two possible outcomes.
Government turning a blind eye to AR-15 ownership and not enforcing the law.
Gun violence far greater than all mass shootings.
The police will enforce the law – against very small numbers of AR-15 owners. They will likely tolerate it if police deaths in the line of duty double – to 250/year. But more than that – and they are just plain NOT going to enforce the law. Police are NOT going to send SWAT teams to the homes of known AR-15 owners where there is a 1% chance of a shootout resulting in POLICE casualties, if there is no other reason to target that person than because they have an AR-15.
Which is another issue we should not EVER make laws that law enforcement is not going to enforce, or that it is going to excercise very large discretion in enforcing.
WE do not want a situation where large numbers of americans are “criminals”, but we are not going to try to prosecute them. That actually increases crime. When you label an otherwise law abiding citizen a fellon, you decrease the constraints stopping them from committing other crimes.
Dave you left out that DC already came for their guns and a conservative court ruled against them. Had it been a liberal democrat court, no one in DC would be owning a hand gun (legally) and all others would be worthless because they would have to be unloaded and locked up. Hand Heller V DC been upheld, don’t you think DC would have banned assulat rifles along with many other states?
Here is a graph of the murder rate in DC with the implimentation of DC’s draconian gun laws marked as well as their being struck down.
It took some time after the laws were implimented for the murder rate to spike, and the murder rate was already declining when the law was struck down.
I can try to argue that the law made DC more violent – it would be a weak argument.
But there is absolutely no way that you can argue that gun laws made DC safer – it clearly did not.
“If they didn’t have those guns to begin with, there would be no need for them to use those guns to defend themselves.”
If you were not trying to take their guns – there would be no need for them to use those guns to defend themselves.
This is not a conservative issue. I am not a conservative.
Aside from proving that what you wish to do will be NET better – something you can not do.
You must do one other thing that you can not succeed at.
Amend the constitution. We do not wish the constitution and its amendments away because they interfere with passing the laws that some of us want at the moment.
The constitution is much weaker than it needs to be in protecting our rights,
but at the very least we should not make it weaker by ignoring it when it is inconvenient.
If you wish to infringe on the right to own guns – then you must amend the constitution.
And BTW in doing so you must revise TWO amendments – the 2nd and the 14th.
No matter how hard you try to pretend the 2nd does not say what it plainly says – the legislative history of the 14th amendment is absolutely clear. The intention of the 14th amendment was to assure that newly freed negroes would have the right to own guns.
It was beyond the ability of northern occupation forces to protect negroes – and the post civil war history makes that abundantly clear, The reconstruction congress passed the 14th amendment to permanetly secure the right of individuals, regardless of race to own guns for the purpose of protecting themselves against the majority.
If you think that the founders and the ratifiers of the 14th amendment were wrong, or that the need has passed – while I disagree, you can resolve the matter by amending the constitution.
That is hard. It is supposed to be hard. It should be completely impossible to infringe on a right.
So let me summarize your argument:
We should do something that there is no evidence will work – to make us feel better.
We should do it despite the fact that we are infinging on the natural right to self defense, the constitutional right in the 2nd and 14th amendment.
We should not amend the constitution – because that is too hard. and you have no problem with ignoring impediments to infringing on rights. So long as those are rights that are not important to you personally.
Rick -I understand the emotional appeal of passing a law in the hope of fixing some scary problem. It is precisely BECAUSE that appeal is so strong that we MUST have strong impediments.
Why do you not need to repeal the 2nd amendment to do what you wish to do, but you would be stopped by the 2nd amendment if you tried to go farther ?
Any argument you make, can be made for further infringment.
If we do not need 15 round magazines for rifles – we have even less need for them in hand guns.
If you are going to ban “semi-automatic” weapons that is pretty much everything but bolt action rifles and maybe pump shotguns. It is absolutely every gun that holds more than 1 bullet and can fire more than once by pulling the trigger another time.
Any argument that an AR-15 is not covered by the 2nd amendment – makes almost all firearms unprotected by the 2nd amendment.
If you try to pretend that the militia clause is limiting clause rather than a justification – then there is no individual right to own any weapon.
And all of this requires completely ignoring the 14th amendment.
You are essentially saying that white southerners we free to confiscate weapons from Blacks in the south – knowing they would end up getting killed.
If you are saying we are past that now – that similar situations will never arrise – then change the 2nd and 14th amendment.
But if you claim that you can do what you want without infringing. but that the 2nd amendment will ultimately prevent government from going further – that is crap.
Either it is sufficient to stop you here and now, or it is never sufficient to stop anyone whose heart is ahead of their brain from acting stupid but with purportedly good intentions.
I say purportedly – because I do not accept good intentions EVER as a justification for bad acts. If you act badly – that is the end of it.
I am almost finished reading Chernow’s “Grant”, the biography of Ulysses S. Grant. The war was of course the most violent era in American History but the period after the war was probably the second most violent era. Our current polarized society pales in comparison to the Reconstruction Era. It truly is amazing that our democracy survived. Although that society had even more anger and polarization than our current society, there were not instances of one gunmen killing 20, 40, 60, 100 people almost simultaneously. The difference is that we have allowed people to own weapons of mass destruction. I do not see why we cannot ban the sale of these guns and buy back those already in circulation. 70% of voters want a ban on assault weapons but the Congress is controlled by powerful minority who care nothing for the security and safety of our society. You don’t need an assault weapon to take down an intruder, in fact, an assailant using an assault weapons negates the ability of a victim to defend themselves. Even if the victim has an assault weapon by the time they realize what is happening the assailant has already fired 20 shorts or more. As I said this small powerful minority care nothing for the safety and security of this country. They are driven by the euphoria of power which they experience when they feel these weapons of mass destruction pulsating in their hands. We are watching our children slaughtered in their schools so that these people can experience their orgiastic high.
I have not read Chernow’s grant.
But you are wrong about the differences between society today and then.
In the debate leading to the 14th amendment it was ABSOLUTELY clear that the priviledges and immunites clause was explicitly intended to guarantee the right of BLACKS to own GUNS. That was probably the most important factor in tipping the scales when Heller was decided.
Further the history of the period you are referencing is tied strongly to GUNS.
Immediately post civil war and for almost 10 years, the south was occupied by norther armies, and black ownership of guns was HIGH, those two factors resulted in the governments of many southern states being overwhelmingly black, with numerous federal representatives and senators being southern blacks.
This came to an end when Grant pulled troops from the south with a part of that deal being the confiscation of the guns of blacks, and that was followed by the first great period of southern violence and lynchings.
I would further note that even during the civil war – available personal weapons were more capable than the military weapons of the government. That persisted even into the indian wars were custers defeat was as attributable to inferior weapons as most anything else.
Easy to load multiple shot revolvers were PERSONAL weapons in the Civil War,
Repeating rifles were PERSONAL weapons in the Civil war.
Even in the 20th century – serious guns and rifles were a fixture within the civil rights movement.
BTW actual assault weapons are already banned. No automatic weapon has been used outside of the military in a crime since tommy guns during prohibition.
As to need: There are numerous instances every year – many times the number of mass shootings, were someone with an AR-15 or similar weapon successfully defends their home against multiple criminals – so yes there are real world scenarios were such weapons are necescary. Obama commissioned the CDC to study the issue, and even the CDC found that the DOCUMENTED evidence demonstrated that guns were USED MANY more times in the US to prevent or limit crimes than gun deaths, and that the deterent effect was likely an order of magnitude greater.
Further we have evidence from Austrailia of exactly how the program that you propose would work. The answer is that it did not.
Mass Shootings dropped to zero. Mass killings remained constant, Arson’s spiked, briefly suicides by gun declined but there was overall no statistically significant effect of Austrialias heinous gun laws.
The UK actually had less gun violence BEFORE implimenting its modern gun laws.
London has banned knives – because if people want to kill people – they will find a weapon.
The rate of murder and violent death in scottland is a bit more than 1/2 that of the US – sounds promising – but Scotts who can not own guns murder more of their fellow scotts than any other caucasion group in the world. In the US about 50% of all gun deaths involve black shooters – in fact the rates of violence throughout the world vary very very little – by race.
All differences in rates of violence between countries can be entirely derived by the ethnic makeup of the population – not the laws – that is WORLD WIDE.
But lets go farther.
More people are killed each year by lighting in the US than in mass shootings.
More people are killed each month in Chicago than in a year by mass shootings.
4 times more people die of drug overdoses than all gun deaths – including suicides.
3 times as many from accidental falls, and 3 times as many from automobile accidents.
in 2016 374 people were killed by long guns in all forms – that is shotguns, and rifles as well as AR-15’s. I beleive about 15% of long gun deaths are attributable to “assault weapons”,
And long guns make up less than 10% of all gun deaths. There were 3700 murders using knives at the same time. according to the FBI.
A “good guy with a gun” stops a potential mass shooting – it happens about 10 times a year, thought it pretty much never makes national news.
But it is rarer than it would be otherwise – because mass shootings occur almost exclusively in “gun free” zones – which is precisely why mass shooters target those areas.
Further concealed carry is severely restricted in most of the country.
But inside of homes guns are used many times every day to stop crimes as noted above in the CDC’s work.
Post Christchurch NZ – finally capitulated and imposed draconian gun control and buy back.
Problem ? New Zealanders are NOT cooperating. Despite the fact that it is a crime, they are not turning in their guns.
In the US there are about 350M guns. Do you understand what the cost to buy those back would be ?
Do you understand how much violence will occur if you try to ?
Lets say 1% of all gun owners decide to keep their guns – even though doing so makes them criminals – in NZ right now that is running close to 50% not 1%.
So now you have to send in law enforcement to confiscate their weapons.
That is 3.5M raids by swat teams. If 1% of those raids turn violent, that is 35K violent raids.
Is that an improvement over 1 or 2 mass shootings a year ?
Do your really want 35K gun battles between otherwise law abiding citizens and police swat teams using automatic weapons ?
When ever you propose a law – ANY LAW, you should always factor in the cost – in $ and blood of enforcing that law. NYC’s laws barring the sale of loose cigarettes ended with Eric Garner losing his life. If you pass a law – some small portion of otherwise law abiding citizens will decide – they are not going to obey – and they are going to do so right up to the point where law enforcement must use deadly force.
If you want to ensure that the current conflict between the left and the right becomes violent and involves weapons – pass restrictive gun control laws.
Are you not old enough to remember Ruby Ridge or Wacco ?
The entire justification that McVeigh used for the OKC bombing was driven by government efforts to crush militias and confiscate guns.
Even the mass murders that you are attempting to thwart will now have a bigger and better cause.
I am not an expert in “gun culture” – but it is pretty clear that you are not either.
Criminals pretty much never have weapons like AR-15’s. These are not useful weapons for burglaries, or most crimes.
Even Mass Shooters do not typically use “assault weapons” – the majority of deaths in mass shootings are from handguns.
Different weapons are more useful for different circumstances.
Burglars as an example – are NOT typically armed – atleast not with guns.
ANY gun is a deterent to most burglars, there is plenty of data that burglars avoid:
Homes with dogs,
Homes where there is a probability that residents are armed.
But handguns are ineffective in dealing with multiple attackers.
Handguns are close range weapons, not area defense or denial weapons.
As to “small powerful minorities” – 42% of americans have one of more gun in their home.
That is a powerful minority – it is NOT a small one.
“They are driven by the euphoria of power which they experience when they feel these weapons of mass destruction pulsating in their hands. ”
Really – so you are expert on the motivations and feelings of other people ?
When you make an argument presuming to know what others think and feel – you are with near certainty WRONG.
Even the christian god judges us on our ACTIONS not our thoughts.
Christ did not ask – when I was hungry did you think about feeding me, or did you feel bad about my hunger.
When you presume to know more about other people that there are facts to support – you have lost your argument.
Worse still you are dangerous.
It is possible to justify anything if you get to presume that your assessment of the motivations and feelings of others are correct.
“We are watching our children slaughtered in their schools so that these people can experience their orgiastic high.”
The leading cause of death for children under 12 is automobile accidents.
If you put your kind in the car or on a bus – they are about 1000 times more likely to be killed than by a mass shooter at school – pursuing some “orgiastic high”.
More children die each year in hot cars than mass shootings.
About 100 times more kids are killed each year – by things under their kitchen sink than by mass shooters.
If you are worried about kids – worry about actual threats, not unicorns.
BTW – welcome.
Despite the criticism, new voices are welcom.
Savannah, it is not the issue of banning certain types of weapons. If you look at the history of the NRA you will find they supported almost every gun control legislation until 1971. That is when the FBI raided Ken Bellews appt and shot him based on very weak information. He was an NRA member and was reported to have stockpiled weapons which were not found. That changed Charlton Hestons position on the government and since that time they yave opposed every law proposed.
It is trust in government. You trust government to stop with the assault weapons ban. I think an assault weapon is useless for the average American, but I have little trust in government. I believe once they ban assualt weapons, then any pistols used in murders will be banned. Unlike government in the past (ie 1930’s ban on machine guns and nothing further), today the ban on one weapon is the key to unlocking bans on multiple weapons.
The 2nd amendment serves many purposes.
Our founders intended that it guarantee the right of settlers to hunt for food,
The authors of the 14th amendment explicitly intended that negros in the south would be able to have guns to defend against southern whites.
The right to self defense is nearly universally recognized – and like the right to free speech you can not restrict a right by infringing on the necescities of that right.
Put simply if the 2nd amendment merely said that we all have the right to self defense, the government would STILL be barred from banning guns.
There are other purposes to the 2nd amendment – but one other that is true is it is there to ensure the right of the people to stand up to government. To revolt if necescary, but even short of revolt just to remind the government that their power is not unlimited that at some point citizens will take up arms. Our declaration of independence makes it clear that it is absolutely justified to take up arms against an oppresive government.
The US government does not meet that threshold today. Hopefully it never will.
But americans are entitled to own weapons specifically to prepare for that possibility.
To those who keep playing this nonsensical game that our founders did not mean weapons of war – military weapons.
The Pennsylvania long rifle, was the high tech M16 of its day – actually it was MORE state of the art for the time. While it served many purposes. it proved to be the near perfect weapon for american irregulars early in the war. While it took 3 times as long to load and fire, it also had 3 times the range. In myriads of engagements throughout new england, colonists unleashed vollies against the english from outside the range of british weapons and then separated to reload and prepare for the next strike.
Throughout the war it was impossible for the british to move troops in much of the country because the could not survive clashes with colonists in the woods where revolutionary forces could strike and retreat repeatedly without ever getting in the range of the british.
In fact the Pennsylvania rifle remained in use in the US until near the end of the 19th century.
Put simply ordinary americans at the time of the revolution owned weapons supperior to the british military.
Further during the revolution – all kinds of other weapons – like warships and artilery were owned by ordinary people.
Even today – you can not own an M16 – but you can own a cannon.
True moral conservatives (there are few remaining) will fight to replace Trump with a suitable human candidate.
And we continue the long long line of posts that argue:
Trump is unfit – because I do not like him.
Is there any argument here beyond – Walsh must be right because he is saying things I agree with ?
I would be happy to have a real discussion – facts, logic, reason, regarding Trump’s fitness to be president.
There are plenty of legitimate fact based arguments that can be made, and some I might agree with. Though I will point out that the same can be said of every president in my lifetime – even if the reasons might differ.
Ultimately outside the provisions of the constitution and the actual 25th amendment fitness to be president is determined by voters on election day, and like it or not Trump won that argument. You get to try again in 2020.
I have no problem with someone challenging Trump – whether from the right or left.
I am absolutely certain I can pick 100 people that I would prefer as president to Trump.
Unfortunately not a single one is a plausible contender for either party.
George Will has repeatedly criticised Trump – and except that Trump remains the lessor evil of the choices we have had – I would otherwise mostly agree with Will.
But again there is not a single president elected during my lifetime – that I could not pick someone I think would be better.
“Go into the London Stock Exchange – a more respectable place than many a court – and you will see representatives from all nations gathered together for the utility of men. Here Jew, Mohammedan and Christian deal with each other as though they were all of the same faith, and only apply the word infidel to people who go bankrupt. Here the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist and the Anglican accepts a promise from the Quaker. On leaving these peaceful and free assemblies some go to the Synagogue and others for a drink, this one goes to be baptized in a great bath in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that one has his son’s foreskin cut and has some Hebrew words he doesn’t understand mumbled over the child, others go to heir church and await the inspiration of God with their hats on, and everybody is happy.”
Voltaire.
We bemoan the conflict and division of modern public discourse. But entirely miss that conflict is ultimately about only one thing – attempts to accomplish by force what we could not accomplish by persuasion.
In everything that we are prohibited from using force – we get along extremely well.
I can walk down the streets of Berkeley or Montgomery Alabama, and engage with most anyone, and so long as I those interactions have nothing to do with what government should compel, conflicts will be few and cordial.
Dave, how true your comment “We bemoan the conflict and division of modern public discourse. But entirely miss that conflict is ultimately about only one thing – attempts to accomplish by force what we could not accomplish by persuasion.”
Since most have left this site for places unknown to me, I have been searching for a site where one can comment and not be torn apart by those that have differing views. Once again, after years of not visiting that other “moderate” site that calls itself moderate, I visited their site today and began reading their post and the comments that followed. Lord have mercy, if they posted anything that was not anti-Trump, hell would freeze over. And occasionally there will be someone comment about a subject that does not fit their political thinking and the poor person it riddled with personal attacks by those commenting instead of a debate between the two taking place.
Basically there, as well as other sites, force those commenting to adhere to their agenda, or they are forced out. Unlike here where the many that leave do so on their own accord because they can not force those that stay to their way of thinking.
I seem to recall that it was during the Bush 43 administration, that people started talking about “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” And that seemed
like a good term for people who were calling Bush and Cheney “war criminals and the like.
But it was nothing like Trump Derangement Syndrome, which I have begun to believe is an actual mental disorder, brought on by intense hatred, mob mentality and mass hysteria.
I’m not claiming that everyone who opposes Trump suffers from TDS, but millions of them do. I’ve seen people who I know to have been reasonable, often thoughtful, liberals, turn into raving, angry Trump haters, who talk about what a filthy, disgusting human he is, how unfit he is to be president, and how ashamed anyone should be to support him. And, if you can get a word in edgewise, and have the nerve to ask what exactly makes them hate the man so much, they can usually only talk about the fact that he is a racist, that he separates children from their families, and that he doesn’t respect women. If you bring up people like Kellyanne Conway or Nikki Haley, even Sarah Sanders, they scoff at you, as if those women don’t count.
It’s scary to see this kind of hate, from otherwise normal people, directed at the duly elected president. I mean, I don’t expect all people to like him ~ I didn’t like Obama at all…could barely stand to listen to him, by the end of his term. But it didn’t define me, or affect my life in any negative way. I just think that TDS is different from anything I’ve seen in my lifetime.
Am I wrong about this?
Priscilla, no you are not wrong. You know I am not fond of Trump, not because of anything the left says, but because of what he says. As Dave comments, he may be doing this out of character, acting, and manipulating his opponents much like Mohammad Ali did with George Foreman and “rope-a-dope”.
But with those s on the left, you can nit debate anything Trump does. They go ballistic if you question their anti-Trump positions.
I support his trade positions. Not because tariffs are good, but changing the Chinese trade policies from a position of strength.
I support his new immigration policies. No benefits before citizenship. The left can moan about how hard hearted that is and what the statue of liberty stands for, but when that was constructed and immigrants came throughbEllis Island, there were no government handout to be had like today.
I support.his healthcare positions, his choices for SCOTUS and his deregulation.
But damn, it seems like every day he says something that is a total turnoff and I think,” did he really say that” and sure enough he did.
But like dave also said, once in the voting booth, I may gag and vote for him to be one vote agaist the democrat. Even if NC is not really.key to a presidential election.
I do not agree with you or Trump on ANY of the positions you support Trump on.
But I have no doubt that you and I can have a civilized debate over those issues.
I am going to relentlessly argue my position with “facts, logic, reason” – millions of mind numbing pages of it. It is highly unlikely I will persuade you. There might be a few times that I call some idea stupid or moronic, but I am not going to insult you as the means to win the argument. You may call some of my arguments stupid. You are not likely to be persuaded,
But you are not going to insult me as a means to win the argument.
Our disagreement is not going to preclude my buying you a Cheese Steak if I ever get to NC.
When you call people racists, haters, liars, cheaters, it is near impossible to come back.
Once you do that further debate is nearly impossible.
We have seen that with Bush, with McCain, with Palin, with Romney and with Trump.
And we have seen that here.
When you resort to slurs, you create TWO walls between you.
The first is to return to reason your opponent must forgive you.
The second is that you must get past your own shame at making a false accusation.
The latter is harder than the former.
Once you call someone a racist – or similar Slurs, there is no coming back.
They will never forgive you.
And the likelyhood of your ever admiting even to yourself to having falsely accused someone of being a racist is about zero.
Once you call someone a racist – in your mind, they must be a racist forever.
Being wrong, is being immoral yourself.
This is what is dividing our country.
OK, so lets start with this You say “I do not agree with you or Trump on ANY of the positions you support Trump on.”. So in a few words if possible please explain as will I. Nothing long, just pertinent thoughts on what drives my positions.
1. I understand your trade positions and you believe that open trade at any cost is good trade. And I support that up to a point. If a country in Africa can produce jeans with the same quality as American produced jeans and they sell in America for the same price as the American produced jeans or less, that is fine. We are helping build up a poor economy. But I will never accept a car company being owned 50%+ by the Chinese , producing that car, sending it here without a tariff while our cars are taxed 25% going to China. China is not a developing economy, it is the #2 ranked economy and #1 by purchasing power. And Buick is not selling that car any cheaper than a competitor model made in America, so the buyer is not getting any break.
2. Immigration and not giving benefits to immigrants. I support immigrants coming to this country legally, but I do not support them living off the government once they get here. Find a job, work and build up your life, don’t sponge off those that do.
3. Eliminating the ACA is going to be near impossible, so doing the next best thing, eliminating much of the force within the legislation works for me. I would rather have that than beating my head against the wall, complaining about all the things like the penalty included and not doing away with those parts the can be eliminated.
4. I think Trump has made some good appointments to SCOTUS. I would like to see some more like Kennedy and O’Conner, but the last two have not been as bad as Sotomayor and Kagan.
Your turn, and Priscilla please jump in if you have comments!
“I do not agree with you or Trump on ANY of the positions you support Trump on.”
Sorry, that is a misstatement. I beleive I meant “MANY”.
Regardless, the point was we do not agree, but we are capable of civil debate.
One of the reasons for that is that we stick close to facts and arguments, and not slurs and invective.
I second point was that I am far from a “trump supporter”.
But there is not some manditory binary – you each support Trump on EVERYTHING, or on NOTHING.
Apparently Trump was inquiring about the possibility of buying Greenland from Denmark.
And the left has gone balistic.
Why ? Denmark appears uninterested – that’s fine. But the idea is not evil, racist, stupid, ….
It is just one that does not interest the danes.
If it became serious. I might ponder whether I think it is a good idea or a bad idea.
But it is not an evil idea or an immoral idea, or a racist idea.
I have no problem with addressing our differences on trade and immigration and …
But I think we have hashed them to death.
I do not think there is a place for government in free exchange beyond enforcing agreements and baring the actual use of force.
Buying something from your neighbor, from the neighboring city, from the neighboring state, from the neighboring country from the neighboring planet – if it ever comes to that, changes nothing.
The historical evidence is the deeper government in free exchange distorts markets, and decreases efficiency – and that means we are less prosperous than we would be otherwise.
And it does not matter at all WHY government is interfering.
With respect to your arguments such as those about quality.
Absolutely – as the buy you get to decide whether you will pay the asked price for the quality of product offered – whether it is from Ohio, Africa, or China.
I have absolutely ZERO problem with your preferences – EXCEPT that you wish to force them to be my preferences too.
If I find the price/quality of African Jeans acceptable – I should be free to buy them.
If you do not- you are free not to buy them.
There is no role for government.
If you want to help build a poor country – you are free to adjust your purchasing choices.
If you do not want to help China – again you are free to not do so.
But you are NOT free to decide for me.
I have zero problems with “buy local” or “buy american” campaigns.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with engaging in persuasion.
Even if I think what you are seeking to persuade me regarding is a bad idea.
There is no right to control any more of the market than your OWN choices.
There is no right to buy at the price you want, or to be able to sell – not in the US or china.
It is wrong for China to tarrif incoming products – and they should not do that.
But the real harm is to their own people. There is no right for US sellors to sell to chinese customers.
BTW this is actually much the same as immigration.
I am still trying to work somethings out.
But most of the immigration debate does NOT involve rights.
There is no right to come to the US.
I think immigration is so obviously a net good, that we should do whatever it takes to impliment open borders – but that requires eliminating our entitlement system.
But so long as there is no right involved, the argument is utilitarian not principled.
Apparently there is a big war at the moment because Kuccinelli quoted the plaque in front of the Statute of liberty – that Plaque includes a paraphrase of the Emma Lazarus poem that includes “public charge”. Kuccinelli was berated for misquoting “the new collusus” – but he wasn’t quoting that.
Regardless, I fully agree with the “public charge” construction – though for the most part I would impliment it inversely.
I do not care who comes – but you will not receive government aide.
I have told you before – I think we could solve the immigration debate trivially by getting government mostly out of the decision making.
Just say that ANYONE can come to the US if they have a sponsor. But make sponsorship meaningful. If you sponsor someone YOU are responsible for them. You are essentially committing to be their “safetynet”.
If YOU wish to sponsor chinese, or guatamalan’s or hatians or nigerians, or muslims – that is up to you. The government need not “vet” people, need not set quota’s,
You get in if you have a sponsor, and you don’t if you can not get one.
I would let anyone, any organzation, any business, any church sponsor people.
The ACA is in almost all ways nearly gone already. What is “impossible” is turning reality into an expressed decision.
What is harder and necescary is getting government out of healthcare.
There is a chart floating arround showing long terms price trends of various things.
The ONLY things that have a long term inflation adjusted trend of price increases are those things heavily controlled by government – healthcare, education.
Everything else has become cheaper and better.
If you want Healthcare even more F’d up – keep trying to have govenrment fix it.
I am still on the fence over Kavanaugh – and Gorsuch occasionally F’s up.
But despite that Gorsuch is on track to becoming the most significant justice of the 21st century.
Kennedy is a disasterously bad justice. OConner was better and better still after leaving the court. But both had the same problem – they sought to compromise over issues of principle.
That NEVER works out well, It just leaves us fighting forever.
It is often better to gets something dead wrong, then to fudge in the middle.
I think Kennedy was a good person but a lousy justice.
But I have more problmes with Roberts.
Roberts seems to think the fundimental role of a supreme court justice is to prevent the court from being controlversial.
That is absolutely 180 degrees wrong.
The most important work of the court is saying NO when all of government and most people think the answer is yes. SCOTUS is there to protect our individual rights. Everything else it does is small potatos. And protection of individual rights matters most when those rights are not popular.
The Skokie decision is in my view one of the greatest decisions of the court.
They said no to government when nearly everyone wanted them to say yes, to protect the rights of people who few of us think deserve rights.
That is the highest purpose of the courts.
With few exceptions I find it harder to trash specific justices.
Many of Sotomayor’s or Kagan’s decisions are absolute garbage.
But SCOTUS sometimes gets things right through unlikely coalitions.
Sotomayor and Kagan and others on the left have on rare occsion been on the right side of 5-4 decisions
I have more problems with Roberts particularly as he keeps being the 5th vote on a bad decisions and then writes an oppinion that essentially says “I am actually wrong and I know it, but we are going to decide this specific case this way because doing otherwise would make the court look too political”.
Our bitter divisions are NOT about Trump.
They are unequivocally about politics, ideology.
They are about the use of force to accomplish what we were not able to accomplish through persuasion.
If Ted Cruz had been elected – or Mario Rubio – we would still be at war.
The tactics might be different, but the issues would be the same.
Many of us have observed that if Democrats wish to beat Trump – they need a moderate, not Warren, Harris, Sanders – or pretty much any of the 20 dwarves.
But democrats are not going to run a “moderate”.
All the PC nonsense is tactics, it is not the objective.
The objective is to use government to force all of us to live as they wish, without having to do the work of persuading us that their preferences for us are our best choice.
The violently “anti-trump” forces are not even really anti-trump.
They are anti not getting their way – by force if necescary.
If Trump could manage as Ron says and many of us would wish, to act presidential, to quit saying things that provoke the left – that would change nothing.
Trump – or any other republican – any other person who was president who did not give them what they wanted, would be decried as a racist, hateful hating hater.
That has been the tactic for decades, certainly it was the tactic against Bush, and McCain – Sarah Palin’s treatment was immoral. and Romney.
I do not think any of those republicans were or would have made good presidents.
But they were not racist hateful hating haters.
The slurs and insults are to avoid having to debate the issues.
We have seen EXACTLY the same thing HERE.
Do not debate the issues – attack the person.
In a real debate over the issues – the PERSONS on either side of the argument DO NOT MATTER, What matters is the facts and the arguments.
I agree with Trump on somethings and not on others.
I agree with Trump on more than Obama – but Obama was not wrong on everything.
Regardless, while there were exceptions – the debate during the obama presidency was primarily about ISSUES, not personality.
The objective and the core of the bitterness and divisiveness, is that way too many of us are trying to get our way on issues – to force others to live as we wish, and the tools we are using are NOT, facts, or arguments, but slurs and insults.
Is it any wonder we are deeply divided ?
If we substitute some “president X” for Trump and pretend that this President X is the same as Trump in policies, but somehow manages to be presidential, and respectful, that President X does not have a racist, hateful bone in their body – but still makes the same policy choices as Trump – the media and the left would be doing EXACTLY the same things they are doing now.
The real conflict is NOT over Trump or his demeanor, or racism, or intolerance.
It is over the inability of the left to continue to impose its polices on the rest of us by force.
There is not a snowballs chance in hell of a moderate democrat being the Democrats candidate – because the very people who are most bitterly attacking Trump – do not want a moderate.
What is wrong, what is dividing us, is the effort to win a debate on policies, by slur rather than facts, argument or actual persuasion.
Ron fears – and what the left and the media beleive, is that they have so poisoned the well with Trump, that few will vote for him. They believe they have made Trump LOOK so bad that they are going to win no matter what. They are therefore intent on nominating the most left wing candidate they can.
The left is doubling down on the failed strategy of 2016.
Ron is deathly afraid that is going to work.
History shows that it will backfire BADLY.
Thank you.
I would stress again. The divisions in this country right now are pretty much entirely about politics. Pretty much completely about accomplishing by force what can not be accomplished by persuasion.
Everyday americans work together, shop together, buy things from each others, go to the grocery store together, church together, ball games together – without the vitriole.
We come together at holidays – and do not disown each other over football, or whose mash potatoes are better. Sometimes we clash over things – but rarely with the bitterness of politics, where fathers and sons, brothers and sisters can refuse to sit down and eat together.
The country is not divided. We do not agree over absolutely everything. But we do not need to agree. We can tolerate our differences and move one. Except in the domain of politics.
What distinguishes politics from everything is – is that politics is about government, about the use of force. And our disagreements – ALL OF THEM, are about attempting to use force to get what we could not through persuasion.
Despite my often bitter attacks on the left – I am a “lefty” – in the sense that I favor diversity. I think this country and people as individuals are better off with greater tolerance and greater diversity.
I part with the left over only two things – but those things are critical.
Facts, and the use of force.
I am not free to use force to compel you to live as I wish – even if I am right about how you should live. I have defended the right of Master Cake and myriads of others to do things that I find offensive. I will be happy to join people in protesting and picketting master cake.
But I absolutely totally completely oppose the use of force (government) to make Master Cake do what I beleive to be right.
If you judged demographics by my friends – the country is 70% homosexual. I have supported my friends right to marry who they please, to share equally in all the rights that the rest of us have. I have supported gay rights since the late 70’s – when I first understood what being gay was, and that no matter how much it personally disturbed me, that gay people felt the same love for their partners that I did.
But it has hurt me, torn me apart to watch people who are my friends, on acheiving there own freedom to live as they wished, to start actively trying to deprive others of the same rights. I fully agree that no god that I know would turn their back on others – gay or straight.
But we are NOT free to use force to compel others to do what we believe to be right.
And we should not be surprised when we try to do so and find our social fabric rent and our divisions large and bitter.
There is only one route to healing our divisions – those who seek to use force to do what they beleive to be good, must stop. It does not matter whether you are right. You may not impose your will by force.
At different times and on different issues, it is sometimes the left, and sometimes the right that seeks to get their way through force.
At this time, the primary advocates of force are on the left,
and that is where our problem is.
I frequently post here.
https://jonathanturley.org/
Prof. Turley is an old school liberal – a civil libertarian. I do not always agree with him, though I do alot. The comment section has plenty of nut jobs – on both sides, and plenty of vitriole.
I would not call it a moderate site. Though it is a site where those on the left and the right manage to coexist – often very immoderately.
Overall I found the nastiness of the comments – less than those here.
That does not mean that there was not lots of sniping.
A brief History of Election Meddling.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ball-of-collusion-book-excerpt-democrats-true-election-meddlers/
https://twitter.com/bolderthanu/status/1162070115409702913?s=20
Woodstock at 50
https://www.cato.org/blog/woodstock-50
Well Dave I have to say you were right on this one. Notice paragraph #3.
According to the left wing news, the sky is falling.
https://www.oann.com/poll-farmers-support-tariffs-on-china/
I am highly dubious of claims that americans are being hurt by Trump’s tarrifs.
Just to be clear – I am talking about facts, I am not talking about what is right.
I remain vigorously opposed to tariffs. Trade wars are very dangerous.
But all that said:
Trump’s rhetoric is tremdously anti-globalist (though we have to be careful about what “globalist” means), but the incredibly global nature of the economy means that China’s efforts to retaliate against us – and our targeting of China have little effect on americans.
If China buys Soy for Brazil instead of the US – whoever bought brazilian Soy before, needs Soy.
The effect of China’s retaliation against the US has been almost without impact.
Pull up the production figures for the crops the Chinese are not buying from the US – and there is barely a blip on the production curve.
The vast majority of what the US exports generally – and specifically to china is comodities.
The chinese can buy those goods elsewhere and we can sell ours elsewhere. Supply is NOT sufficiently elastic in Soy or produce. Musical chairs with no one pulling out a chair.
But the converse is not true. What the US does not buy from China – china is not going to sell. The rest of the global market does not have enough demand to make up for US purchases.
There were forces driving production from China BEFORE this spat.
As Chinese labor costs rise – as they have been for decades, either US automated production becomes attractive or less developed countries with cheaper labor become attractive. china was losing textiles before the trade war, and losing manufacturing to the US before the trade war. Absent the trade war that would have been a problem and would have required adjustments, but would not have been a huge problem for China.
This trade war has accelerated the exodus of production from China. Companies are moving production from China to other parts of Asia. China is facing severe problems with capital flight – that is negatively impacting investment. Despite the fact that americans view China as the lendor buying our debt – china has massive debt itself. We have poor information on that, but there are estimates that Chinese debt may exceed 300% of GDP. China has managed that enormous debt from the money provided by its trade surplus with the US that is dwindling and other factors are eating away rapidly at chinese surplus capital.
Hong Kong is happening concurrently with this. China is threatening force. And they may resort to force. But the price to pay will be enormous.
When Russia invaded Crimea 80B in foreign capital left Russia in a few weeks. The Russian economy has not recovered from that loss of investment. That capital flight preceded and was independent of sanctions.
The Asain financial crisis in the late 90’s that was devestating to much of south east asia, was amplified many many times because at the first signs of trouble hundreds of billions in investment left Asia in weeks. China is highly vulnerable to that.
I am hoping that Trump’s soft rhetoric regarding Hong Kong is because he knows he does not need to say a thing. Because Xi is not stupid and knows that while no one will retaliate militarily and there might even be no formal sanctions, that using force in Hong Kong will have massive negative economic consequences.
I hear lots of people talk of China as a rising economic power – and she is. But there is no nation on earth with the economic might of the US. Even if the GDP of China and the US were equal – the US is near invulnerable to capital flight (for now), China is not. No investor in the world is ever going to think of the US economy as having the same level of risk as anywhere else on the planet. China does not and will not have that economic stability for a long long time.
We are hearing talk that this conflict with China is likely to trigger a recession.
The probability of a serious economic impact on china is very high – at this point certain.
Further China’s devaluation of the Yuan will likely save chinese production – but it does so by directly subsidizing US consumers at the expense of the Chinese people.
It assures that more of the impact will fall on china.
It is probable that a recession in China will negatively impact the world – but it will not UNIFORMLY negatively impact the world.
I am not sure of the impact on the rest of asia – there are reasons that weakness in the chinese economy harm the rest of asia, but alot of the capital flight is to other asian countries, and alot of the production flight is to other asian countries.
I have no idea whether the net will be negative of positive for much of asia
The European economy has been weak for 50 years. Hiccups anywhere in the world cause problems in the EU.
A recession in China or Asia or the EU will negatively impact the US. But the scale of the impact in the US will be less than elsewhere.
We are already seeing stockmarket impacts – but the US stock market has been out of sync with the economy since the financial crisis. Stocks skyrocketed during the obama administration even with a weak economy. There are reasons for that, but they are not relevant here. The important point is that the conflict with china can have large impacts on the US stock market with much much smaller impacts on the economy.
The big losers will be IRA’s but not MOSTLY the base economy.
Most of the prediction models I have seen reported, have Trump winning in 2020 if the economy is above 2% growth. But 2% will not produce the landslide I keep predicting – just a Trump win.
To those who keep saying Trump is stupid.
Maybe Trump is incredibly lucky. Or maybe he actually knows what he is doing.
If the conflict between the US and china results in Trump losing in 2020 – I will take that as proof that Trump is as stupid as some people claim. If however the negative impacts on the US are small, I would strongly suggest that all of us consider the possiblity that Trump is as he likes to say “Smart than the generals (or the economy).
I would also offer that Trump has an Ace up his sleeve or atleast the possibility of one that has greatly improved in the past month with Johnson becoming UK PM.
A real UK-US free trade deal would be a huge win-win for both the UK and the US.
It would significantly mitigate any impact of the conflict with China on the US, AND significantly mitigate the impact of Brexit on the UK.
And a pure free trade deal with the UK is something Trump would have zero trouble selling to his base.
I would also note that Hong Kong is the 3rd most consequential financial center in the world.
After NYC and London. Absolutely no matter what HK is going to get kicked in the teeth.
If the Chinese use military force in HK – a large portion of the financial markets are going to leave en masse. Further China has other large Finacial markets – though not on the scale of HK – they are taking a large hit no matter what.
One last thing. Trump would have far greater difficultly with this conflict with China had he not boosted the US economy first. Just about every place above where I claim the US has an advantage – that advantage would be MUCH smaller at 2% growth than at 3%.
Trump can (barely) afford to risk a 1% hit to US growth.
Obama was absolutely never in a position to do so.
Sorry, a few other things.
There is already evidence that China is trying to meddle in the 2020 election in ways much larger and much less subtle than claimed regarding the Russian in 2020.
China’s strategy at the moment seems to be to try to make it to 2020 and hope Trump loses.
And they are doing more than HOPE, they are starting to actively pursue that.
The impact of China trying to take down Trump in the US election will be absolutely totally devastating to DEMOCRATS. After spending 2 years carping about Trump/Russia the democratic party can not survive even the perception that China is aiding them.
Not even aiding them against their wishes.
And there is nothing that the Democrats can do about it.
Even the democrats attacking China – benefits Trump.
If you want to question Trump’s character – I will listen.
But Trump is either the luckiest man to ever live or he is far smarter than we give him credit for.
And specifically to Ron and those ticked off by alot of what Trump says.
Absolutely he is capable of pissing off even his supporters.
But what is the NET effect ? Trump’s war with the left has driven democrats to the left.
Trump has wreaked havoc on Pelosi’s plans to make the Democrats look good
Trump has driven Pelosi into bed with the Squad – at the time she was trying to disempower them. Trump has made AOC the face of the entire democratic party.
I have no idea if Trump really asked Israel to block Ilbran and Presley.
While the stories are mostly hostile to Trump and Israel,
All bad press is not as bad as it seems.
The stories are essentially reading – even if these congressmen are anti-semites plotting to take down israel Netenyahu should have let them in.
It is not good for Democrats any time any member of the squad gets public attention.
There was a ban on assault weapons during the Clinton Administration. The government did not confiscate non-assault weapons. We have rules regarding who can drive a car, how fast we can drive, do we have insurance. That doesn’t mean the government is going to confiscate cars If you distrust the government how is having an assault allay that fear? Are you going to successfully fight a government that can drop a hydrogen bomb on a dissident region? The only function of assault weapons is to kill other citizens. they do not in any way form a defense against a tyrannical government.
There was an AWB during the Clinton administration.
It was entirely cosmetic. It did not effect the number of AR-15’s sold – in fact they went Up dramatically.
Some of the most Famous US mass shootings happened during the AWB – like Columbine.
There were no AR-15’s no “assualt rifles” at columbine.
Very interesting. Semi automatic handguns with max 10 round clips and a shot gun. And these clips don’t qualify for most of the democrats bans. In reading about that, had the actually read how to make a bomb and have it go off, many more would have died from the bombs in the cafeteria that failed to ignite and the bombs in the cars that failed to explode were many gathered.
In terms of the issues we face – mass shootings are essentially noise.
Each year the police shoot more unarmed people than are killed by mass shooters.
The largest portion of those are black.
To build on Rick’s “Fact” theme – 100% of all unarmed people shot by police are …. wait for it, shot by police and unarmed. There is a perfect correlation. And about 80% of them are black.
I do not want to start a BLM thing going – because police shootings have been on a slow decline for a long time. and even though lots of unarmed blacks are shot by police – they are often shot by black or minority cops. There is no evidence of systemic racism.
But it is trivial to tell a part of the story and make it seem like there is.
100% of all mass shootings involve guns – duh.
100% of automobile fatalities involve cars.
If you want people to believe something,make it a sound bite, say it often, use some fact that is true or not true but makes it sound real and say it for a long period of time. After a period of time, people begin to believe it and will act on it. This DC gun chart shows the opposite of what gun control should show and what proponents say.
Just like now, the democrats are saying we are going into a recession, they are saying it often, they are using one economic fact (inverted interest rates) and they will be saying it for a long period of time. People will begin believing it is happening, They will cut back on purchases and that will make the democrat lie a reality so the economy is weak in Nov 2020.
I watched a TED Talk recently that started out excellent before going off the rails.
It started by stating that complex systems – like economics and weather, and particle physics are nearly always governed by very simple rules.
The problem is that even if you have a simple rule that predicts near perfectly the behavior of a single interaction, when you scale the system to billions, and even trillions of concurrent and continuous interactions, the system is no longer predictable – even if you know all the rules.
The fundamental rules of economics are relatively simple. The rules of economics are at their core just rules of human behavior. But human behavior in economic exchanges – despite variation is highly predictable – and that is the LAWS of economics – and they are immutable. We just plain can not “nudge” people to behave outside of those LAWS.
In fact we have found that PREDICTABLY, humans will react to NUDGES to push the entire system back to as close as possible to what would have been without the nudge.
And that is why the 2nd order effects of all government actions are usually larger than the first order effects. Because people push back and try to restore what was before.
They do not typically succeed – atleast not completely, and as a result the NET is almost always WORSE. Most laws would work, if humans just did what the law sought to push them into doing. But they do not. Not with environmental laws, gun laws, minimum wage laws, ….
Back to economics (and everything).
For any proposition, for any projection, for any hypothesis, there is ALWAYS some statistic or other evidence to support it. The world is just so incredibly complex that there is evidence in that complexity to find a correlation atleast in something to whatever outcome you want.
Further you can expand that evidence exponentially – if you are willing to muddy the meaning of words. Rick was absolutely correct – semi-automatic weapons were uses in 23 or 24 mass shootings. Almost every single handgun is a “semi-automatic”.
But Only about 1/2 of all mass shootings involve semi-automatic rifles, and only about 1/4 of all mass shooting deaths are from semi-automatic rifles.
But even those statistics are highly unstable – atleast in the short run.
The Las Vegas Shooter used exclusively semi-autmatic rifles and killed 58 people.
In one instant he doubled the number of deaths from semi-automatic rifles.
But over time things will regress back to norms.
Regardless statistics on extremely rare events like mass shootings are almost useless.
A single event can totally warp the data.
What it can not do, is change the fact that these are extremely rare events.
Back to the economy again. There are alot of good reasons to be concerned right now.
As much as I would like to blame the nay sayers for essentially self fullfilling prophecy.
As I noted earlier – nudges do not work – including scaring people into recession.
I want to be careful even about guessing.
What is going on with China is a BIG deal.
There is good reason to SUSPECT china is in serious economic trouble.
But China is such a black box to us, it is hard to be certain.
But if our best guesses are right – there are serious problems.
China is heading for recession.
BTW a recession in china would be very low growth rather than negative growth.
But the chinese economy MUST have higher growth or there will be serious political unrest.
Not mentioned in the HK mess is that HK has had weakened economic growth recently.
People in HK are angry with the chinese – not merely over rights, but also over a weaker economy.
Problems in China will effect the rest of the world – even the US.
But the scale of the problem outside of china, and more importantly to us, the impact on the US is harder to assess.
In the bubble of pure US china relations – China could have a severe recession and have minor negative impact on the US. China SELLS us things, they BUY little from us.
That is the problem you are upset about. But that means reductions in their buying have little effect on the US. And there is no chance they are going to sell us less.
I very much do not like the brinksmanship Trump is engaged in (most everywhere)
But my prediction is that he wins – pretty much all of it, and pretty much all the time.
China is currently trying to last through 2020 and hope for a democrat president.
I do not think they can make it.
I am absolutely certain we are looking at events in HK like those in Poland with Solidarity.
The only question is how long can Xi and China hang on.
I do not know that.
With respect to the US – my guess is that Trump is NOT going to have 3% growth through 2020. But anything about 2% probably gets him re-elected. And I do not think we will see sub 2% growth.
I would further note recessions are incredibly hard.
They are always trivial to explain after the fact, but impossible before hand.
There are a few places I have concerns – our balloning student debt. and the fact that we have not fixed any of the porblems that caused the “great recession”. All the truly evil things in the fincial sector regulation are still present – if anything worse,
BUT at this moment they do not appear to be causing misplaced exhuberance. or willful blindness regarding risk – and those are the precondictions for recession.
Savannah, it is great to see someone here with a new set of views that can be debated I sure hope you stick around. And should I or anyone else here use pronouns like “you”, do not take it to mean “you personally” but “you” as a collective of others with differing views. There are way to many sites where one makes a comment and they get creamed by the opposing side and “you” means “you personally’ I avoid those sites!
Yes there was a ban on assault weapons during the Clinton administration. And that was legislation that was an outgrowth of Bush 41’s executive order that banned these weapons from being imported from foreign countries. But why our illustrious government put a sunset provision into that legislation and let it sunset in 2004 is beyond my comprehension. We would be much better off had it stayed as the views then were not as radical on each end of the political spectrum as now..
But I do not believe one can compare driving a car to owning a gun. There is no amendment that guarantees one can drive a car unlike gun ownership. The arguement goes to the words “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The courts have to decide what “infringement” would be and if banning assault weapons would fall until that wording.
I agree that there is really no useful purpose for anyone to use an assault weapon for protection. I see no purpose for hunting. I have a shot gun and will use it if someone breaks into my home. One shot will blow them away. No need for 50. And I only need to point it in the general direction of the intruder, not aim it to hit what I want to hit. My son carries bank deposits to the night drop from his restaurant and carries a handgun (with a carry permit) It holds enough bullets to protect him.
But the issue comes back to what I referenced before the FBI began raiding NRA members homes with sketchy evidence in the 70’s. The declining trust in government and the increasing use of force that the government uses to achieve it objective. I call it creeping government where they get one little thing they want and then they take just a little more.That seemed to occur in the 90’s with Washington D.C. banning handguns and requiring others to be store unloaded and securely locked. That case defined “creeping” government and fed the fears that all guns would be banned. SCOTUS ruled in Heller v D.C that the legislation was not legal and went against the 2nd amendment.
That is what many (maybe not me completely) but most of the people opposing the assault weapon ban believe will happen again if the assault weapons are banned. First the assault weapon, then anything automatic, then 12 bullets, 6 bullets until they ban guns completely. And if SCOTUS becomes liberal, that most likely could happen.
It is not that having an assault weapon is going to allay a fear that a tyrannical government will take over, it is the fear that we will end up like the UK and other countries where all weapons are banned for the most part.
Last, in the first part of the 2nd amendment it states ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” the founding fathers defined militia meaning the “citizens” (that were the militia at the time) were guaranteed to keep arms to protect a free state. That also is viewed very differently between liberals and conservatives.
I will be happy to compare guns to cars. Gun owners kill fewer people.
The history of the 2nd amendment is actually equivocal.
There is zero doubt that northern and western state absolutley intended an individual uninfringable right to bear arms.
Southern states had different traditions and different fears. Southern plantation owners were outnumbered by blacks something like 7:1 And southern plantation owners did not have a really great relationship with other southerners – most of who lived in worse conditions than slaves. Regardless the southern states explicitly intended guns to be kept in secure armories.
The muddy language of the 2nd amendment reflects this. As with many laws even today – it was written so that each side could claim it meant what they wanted it to mean.
The recent SCOTUS decisions strengthening gun rights DO NOT rest on the 2nd amendment. They rest on the 14th. While the founders were not clear. The authors of the 14th amendment were crystal clear. The “priviledges and immunities clause” of the 14th amendment was explicitly intended to guarantee to newly freed slaves not merely all the rights, but essentially completely equal treatment by the law for negros. Openly disscussed and explicitly intended was the individual right of negros to own firearms.
There is lots of other history to the “priviledges and immunities” clause – it was explicitly intended as a slap in the face of the supreme court of the time. It was intended to strengthen the 9th and 10th amendments and to make clear that the priviledges and immunities clause in the constitution (not the 14th amendment) was to be given TEETH.
The authors did not use the term ‘rights” deliberately – priviledges and immunites was intended to remove from the domain of government things that were not generally recognized as “rights”
Whenever we are discussing “limited government” we should not constrain ourselves to the constitution and bill of rights. The reconstruction amendments were explicitly intended to fix the fact that both state and federal power had grown – with the blessing of the supreme court and the reconstruction amendments were intended to reshackle government.
As a matter of grammar the “millitia clause” of the 2nd amendment has no meaning. It is an explanation or justification, it is not a constraint. There is no gramatically valid way to read it as limiting the operative clause.
Dave, Militia may not have meaning as written, but do you REALLY believe Roberts won’t find some way to make it have meaning so the court does not “appear political”. Bush 43 was bad president and this appointment was one of his worst.
Ron.
Roberts is the proof of my attacks on “moderates”.
When you try to find the answer in the middle, split the baby, placate everyone,
When you operate on the principle that if everyone is equally upset with the result you have it right – that would be Roberts. That is “moderate” – atleast as is often defined here.
I am less hard on OConner as she “repented” after leaving SCOTUS.
She ultimately decided that her decisions on Religious freedom were wrong – that it trumped our drug laws, that Kelo was decided wrong. …..
When we get a BAD scotus decision – it is EASIER to fix than these messy “compromises”.
Roberts seems to actually understand the constitution and rights. His decisions on issues that he does not percieve as threats to the court itself are often quite good.
But he does nto understand that principles matter MOST in the hard cases.
And that is also what is wrong with the arguments that get made about “moderate” here.
In any given issue – for those that have an answer – and many like mass shootings DO NOT have an answer, the right answer is no more likely the moderate one than the left or right one. More simply often the EXTREME is the RIGHT answer. It is wrong – sometimes even immoral to sacrifice right for moderate. It is often even better to lose, to get the WRONG answer than to compromise.
Just to be clear I am NOT positing a universal rule. I am attacking an existing “moderate” universal rule that is WRONG. Sometimes the MODERATE answer is right. But not ALWAYS. not even most of the time.
“We have rules regarding cars”
Yes, we also have rules that similar apply to guns that no one opposes – like you can not murder people.
We do not have rules that say you have to get special permission from government to buy a car.
We do not have rules that say you can not buy a motorcycle or you can not buy a sports car.
The 2nd and 14th amendments are not generally considered to apply to cars.
There is actually no state in the US that requires that you have insurance to drive a car.
Every state has the option to post a bond.
Do I distrust government – absolutely!
Does having a gun allay that fear – no, it provides more options should government infringe on our rights too much.
We have been through this before – read the declaration of independence.
“whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing rather than infringing on our rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” By force if necescary.
The history of the world tells us that no government serves its people well forever.
That all government trends toward abuse ultimately.
At best some forms move to tyranny more slowly.
Regardless the question is not whether guns “allay” that fear. It is whether they are an impediment first, and a remedy second to the natural tendency of government toward tyranny. They are.
The purpose of an armed populace is not PRIMARILY direct conflict with the US military.
It is as a threat to politicians.
I am not especially concerned about the US military – do you really beleive that if Trump or Sanders ordered the US Airforce to drop an atomic bomb on Alabama they would do so ?
Do you really beleive that if some US president ordered Tanks to be used against the people of detroit – that the Army would do so ?
If government became so tyranical that the people felt compelled to confront it with arms,
I suspect few in the military would follow orders to oppose.
Even in East Germany in 1989 – the military refused Honnekers orders to fight the people – and the Berlin Wall collapsed and shortly after the USSR fell.
That would have occured faster had eastern europeans been as well armed as americans are.
Or more accurately a situation like the USSR never would have come about.
Regardless if you argue that the government is likely to drop H-Bombs on people or send in tanks – you have already lost the argument, you have demonstrated that even you beleive that government is dangerous. The good news is I do not beleive governemtn is nearly as dangerous as you. I beleive the danger is sufficiently small that before we get to the point were AR-15’s are insufficient the problem will be resolved.
In fact I beleive that the existance of an armed population is the reason we will never get to the point were we need to take arms against the government.
Actual assault weapons are illegal already.
Every gun in the US EXCEPT bolt action rifles, and arguably pump action shotguns is a “semi-automatic weapon”
Every single one of those – something like 350Million, will fire one bullet for each pull of the trigger, for atleast 5 shots before reloading.
The difference between a Glock and an AR-15 is that:
The barrel of an AR-15 is much longer and therefore the velocity of SOME AR-15 rounds is significantly higher – therefore they can travel farther and more accurately.
Pretty much all mass shooters have handguns – usually several. They are far more effective in “killing civilians”. SOME Mass killers also have semi-automatic rifles.
The have those because – AR-15’s look scary – they are intimidating.
In most Mass Shootings – they are LESS effective than handguns.
They do not fire any faster, they are much slower to shift, they are more effective at killing large numbers of people at close range. It is harder to deflect a handgun that an rifle.
If you get close enough to a mass shooter to reach the tip of the barrel – the gun is useless,
If you are right in the face of a mass shooter with a handgun – you are still dead.
You must take a handgun away from a massshooter. All you have to do is get near enough an AR-15 to deflect it.
The one useful feature of a semi-automatic rifle to a mass killer is that there is no body armour that is protection against a rifle.
Therefore a rifle will cause the police to proceed slower.
The most important thing in a mass shooting is the amount of time the shooter has.
We were very lucky at California, Dayton and El passo in that the shooters targeted places with security and in dayton police already present.
Most mass shooters seek out places where the police are distance and there is no security.
If none of their targets have guns – hence the reason they like to target gun free zones,
they have 3-10 minutes before police arrive. The number of people who are killed is directly proportionate to the time it takes for someone with a gun to arrive.
The moment there is ANYONE with a gun at a mass shooting – the shooter has to focus on defense. They have to seek cover and move slowly – basically the killing stops.
“The only function of assault weapons is to kill other citizens. they do not in any way form a defense against a tyrannical government.”
Oppinion misstated as fact.
Have you ever heard of Ruby Ridge ?
FBI officers without a warrant murdered Randy Weaver’s son, his infant child, his dog, a friend and his wife.
After murdering the dog and his son, Weaver and the rest of his family held off the FBI for 11 days.
I think when the government murders your dog and son without a warrant – that is tyranny.
Even if you think there is some justification – I think Weaver was justified in beleiving it was Tryanny. And after the fact the courts decided that Weavers actions were justified too.
Or have you heard of Wacco ?
Five Armed ATF agents tried to break into the home of a religious community and murdered several of the congregations. They were forced to retreat by the davidians weapons.
That seige lasted 51 days – before the government murdered all the branch davidians – including their children.
Wacco and Ruby Ridge were Timothy McVeigh’s justification for the OKC bombing.
I am not sympathetic to McVeigh – meaning the misconduct at Wacco and Ruby Ridge as bad as it was, was not a justification for OKC.
It did however demonstrate that it is possible to inflict serious harm to a tyranical government.
The Bundy;s held off the government for weeks in Oregon in protest over BLM illegally confiscating their land.
In a separate incident in Nevada other members of the Bundy familiy ultimately peacebly ended an armed standoff with BLM and FBI.
Once again after the courts examined things – the media narrative failed. The FBI had provoked the armed conflict and the Bundy’s remained passive – It was found that the FBI had setup snipers ahead of time targetting the bundy’s
There were several trials and all ultimately ended up with charges dismissed.
And the court excoriating law enforcement.
Our government often acts tyrannically. BLM and FBI have learned that most families in the west are armed and that you need to deal with them respectfully.
The Bundy’s, Weaver, the Davidian’s are all odd balls. They are religious nutcases.
But none of them were actually dangeorus – until confronted by armed government agents acting OUTSIDE the law.
I would suggest reading Radley Balko’s book “The Rise of the Warrior cop”.
In 1960 law enforcement in the US had revolvers and a few pistols.
Today there are 3500 Swat teams throughout the US. These teams have body armour, flash bang grenades, and M16’s – that is an ACTUAL “Assault Rifle” – and quite a bit more dangerous than an AR-15, many of them have Armoured personel carriers.
We just had an incident were a drug dealer got into a gun fight with police who were trying to arrest him.
That is unbeleiveably rare. To the extent criminals have weapons it is to use against other criminals or against their victims. Criminals almost never use a weapon against a police officer. A drug dealer who looks funny at a gun is dead if the police come to arrest him.
The mere presence of a gun adds atleast 5 years to their sentences.
The fact is that police very rarely encounter a criminal prepared to shoot it out with the police.
There is virtually no need for swat teams. Yet they are legion throughout government.
Even the Department of Education has a swat team. Can you explain to me why anyone in the Federal government outside of the FBI has a swat team ?
Why do we want the Department of Education – or HHS having a swat team ?
So you do not think your govenrment is dangeorus ?
Savannah – do not take me at my word.
I would strongly encourage you to get past tropes that you have heard.
If this is an issue that you really care about – then learn about it.
Do not take as gospel what I say. At the same time use the same skepticism for those whose views you seem to have adopted uncritically.
It is nearly impossible to find “unbiased” sources of information – on pretty much any topic.
And even if you do, whatever conclusions those sources come to the side whose ox gets gored is going to claim they are biased.
If you want to learn truth – start with skepticism of your own position – no matter what it is.
That is hard to do, but it is very difficult to get past confirmation bias. Whatever position you hold you need LOTS of exposure to that of people who do not share your views.
Preferably to the BEST exponents of the position you disagree with.
When you have heard what the best of those you disagree with argue. When you have checked their claims and facts, if you still hold to your views – either you have found the truth, or you are beyond hope.
Over the course of my life, I have become a strong believer in gun rights. I also believe that there are reasonable limits that can and should be placed on those rights, and that most of those limits are already codified into law. The fact that these laws are not enforced doesn’t make the right to own a gun any less important.
What arguments have been convincing to me?
1) Every American should have the right to defend him/herself and his/her property. It has always disgusted me when elites who have armed bodyguards, tell the rest of us that we should take our chances against those who would do us harm, because guns are “too dangerous.” They are not dangerous to responsible, law-abiding, non-suicidal adults. Virtually all mass shootings could be stopped by armed citizens at the scene. Most mass shootings take place in “gun-free” zones. Women, in particular should be armed, particularly women who live in high crime areas, where they and their children are vulnerable to violent crime.
Another person’s irresponsibility should not remove my inalienable right to self-defense. It that person chooses to shoot himself or someone else, my rights should not be abridged.
2) Socialist governments always disarm their citizens, before they rob, imprison, or massacre them. (See Germany, Venezuela. Also, note that protestors in Hong Kong are waving American flags and demanding a 2nd Amendment-style right of their own) Will a semi-automatic handgun or rifle defend against a full-on attack of armored vehicles, nuclear bombs, etc. Of course not. But, had Jews in Germany been armed, putting them in death camps would have been far more difficult, and would have gotten the attention of the rest of the world , perhaps before it was too late. Not too many years ago, I would have scoffed at the idea that any political party or government in the US would attempt to violently oppress or control law-abiding American citizens of a different political persuasion.. Today, I’m not so sure. In fact, I believe that it is eminently possible.
3) Semi-automatic weapons are not “assault weapons” unless they are used as such. Machine guns are illegal, and have been for decades. Large capacity magazines are standard equipment these days, and there is no correlation between crime and the size of a magazine.
Enforce the gun laws on the books. Reform our mental health care system. Reform our educational system. Don’t disarm good citizens.
“I would have scoffed at the idea that any political party or government in the US would attempt to violently oppress or control law-abiding American citizens of a different political persuasion.. Today, I’m not so sure. In fact, I believe that it is eminently possible.”
Careful Priscilla, I have been called “paranoid” and “somewhat nuts” when I mention distrust in government.
Maybe we could meet when they lock both of us up in the mental ward (-_-).
Yes…let’s hope that we don’t get put in the organ donor’s wing!
“Despite the absence of an organized system of organ donation or allocation, wait times for obtaining vital organs in China are among the shortest in the world—often just weeks for organs such as kidneys, livers, and hearts. This has made it a destination for international transplant tourism and a major venue for tests of pharmaceutical anti-rejection drugs. The commercial trade in human organs has also been a lucrative source of revenue for the Chinese medical, military and public security establishments. Because there is no effective nationwide organ donation or allocation system, hospitals source organs from local brokers, including through their connections to courts, detention centers and prisons.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China
The problems with the chinese justice system is completely independent.
Outside of we know that getting government OUT of organ donations works better than any other approach.
Much of China’s approach is free market.
BUT the use of organs from prisoners is clearly GOVERNMENT meddling in the free market.
I can’t agree with you on this, Dave. China is not free market, it’s a centrally controlled and subsidized economy, which has taken advantage of and perverted free market principles in order to become a global economic power. The Chinese government is brutal and authoritarian, and the fact that they slaughter political dissidents in order to sell their organs is the epitome of evil. It is as bad as anything that the Nazis did.
I have held different positions on Guns at different times in my life.
Even today – though I would still expect that you would change the constitution first, I am open to discuss gun laws THAT ACTUALLY WORK.
But I have zero interest – whether the issue is guns or healthcare or environmental protection in feel good laws that do not deliver on any promise and have a NET negative impact.
I went after Rick for reacting emotionally. He responded with an inaccurate fact.
But Even if his “fact” was correct – it was still a fact standing alone in the air. That fact did not provide a basis one way or the other for effective action.
100% of all mass shootings – involve people. We could eliminate all mass shootings by eliminating people.
It is absolutely true that if it was actually possible to eliminate every single “semi-automatic” weapon on the planet – there would be no more mass killings with semi-automatic weapons.
But that tells us absolutely nothing about the impact on mass killings as a whole.
Further getting rid of every single semi-automatic weapon on the planet is a ludicrously impossible hypothetical. In the US over 40 years 50 rifles have been used in mass shootings – many of which were not “semi-automatic”. There are between 5 and 10 million AR-15’s in the US today and probably double that in semi-automatic rifles. You are as likely to git rid of all of them as you are to get rid of all the knives in the country.
It is not happening, and anything short of a massive effort that involves confiscation of hundreds of millions of weapons from hundreds of millions of people will have no effect.
The very last people you will successfully deprive of guns are criminals.
In the US efforts to confiscate weapons – will be met by force. It is likely that most of us will gripe and comply – but if only a few thousand people are willing to resist the confiscation of their weapons by force – the number of dead from mass killings will look paltry. If you start sending SWAT teams to confiscate guns – there are going to be thousands of dead police officers and tens of thousands of dead otherwise law abiding citizens.
New Zealand just implimented Austrailia style gun control and confiscation.
They have about a 30% non-compliance rate. And New Zealand just did not have a fraction of the gun ownership the US has.
Further the only difference between this debate over guns and the debate over myriads of other similar laws – is that we have a large vocal contingent of the population resisting gun control.
I recently tripped over a massive amount of data on Automobile child safety.
Infant car seats appear to be more effective than alternatives. But the statistical data on Car Safety seats for children 2 and over is that there is no statistically significant difference between the use of car seats and not. Children over 2 on the whole are as safe without a car seat in accidents as they are with them. The information comes from real world data collected from actual accident reports. But very preliminary studies have been done with crash test dummies that is consistent with the real world – though I thought the purpose of testing was to model the real world – not the other way arround.
Regardless there are some subtle differences – Car Seats are BARELY statistically significantly safer in front end collisions where the child is in the front passenger seat.
But they fare signifcantly worse in side impacts.
What is the chance we are going to see car seat laws for kids over two go away ?
Zero.
We have the same thing with things like our FDA. I have heard people HERE argue that without the FDA or food and our drugs would not be safe – that people would die.
Well guess what – people ARE dying. The cost to get a drug through the FDA approval process is heading towards $2B. That means that any drug that can not produce $2B in profits in about 7 years will not get developed. PERIOD. If you have some illness of disease that will not produce $2B in profits – no one is even going to try to help you. You are doomed to suffer – and possibly die.
We have passed orphan drug laws and expedited processes that are supposed to address this – they do not work. The FDA will not expedite the approval process NO MATTER WHAT, no FDA bureaucrat is going to sign off on a drug that has not had massive testing – because they will get blamed for any deaths. It is ok to preserve the status quo – because we do not count people who would have lived if drugs were allowed to be developed, Nor will drug companies work on orphan drugs – even with orphan drug laws – they know the FDA is not going to cut them slack and they know they too will be held accountable.
Nor is this confined to drugs – virtually all medical treatment that is under the FDA proceeds abysmally slowly.
I am really really tired of “feel good laws” that make PREDICTABLY make things worse not better. Not just gun laws – but ALL laws.
I want to address “assault weapons” or more accurately the deliberate destruction of language – 1984 NewSpeak. As Orwell noted – if you control language you control people.
The deliberately misrepresentative use of words is not confined to guns.
By the actual definition of the word I am a “liberal” – not a conservative, not a “libertarian” – which is just a newish term because the left has mangled the meaning of the term liberal.
I am a person for whom individual liberty is a foundation principle – that is a liberal.
We are tossing about the term “racist” all over the place.
If you are not for open borders – you are a racist. If that is the case – racism has been thoroughly watered down. If you are not for open borders you are not even clearly xenophobic.
If you oppose immigration from shithole countries you are a racist.
How is it that white people favoring indian and chinese immigrants over central and south american immigrants is racist ?
If you are not sure you want your daughter in a womens bathroom or shower with a preoperative MTF trans person – you are transphobic.
If you think that womens sports should not be for people who have been marinated in testosterone for 15 years of their life – you are intolerate.
Apparently a normal female has 35% of the upper body strength and 51% of the lower body strength of a normal male. Almost any MTF Trans person is going to be highly competitive with the best in womens sports – women who have trained all their lives.
Women’s equality may come about very shortly – lead entirely by MTF trans people.
If that is your idea of equality – MTF Trans people as the leading women in sports and business.
We have this massive effort to equate speech that we do not like with violence. No one has ever died or been hospitalized by a sharp word. The original “safe space” was a panic room in your home – where people with weapons could not get in to harm you – not a place where you did not have to hear unpleasant words.
Maybe you can protect yourself from words and ideas that you do not like – but doing so does actual harm to you as a person. You are WORSE off not better off if you retreat to safe spaces and refuse to confront unpleasant ideas. The real world is not especially pleasant.
You do not have the right to be protected from the world – even just from nature – from rain and snow and huricanes, earthquakes and tornados. Life in nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short as Hobbes noted. You have no right to more. everything beyond that requires human effort – must be earned. The good news is that in thousands of years humans have gotten extremely good at making the quality of our lifes many orders of magnitude better – but that requires effort. Retreating to your “safe space” – ultimately means returning to short, nasty and brutish.
The point is that getting words right matters. And wherever it is clear that words are being used innacurately – particularly when we are talking about law – and the use of force by government. That is a serious problem. It is near certain that the innaccuracy is NOT a simple lack of precision, but a deliberate effort to hide the actual nature of the issue being debated. Weapons are described as “assault weapons” specifically to conjure in our minds the notion that those who buy those weapons do so with the intention of going out to commit mayhem. We constantly hear – correctly, that no one needs and “assault weapon”.
Of course we do not. The 10M people who own AR-15’s are not out “assaulting people”.
They did not buy AR-15’s to “assault” anyone or anything. The term and the language are deliberately in error. Other more accurate phrases for such weapons would be “area defense weapon” – but that denotation does not lend itself to the images that justify infringing on rights.
We are fixated on “mass shootings” – these are the real world examples of guns being used for the person of “assault” – but given that in 40 years – 50 rifles have been used for “assaults” – out of 10million that pretty much should give the lie to the perception that the purpose of buying these weapons is “assault”. I have zero doubt that in the past year – much less 40 years – more than 50 cars have been used to “assault” people.
But we do not call cars “assault cars”.
Language matters – especially when you are using it to justify the use of FORCE.
If getting it right undermines your arguments – the problem is with your arguments.
I want to challenge your charge to “enforce the laws on the books”.
While I do not want to add new laws. One of the issues is that we ARE pretty much doing the best we can.
Some on the gun community WANT Red Flag laws. Or more ability to constrain people with mental health issues.
I DO NOT. The way to protect one right is NOT to infringe on others.
There is a much stronger causal relationship between mental health issues and violence than that with weapons. But even there the relationship is correlation not cause.
schitzophrenics – the most irrationally violent of mental health suffers are on the whole only TWICE as likely to commit acts of violence as normal people.
While they are radically disproportionately represented in irrational crimes of violence.
I would absolutely oppose relaxing our contitutional protections for people with mental health problems because they are double the risk of ordinary people for crimes of violence.
In a different context – across the globe, rates of violence are rigidly tied to ethnicity.
You can come very close to accurately establishing the rate of violent crime in most any country by knowing the racial mix of the country and the historic rates of violence for each ethnicity. With blacks having the highest rates of violence – about 8 times that of asians who have the least.
So should we reduce the rights of blacks because they are twice as likely to be involved in violent crimes as whites ? The rate of violence for blacks is about the same as the rate of violence for schizophrencis.
Should we have be able to go to court and say – he is black, blacks are demonstrably twice as violent – lets deprive him of his rights ?
Correlation is not enough to infringe on peoples rights.
Even actual causation is not enough. I think there is little doubt that there is MORE than a correlation between mental health issues and violence. Schizophrenia CAUSES violence.
But despite near absolute certainty on that, it still does not cause violence 100% of the time. It does not cause violence sufficiently much of the time to justify infringing on the rights of those unfortunate enough to have schitzophrenia.
Even where we have proof of causation – if the frequency with which that manifests itself is sufficiently low – we STILL have no justification to infringe on rights.
We have spent centuries addressing mental health.
We still do not know what the hell we are doing.
We have instutionalize masses of people – that went really really badly.
We deinstitutionalized them – and now the mass of permanent homeless in the US are the same people who would have populated our asylums in the past. Further we have turned mental health into a criminal problem – and our prisons are filled with people with serious mental health problems.
Put simply we have a problem that DOES NOT HAVE AN ANSWER.
If we made mental health checks manditory and institutionalize every single schizophrenic – assuming we could accurately identify every one. we would cut mass shootings down to almost nothing.
Are you prepared to do that ? I am not. I will tolerate the small increase in risk to avoid infringing on the rights of a million or so schizophrenics in the US.
I said that Rick was acting out of emotion. Many many many problems DO NOT HAVE ANSWERS. We do not like that. You can not pass a law to solve a problem that does not have an answer. Maybe sometime in the future we will find an answer to that problem.
But today we do not have one.
It is not only acceptable, but the only moral choice for a problem that does not have an answer is not to act blindly to just “do something” to “FEEL” like we have acted.
Rick,
You asked for democratic presidential candidates on Guns.
Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.
From his masterpeice – Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas
13th century libertarianism.
Off the subject of gun control, weapons, killing, etc.
As has been stated numerious times here, every action has a reaction, many negative. Yesterday they held a farmers market in east Winston Salem, the minority district of town. There were interviews of organizers and customers. Many comments of thanks, need and “food deserts”. One organizer, older lady said years ago minorities lived ” on the wrong side of tracks, in shanty towns, but also houses on small lots”. She went on to say that even though the houses were run down, many with outhouses, the residents also used much of the property to grow vegetables. Some had communities where one person grew tomatoes, one corn, okra, etc, and then everyone shared, canned and preserved crops for winter consumption. Then public housing came, took much of the old homes, people moved into better conditions, but had no way to grow anything. Diets suffered and over the years much public housing today is not much better than the shanty homes due to public housing getting run down by residents who care less because they dont own the house. And with the decline in conditions, grocery stores moved out leaving “food deserts”.
And she went on about more farmers markets funded by different organizations to provide low cost veggies, but it still does not solve the issue of food deficiencies caused by living conditions and lack of access.
Basically her words, not mine and before responding, yes the lady was black, not a white middle class white “do gooder” sticking her nose in.
That is a very interesting story, Ron. The idea of “public housing” has always been a flawed one. It basically assumes that people want to live in sub-par neighborhoods, ripe for all kinds of crime, and receive their livelihood from the government, rather than be given the opportunity to rise from poverty.
Billions of dollars get spent on urban housing projects that isolate poor people from those who can afford decent housing, and more billions are spent on the horrible schools to which they are forced to send their kids. Most of the money spent on “education” goes to providing child care and meals for students, and very little~ if any~ on providing adequate teaching of skills and information that students need to get good jobs.
When Trump said that Elijah Cummings district was rat infested, and that Cummings did nothing to help, Trump was slammed by the media. But people in Cummings’ Baltimore district said that Trump was right, and that they felt trapped in poverty.
Encouraging the poor to form communities like the one that this woman talked about, where people work together and support each other is something that many politicians don’t want. They want dependence.
Yes, taking away independence in the name of government support results in dependence. Dependence = vote
Baltimore:
But, once again, Trump might be right about Baltimore, a few in Baltimore might agree with him, but the assinine way he said what he said turns many voters off. Im almost at the point that I would vote for Sanders just to get this nut case out of the White House. I cant watch any news, even local, without hearing some crap Trump has said or tweeted. that day.
How is Trump’s “way” of talking of Baltimore – assinine – given that Cummings himself described Baltimore residents – not merely the city itself as infested with drug addicted zombies.
Trump’s remarks might be assinine. But then so are those of just about ever politician ever born.
I do not like the members of “the squad”. I support Israel’s handling of two of them recently.
Some of the remarks that they have made ARE Anti-semtic (or more actually anti-jewish, since most arabs are semites)
But all of them are not.
I think the cartoon recently tweeted by Ilbran was not funny.
I am pretty sure that both she and the cartoonist are bigots.
But the cartoon itself was just bad, not “anti-semetic”.
I think MOST (not all attacks on Israel) are WRONG.
But all are not inherently bigoted.
You can disagree on policy without automatically being a bigot.
What applies to Israel also applies to immigration.
It is beyond dispute that Trump is anti-illegal immigration.
That does not make him racist.
I do not like Trump’s rhetorical style – but that is all it is, just style.
If the news angers you – do not watch the news.
Trump is drawing huge crowds to his rallies.
They may not be “presidential” but they are not hatefilled.
Trump’s supporters are having fun.
On Twitter there is a group called “the deplorable choir”.
There are a bit stereo type – I am not sure that is not deliberate – young anorectic southern blondes. Regardless, there clips are “funny”.
I have said many times that Trump is “backlash” against the left – and he is.
But mostly it is not “violent rhetoric”
Mostly he and his suporters “make fun” of the left.
Often by carcituring themselves.
I am not a fan of “the proud boys” – but if they are the pinnacle of white supremacy, white supremacy is pretty tame.
The PB went to portland, walked arround a circle and went home, and the left went nuts.
Alot of “trump supporters” are having fun, the left is not having any fun.
This is also why Trump is likely to be re-elected.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/18/why-thousands-of-americans-come-together-to-hear-trump-speak/
Dave, I have said multiple times in multiple ways why I think Trump is an asshole and youvhave failed to understand, even if you disagree. One has to understand before disagreeing.
There are ways individuals can say something based on the positions they hold. What Cummings says can be in one manner and it is acceptible based on who he is talking to. He is only talking to a small group of individuals in a small area of the country. Trump is president. He is the president of 100% of America. He is president of liberals, conservatives, libertarians, etc. even if they accept it or not.
There are few people in leadership in government I would refuse to let them in my home.. Hillary Clinton is one, Trump is another. I find him an obnoxious asshole that uses division to achieve his goals. It wont take many like me to shift the election to the “D”. Unlike you, I fully expect all three arms of government to be in democrat hands.
I agree that Trump is an asshole.
I would prefer a president who was not.
But I would choose an asshole over a crook.
I would choose and asshole over an idiot.
I would choose and asshole over a racist, a mysoginist.
We should expect our president not to be an asshole.
But an asshole remains the lessor evil over a number of other factors.
Further Trump was elected in part BECAUSE he is an asshole.
Because Trump’s supporters think he is THEIR Asshole – he is the asshole who bitchslaps the people who have been bullying them.
That is not the only factor – but it is a major factor.
And it is a part of why I blame out current mess on the left.
In any consequential way there is only one side demanding to impose their will on all of us by force at this moment.
I do not have a problem with the existance of media bias.
I do have a problem with those who can not see the egregious degree of bias that exists.
I have a problem with those who attack infowars and think it is somehow different from the new york times.
NYT won 2 pulitzers for 2 years of pushing a fraud. That should be embarrassing.
And now they are selling racism.
Why is it that few seem to understand how incredibly dangerous shouting hateful, hating hater at the drop of a hat is ?
When you say Trump is a racist – for whatever the last remark he made was – you are also saying the 10’s of millions of people who agree with that remark are racist.
When you make disagreement over policies into moral conflicts – you had damn well better be absolutely right.
It is far more dangerous than disagreements over facts.
Ok, now that we agree what he is and why he was elected, you left out one significant factor.
There were few who found Trump and Clinton unacceptible and were willing to vote for something and not agaist the worst like myself. Many found Clinton to be totally unacceptible in swing states and also questioned Trump, but would not vote for Johnson, a much more “average voters candidate”.
I believe that many of those never Clinton voters are closer to Biden than Trump in their political beliefs. They remember the “moderate Joe”. I think that handful of voters in PN, NC, WS will vote for Joe because their vote for Trump to begin with was weak.
This was not a case of soccer moms and democrats supporting Reagan. This was a case where the main stream GOP candidates split the mainstream GOP vote, giving Trump a foothold and then capturing the nomination. We will never know if Trump woukd have gone head to head aganst one other “true” republican if Trump woukd have been nominated, but I have my own doudts. But those never Clinton voters are different than Reagan democrats.
They will come home if there is anyone they trust nominated.
There are almost never single reasons for anything.
There are a dozen things that could have tanked the election for Trump.
but there are also a dozen that could have made the victory more lopsided.
Regardless, the blame is NOT on the voters. It is on the candidates, the parties, and the campaigns.
You have a point regarding “never Clinton voters” and with certainty the pure never clinton voter is not voting for Trump – unless Clinton is nominated again.
Further post election Trump has alienated neo-conservatives, and is not likely to get them back. Though I am not sure that short of die hards, the remainder of neo-cons have not just evaporated to become something else. Neo-Conservatism is dead – and that is a good thing.
At the same time Trump is running atleast 10% higher with all minority groups than any republican in decades.
Further while democratic zealots are energized the democratic base is NOT.
Trump does not have to get lots of minority votes. He does not have to keep all the never clinton votes. All he needs is for center left moderates of all flavors to stay home – which is highly likely.
If you wipe the center out, If this election is decided by those who are certain to vote for Trump, and those who are certain to vote for any democrat – Trump wins – in a landslide. \\
Every election is a complex battle – between holding onto your base, appealing to those freindly to you in the middle, and discouraging those leaning against you.
Obama won against Romney by getting several million gop leaning voters in the swing states to stay home.
Anything short of a crappy economy is a huge head wind for any opponent.
If you wish to treat the same remarks by different people differently – for whatever reasons.
You are free to do so, but it undermines your credibility.
That is ALOT of my point – it is NOT Trump’s remarks. It is the disparity in different peoples responses.
Regardless, Facts do not have feelings. Facts are not racist.
That is important. If facts divide us – the problem is with whoever thinks the facts are divisive.
Trump does “use” division – the division created by others.
BTW Trump is as likely to deliberately drive unity – in bad ways strategically.
Trump has very effectively driven the democratic party and Pelosi to defend “the squad”.
That was deliberate, it was effective, and it brought people together rather than apart.
But it brought democrats together when they should have stayed apart.
and how long will our 24 hour brains remember that the dems came together due to the gang.
Just a few days ago we heard all these reports that Venezuel ians woukd overthrow their government. Now we hear nothing.
It does not matter what we remember, Pelosi was actively struggling to marginalize “the squad” and to give moderate Dems some accomplishments to campaign on in 2020.
Trump goaded Pelosi into screwing over moderates.
Trump does this all the time. He is very very effective at getting the press and the left to rush to defend the most left leaning things he can manage.
The lefts knee jerk anti-trumpism is self destructive and highly manipulable.
If Trump came out in favor of Cinderalla – the Left would immediately call it racist.
And that is not a joke or hyperbolee – and that is sad.
The odds of Madoru surviving are ZERO.
Though it does not matter – so long as Venezuella is socialist and a mess the harm is to the left.
It is actually better for Trump and Republicans for Venezuella to just keep getting worse.
Every single story about Venezeula is a reminder that is what the left is trying to sell us – THIS CAMPAIGN.
Well duh! Yes, the odds of Maduro surviving is 0%. He could die today from a heart attack. He will be dead of natural causes in 75 years.
I’m talking about reporting 3 months ago that Guaido would be president in days because the people would overthrow Maduro and cracks in the military support was occuring.
Nothing in news today, people have moved on, the only constant since 2017 and 2019 is Trumps obnoxious assinine personality that has his approval with women down to 34%. And women elect the president for the most part.
The point is that the world is moving towards freedom – while US democrats are embracing venezuelan socialism.
I do not know how long Madoru will live. But his presidency has very little time left.
Well Dave, I have said multiple times in multiple ways why I think Trump is an asshole and youvhave failed to understand, even if you disagree. One has to understand before disagreeing.
There are ways individuals can say something based on the positions they hold. What Cummings says can be in one manner and it is acceptible based on who he is talking to. He is only talking to a small group of individuals in a small area of the country. Trump is president. He is the president of 100% of America. He is president of liberals, conservatives, libertarians, etc. even if they accept it or not.
There are few people in leadership in government I would refuse to let them in my home.. Hillary Clinton is one, Trump is another. I find him an obnoxious asshole that uses division to achieve his goals. It wont take many like me to shift the election to the “D”. Unlike you, I fully expect all three arms of government to be in democrat hands.
Priscilla, Yes, taking away independence in the name of government support results in dependence. Dependence = vote
Baltimore:
But, once again, Trump might be right about Baltimore, a few in Baltimore might agree with him, but the assinine way he said what he said turns many voters off. Im almost at the point that I would vote for Sanders just to get this nut case out of the White House. I cant watch any news, even local, without hearing some crap Trump has said or tweeted. that day.
Ron, I do have a lot of friends that feel as you do about Trump. And I worry that he’s turnng off too many people.
I am much more disturbed by the dishonest media that reports non-stop about whether Chris Cuomo was right to curse and threaten a heckler who called him “Fredo” (a term that he himself has used to refer to Don Jr.) but fails to cover the major cleanup in Baltimore that was organized and carried out by a Trump-supporting GOP group. Or doesn’t call out the outrageous lies of presidential candidates like Harris and Warren, who both said last week that Michael Brown was “murdered” by a cop, when that is blatantly untrue. Or Joe Biden, whose son and brother have become millionaires as a result of sweetheart deals with China, that they got when Biden was VP. Give me Trump’s tweet’s any day over these liars.
Trump is a bizarre character, that is for sure. And his tweets can be truly cringeworthy, but he almost always turns out to be right. He’s got a sense of humor, and doesn’t take himself as seriously as most politicos, so I can tolerate his tweeting. And he’s been spied on and investigated non-stop, and no one has been able to find anything that he has ever done that was illegal or anti-American. Which is more than I can say for many D.C. politicians.
I guess, when it comes right down to it, I don’t really care what he tweets, as long as he’s not trying to screw over the people who elected him. But I can sympathize with people like you, who wish that he would give them a reason to support him, or at least stop acting like a reality tv star instead of a president.
Priscilla, we have always had media that picked stories to cover. The reason that Fox exist is due to the MSM becoming a left wing mouth piece, but that is their right. I find what Google, Facebook and Twitter does disturbing, but that is their right. When you have as much money as Zuckerberg, Bezos and others, you have the means to distrubute the informstion you want distributed. (Maybe Warrens elimination of billionaires is not a bad thing!😝😁). If conservatives are so upset with Facebook and Google, put your money where your mouth is, star your own companies and compete by communicating the truth.
But I want someone in the White House that I would not mind having in my own house. And if the White House called me today and said Trump was going to be in my area and wanted to come into my house, I woukd tell them no F’in way. If I were a member of a team and was invited to the WH for recognition, I would quitely not show up.I want to be miles from this man. He personally stands for everything I despise.
I dont have any problems with most of Trump’s policies. I have no use for the man. Respect is earned and he does nothing to earn anyone’s respect. I had no respect for H Clinton since the only reason she did not divorce Bill was to promote her own career. I respected Jonhson and that is why I voted for him. He was genuine, you saw what he was and he had executive experience without all the crap that Trump and Clinton brought.
But this attitude got me in trouble all the way from when I was in the service to the day I retired.
I think this is pretty much where I am at with social media censorship.
If you censor, you are a publisher and you are responsible for your content.
It you wish to be a public forum, and have the protections afforded public forums you may not censor
“He personally stands for everything I despise.”
??
I understand that you do not like Trump’s style.
But the things that YOU “stand for” and those Trump stands for are much closer most any one else posting here.
There is this claim that Trump is trying to “divide” the country.
How so ? I do not see that.
Absolutely he is attacking left wing nuts.
But left wing nuts are not the country – they have “divided” themselves.
All Trump does is points out – these people have really nuts ideas.
If that is “division” – that is fine with me.
I certainly do NOT want the ideas of the left presumed to be broadly supported.
How do Trump’s remarks “divide” us ?
At most they call attention to the fact that it is the left is trying to foist on us things that are bad ideas and most of us do not want.
AOC, Cummings, etc Attack Trump.
Trump attacks back. That is politics.
But when you claim that AOC or Cummings or … can not be criticised because they are black or brown or gay or muslim or ….
THAT is dividing us.
When you claim that facts are racist – you are the one looking to divide.
Cummings AOC etc are free to use whatever tactics they wish.
What surprises me is that neither you nor those on the left see through them.
Yet myriads of the unwashed “deplorables” have no problem telling the difference between political tactics and actual racism.
The media is biased. There is nothing wrong with that – so long as we grasp it.
The person who disturbed Cuomo at a resturant is no better than those on the left who disturb republicans trying to eat.
Cuomo reacted much worse than Tucker Carlson or Sandra Huckabey.
I do not care what the media covers – so long as I understand their biases.
It is not important that I know every goof thing that Trump supporters do.
It is important that I understand that the media coverage does NOT accurately reflect what is going on in the world.
Even when the media is not politically biased, they still adhere to the “if it bleeds it leads” approach.
We will hear about every mass shooting.
We will not hear about every time a crime is thwarted by someone with a gun.
I am OK with that. But it is important for me to know that the news is NOT showing me the world as it is.
“Trump is a bizarre character”
If Trump did not exist – he would have been created.
The escalating lunacy of the left absolutely ensures that Trump or someone like him was going to emerge.
For the most part Trump does not actually try to “screw over” anyone.
He does “punch back” twice as hard. But mostly he is not just fixated on his supporters.
He really is striving to “Make America Great Again”.
For everyone.
Many of us do not like what he is doing, and do not beleive that will make america great again. But that is a disagreement on what will work, not on what Trump’s intent is.
Very interesting how we agree on many things and how different we are concerning Trump.
I support and defend Trump on policy and div orce myself from Trump the person
You seem to defend Trump the person and divorce yourself from many of his policies.
We agree that Trump is an asshole – that is about personality.
There is still a difference between asshole and racist.
The former is supposed to be much more subjective than the other.
Making moral judgments of others is still dangerous. It is something all of us should do carefully. When you make a false claim of immorality about another – you are immoral.
Call Trump an Asshole. Few will disagree.
Call him a racist – and you better have compelling evidence. Subjective judgment is not sufficient. Further Call Trump racist on the basis of expressions that tens of millions of people share – and even if your are right – you have just alienated tens of millions of people.
Everyone keeps asserting that Trump is divisive.
The entire ideology of the left is divisive. Divisiveness is inherent ideologically in all permutations of leftism.
Every time you accuse Trump and transitively tens of millions of people of racism, sexism, homophobia, unless there is perfect overlap – you grow the number of people who will never vote for you. Trump pisses over relatively narrow groups – and infact that is a part of what we are constantly fighting over. Trump says some people on both sides are “good people” and the left transforms that into Trump supports white supremecy. trump says Baltimore is rat infested – and he is racist. Trump says that MS-13 is rapists and criminals – and somehow that is all hispanics are evil.
“Public housing” is one of the better proofs that government can not do anything competently.
Most public housing is worse than the places provided by “slumlords”. It is dangerous, it is piss poorly maintained.
And it is “infested” with violent criminals and drug dealers.
What is not – will be in very short time.
Everything that government has ever done to address this has failed.
Big public housing like “cabrini green” have been disasters, smaller complexes like in my town are horrible.
For a while “section 8” was touted as a great success – and very early it was.
But after they cherry picked the people who were going to succeed no matter what, “section 8” because a “conveyor belt” to transfer the criminals and drug dealers in public housing complex into functioning working class minority neighborhoods – destroying them.
Nor is this unique to the US – The UK and EU have see all the same problems.
It is extremely difficult for private charities to effectively help people.
Government does far worse.
While at the same time – we have watched as – without the slightest intention of charity, free markets have taken whole nations out of abject poverty
We are all cautiously watching China and hong kong right now.
Hong Kong and Singapore were impoverished fishing villages 75 years ago.
The standard of living in Sinapore and Hong Kong is HIGHER than the US.
Watching protests in HK we should remember that aside from their political system and race these people are just like us – maybe even wealthier. We are not watching poor people in the USSR revolting. This is as 1.7M people in NYC decided to protest DeBlassio, or Trump.
Recently I watched “Hooligan Sparrow” on Netflix. You can watch that just to get an idea of what ordinary life in mainland china is like today. Both in the cities and for farmers.
In 1973 China was poorer than Africa. Today they are at the bottom of the first world.
No charity was involved in this. Further it all happened DESPITE a horrible government,
It all happened because that government choose to turn a blind eye to free markets “At the margins”. again I recommend reading Ronald Coases “how china became capitalist”
Because it is the story of what works to raise people from abject poverty.
And the answer is that it happens automatically so long as government stays out of the way.
The rate of improvement in india has been slower. But much the same has happened in India in the past 50 years.
Regardless, we know how to fix poverty. The hard part is “letting go”, allowing people to do it themselves, and just staying out of their way.
Trying to help them does not work.
In 1938 Black families had the same attributes as white ones.
There were few single parent families.
Levels of education were nearly that of whites
Schools were nearly on par with whites,
unemployment was Lower than whites.
Crime rates for blacks were much the same as whites.
There were problems – many – black and white did not graduate from HS.
Schools were not particularly good.
Black Schools had very little resources.
But the quality of education was still not that different between races.
Today after all our efforts to “fix” things
Things are worse.
Jim Crow was horrible and no one wants to go back.
But the so called “welfare state” while good intentioned, really is systemically racist.
If not intentionally so.
If a statement of fact is true – it is not racist. PERIOD.
The majority of people violently killed in the US are murdered by people they know.
Of those who are killed by strangers 1/3 are killed by police – atleast 3.5/day.
That is far more than mass killers.
I saw a recent Tweet of the killings at Kent State, with a caption to the effect of
We should not trust government with assault weapons.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2019/08/12/podcast–matt-ridley-optimism-in-the-face-of-the-bad-news-industry/#32d578cb1427
So Libertarian humor
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECYzXGtWkAAuhQZ?format=jpg&name=900×900
Having problems again with Word Press. Hopefully this only show once as it says atuff post, does not and I have to change one word to get it to post. Then a few minutes later they both show up.
Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, I think everyone should be concerned as to the power these companies have.
Yes Dave, I know you have no problem with this and you willbsay no votes were cha nged or influenced by their actions. However, I find this more concerning than a few votes that might get changed in a handful of pricincts.
Ron,I saw this today, and it is really frightening. I was going to post it, but you beat me to it!
So I’ll post this video by Tim Pool, a independent journalist, who supported Bernie Sanders in 2016, but has become disenchanted with the far left (just as Epstein has become disenchanted with the Clintons), is well worth the 25 minutes it takes to watch the whole thing. Pool himself is being “de-ranked” by You Tube and no longer gets as many views as he once did, despite the fact that he is not a conservative.
The ONLY problem I have with what Google, FB etc are doing – is that they are supposed to be a “neutral public platform”.
What they are doing is called “persuasion”, and I do not care if the Russians, the Koch’s Sorros, … are doing it. I do not care how much money who is spending,
I do not care if it is dark money or in the sunlight.
I would entirely abolish the FEC or limit them exclusively to voter fraud and bribery.
If Trump’s money is coming from people you do not like – that is the medias job to feret out.
If Biden’s money is coming from people I do not like – the same thing.
Neither of us should be allowed to decide who can contribute to who – nor how much.
IF Google wants to “influence” the election – fine. But if they do so by censoring and filtering, then they are no longer a neutral public forum and should not be treated that way.
We have repeatedly discusses what the “rules” for TNM should be.
Those are Rick’s business. If Rick wants to limit long posts, or multiples or links to videos or libertarians, or whatever – that is his right – this is his forum. But no one would then pretend it is a neutral platform.
This article by Andrew McCarthy is excellent.
What is increasingly clear is that throughout and after the 2016 election the US and US IC, and Obama knew EXACTLY what Russia was doing.
They knew damn well it was not unusual.
They knew they were not CONSEQUENTIALLY and successfully attacking the actual voting institutions.
They knew that the attempts to “influence” the election were inept and innefective.
And most importantly long before the election they knew that Trump was NOT colluding with Russia.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/08/20/ball_of_collusion_excerpt_all_obamas_anti-trump_loyalists_120039.html
Right now Social Media is trying to thwart China’s efforts to “sow disinformation” about HK.
That is BAD not good. I have zero problems with China engaging in their own social media efforts. It is not “social medias” job to police content by supressing what they disagree with.
It is the job of the press and the citizenry to expose lies – not to supress them.
Does anyone think that a massive social media campaign by China would significantly change impressions ?
One of the problems with censorship is that there is a presumption that those doing the censoring know what is true and what is not, and are not biased themselves and that supressing purportedly false is better, and that people are too stupid to know what is true and what is not. If that is the case – then government by the people is not possible.
Dave, I agree with much of what you say, but I do not think that the huge tech platforms like Google, FB, YouTube (same company as Google), and Twitter should be allowed to operate with immunity from defamation liability. If they can’t be sued for the lies and slanders that they encourage, or for the censorship that they clearly use (such as blocking Mitch McConnell for tweeting video of the mob outside of his house threatening to kill him, but allowing the members of the mob to tweet death threats), then they should be regulated or broken up as monopolies.
Priscilla hopefully the Prager U case will take care of it. But who knows with John Roberts being the swing vote on SCOTUS. He may say that he supports Prager U but ruling in their favor would look political and he does not want the court to appear political, so the ruling is 5-4 against PU.
And breaking them up will never happen. The precedent seems to be set by Microsoft years ago when they almost gave operating systems and software to computer manufacturers and 90% of all computers came out of the factory already loaded with Microsoft programming. They basically ran anyone like companies that made software like Word Perfect and other spreadsheets out of business. Congress investigated to make themselves look like they were doing something, but basically did nothing and Microsoft kept dominating the industry until smart phones came along.
I do not think Prager is going to win, I think the issue will be moot.
Trump’s recent EO is directing the FTC and FCC to make rules based on the DMCA.
The rule is trivial. I content provided is entitled to Section 302 protection from liability only if they conform to exactly the same constraints as government with regard to censorship.
If they do not, then they are a publisher and not a neutral public platform and they are not entitled to section 302 protection.
I suspect the court will split, but I do not think that SCOTUS will find a problem, and to the extent they do, then they are likely to scuttle section 302.
There is not an interpretation of the constitution that allows Section 302 to be constitutional, but bars FCC/FTC from putting Section 302 to effect through regulation.
My preference would be to strike section 302 – but that is not going to happen.
Not only do I think this will not have a problem with SCOTUS, but I suspect it will be a 7-2 or even a 9-0 decision.
This is not a “hard choice”. SCOTUS will not be being asked to allow FCC/FTC to decide whether Google or FB can censor. They will be deciding if Social media can both censor and be permitted protection for liability for what they allow published.
They are not going to get that.
We have centuries of law regarding what and how the government can censor.
I do not agree with those – but it is irrelevant – Social Media has acted far outside of them.
To SCOTUS this is not “punishment”, it is just presenting Social media with a choice – between being a neutral public platform with very very few permissible basis for censorship, or being a publish – where you are free to choose as you wish but have responsibility for what you publish.
This is not going to be the FTC or FCC deciding, it will be the courts.
And again they have decades of case law on government censorship to guide them.
We are now getting into “Walter Block” anarchocapitalist areas.
In a “perfect world” I would just eliminate defamation law.
People would place less credibility in defamatory remarks if they understood there was no consequence to defamation.
The existing defamation laws make it easier to beleive false public statements.
My prefered solution to Social Media would be to see people leave google, etc.
It would not take much for tech giants to reconsider. Small losses in market share are worth billions.
So how does one use something other than Google. My computer just automatically boots up Google Chrome.
You have to make your own choices as to what constitutes supporting google.
Brave is an open source browser – it is based on the Chromium Web Rendering engine,
you can migrate from Chrome to Brave trivially preseving passwords, links and settings.
Brave has built in ad and tracker blocking. It upgrades connections to secure connections wherever possible.
But it is still based on the Chrome render engine – which is open source – Google supports it, but it is still open source.
There are other choices if you do not want anything at all from google.
I am not looking to run my life google free.
I am looking to send a message.
I use Brave – I have also found it to be faster and less of a memory pig – mostly because of the crap it filters out.
But I can not get streaming services – netflix, amazon, hulu to run on Brave, and for reasons I do not understand at all, I can not get TNM to log me in and keep me logged in properly on anything but chromium, not brave, not chrome, not any other browser.
Vimeo is an alternative to youtube.
But it is hard to live without Youtube.
There are choices other than Vimeo.
I tried one as was quickly reminded – there are real nutcases out there.
But the problem with most is they are not popular yet.
Regardless, I cut back on my use of Youtube, but I have not gone cold turkey.
DuckDuckgo is an alternative to Google’s search engine
I have been using it for a couple of years.
Once in a blue moon – usually only to prove to myself how politically skewed google is, I actually try google again. On the rare occasions I use windows machines I usually end up with Bing by default.
Except for the political bias – google is still the best search engine.
But not by enough that I care.
ddg works fine for me.
There are other choices too
but DDG is probably the largest “safe” alternative
and DDG does not track you.
You can use proton mail instead of gmail.
Or if you have web hosting of your own domains – I have about 20 domains.
You can create as many email accounts as you want in each domain.
There are several alternatives to facebook and twitter.
I have accounts on all of them.
I also have a facebook account in a “fake” name.
I use that exclusively as a login ID for website all over the place.
I do not post on face book,
I do not read things on Face Book.
The only one who posts on or uses my real facebook account is my wife.
Twitter is a cesspool. Everynow and then I get back on it briefly.
But way too many people I know – some personally, many famous post juvenile and stupid stuff on twitter.
Trump is far from the most offensive person on Twitter,
He is far from the most offensive famous person on twitter.
I can live without twitter.
Anyway, I am slowly increasing my efforts to negatively impact social media giants whose conduct bothers me. I do not do so by leaving them.
I do so by diminishing my dependence on them.
will they notice ? Not if I am doing this alone. But the more of us do this, the more they will notice.
And I will guarantee you even the most liberal hedge fund managers will tell them to stop the censorship if there is even a few percent drop in revenues due to a user reaction to their conduct.
I just saw that you had already posted a Prager video that pretty much says the same thing, so maybe we do agree!
In “libertopia” – Prager is wrong – we should just get rid of defamation laws.
In the real world – Prager is right.
The most interesting parts of this are about 2/3 of the way in.
Spoiler alert – while getting good data on mass shootings in the developing world is nearly impossible. Even doing the job badly – ranks the US 61st in the world in per capita mass shootings – with several european countries – where the data is excellent and where gun control is prevalent with higher – sometimes MUCH higher rates of mas shootings.
Some developing countries – where data is very difficult to acquire have rates as much as 60 times that of the US – and better data will only increase those numbers.
Figures don’t lie but liars can figure. So can statistics!
But what difference does it make what happens in other countries? To me not a damn thing.
If we can do one thing that will stop one shooting at a school, mall, etc and it does not trample on rights, I am for it.
“If we can do one thing that will stop one shooting at a school, mall, etc and it does not trample on rights, I am for it.”
Everyone is in agreement with you on that.
But we have no evidence that such a thing exists.
Well maybe if every politician would stop pointing fingers and stop using shootings as a way to divide and get elected, maybe one small step at a time can takes place that changes some situations so they dont happen.
But I dont think anything can come from a compromise of the extreme positions held by both.parties. It is just too good of an issue that generates votes and that is the goal of politicians, not solutions. If you can energize your base using guns as an issue, why would you want the problem solved? If they solved the problem, it might mean some people might not be concerned enough to vote on less divisive issues and that politician may lose their career. And maintaining a career is goal #1.
Ron.
There are a few things that might actually reduce mass shootings.
Not a one of those stands a snowballs chance in hell.
The odds of getting rid of gun free zones, or board open and concealed carry laws, or teachers being allowed to have guns in schools are about zero.
The “ideas” of the left have all been tested one place or another.
They do not work.
That is not surprising. This is a problem that likely does not have an answer – atleast not today.
No amount of work by politicians can change it when fixing a problem is beyond the power of government.
I have criticised Rick for making this about emotion – you are doing the same.
I am not opposed to looking for answers. I am not fatalist.
But I do understand that it is damn near impossible for government to fix problems that are actually as small as this.
Hey, maybe all we need is the two sides to set down and talk, show some “friendly conversation” set an example to talk and not be controversial. Maybe one or two kids seeing that might not be moved to grab a gun and settle issues by shooting people. Maybe that would save 10-20 people just by talking. That could be step one without ever having government do anything except talk and show people communication is better than confrontation.
Nearly all of the mass shooters that make the news are nuts. Actually mentally disturbed.
These are not people who will change by sitting down and having a polite conversation.
There are lots of ideas that could reduce our political divisiveness, none will effect the number of mass shootings.
There are few places in the US where people rush to settle a dispute by grabbing a gun.
Those are placed like Chicago and Baltimore.
Yes, we all need to talk more – and listen more. But government has no role in that.
And in fact government is a negative influence.
So long as one side believes that if can impose its will on others through the use of government force – there is no foundation for talking.
While we do not talk enough. Our most fundimental political problem is that we make all problems political – i.e. problems to be solve by government and force.
Few problems are actually solved by force. And the more you use force to solve problems the larger the resistance you build.
Even if not well expressed the current political turmoil – our divisiveness is about limited government. Not Trump. It is not even really about left-right, except that at this moment the proponents of bigger government are primarily on the left.
Big government is a self defeating proposition. If big government proponents get what they want they automatically create more opposition. They create the divisiveness we are bemoaning.
I just figured out why Trump is interested in Greenland. There was an article today about scientist working in Greenland in short sleave shirts, walking on ice that formed millions of years ago, how large sections of glaciers the size of some states are bresking off and how warm it has been in Greenland. So Trump, the developer, sees Greenland the next opportunity for development. Another Trump Golf Course, Trump Greenland International.
(Satire!)
Lol. Trump himself tweeted this (I told you he has a sense of humor about this stuff!)
And left wing nuts are going to take him literally,
Regardless, is this a post from someone who has no sense of humor ?
I think the US should try to buy Greenland.
I think we will fail.
I think that we could pay far more than anyone is talking about and it would be a good deal for us.
But if it does not happen – it does not happen.
But it is not “crazy”.
Why in the hell would we want a piece of land/ice that would only invigorate the left more than they are when more ice melted. And if the Democrats got control, our EPA could go batvshit crazy issuing regulations on Greenland. We are already $22T in debt. Where is the money coming from? W
He’s nuts and didn’t have anything else to get his face on the news, so he comes up with this brainfart.
I can see it now. Trump v Biden. Election 2020 Nuts v Senile.
Ron, from Forbes:
“The US has long considered Greenland to be a strategic location for military purposes. Less than 1,000 miles from the north pole, Thule Air Base on the island’s northwestern coast provides missile warning, space surveillance and space control US authorities.
The airspace is also of strategic importance both to the military and for commercial flights. Increased Russian activity in the airspace has caused concern back in Denmark.
But with the melting ice, the island’s vast quantities of metals and energy resources—believed to include iron ore, lead, zinc, diamonds, gold, copper, uranium and oil—are becoming more accessible than ever before. Local politicians want to exploit these resources with an eye on becoming fully independent from Denmark. Given that Denmark still supports Greenland economically to the tune of half its annual budget, the potential value of these resources is clear.
And that’s exactly why Denmark isn’t going to entertain the idea of letting go of Greenland. That along with the fact that despite the economic reliance on Denmark, the population of 56,000 have a large degree of political autonomy.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/08/16/whats-so-great-about-greenland-why-trump-wants-it-and-why-denmark-wont-sell/#32e0fe68f8ed
So, I don’t think its a crazy idea. The Chinese are trying to build a airport for military planes there themselves. But, as Dave says, it’s unlikely to happen. But that doesn’t mean it’s crazy to try. We did buy the Virgin Islands from Denmark.
Trump proposed doing it so its crazy – and it must be racist too.
Well I wondef id MSNBC, CNN and others will break into their 24 hour coverage of Trump’s immigration policies and give some good news some coverage.
They are doing about 5-7 surgeries a day on most all parts of the body including eyes for many who have escaped Venezuela.
https://navaltoday.com/2019/07/09/us-hospital-ship-arrives-in-peru-as-part-of-venezuela-crisis-medical-assistance-mission/
RadioFreeTom:
“Trump has snubbed an ally over some whacked-out fantasy to buy Greenland, told Jews who vote for Democrats that they’re disloyal, and referred to himself as the Chosen One. I eagerly await GOP loyalists saying with a straight face they think this is a stable, normal person.”
Do you honestly beleive the relationship between the US and Denmark has suffered ?
If you are so nuts that you are actually offended by people offering to trade money for property your not worth listening to.
The world DEPENDS on that.
You are not obligated to agree – and the Danes do not wish to sell.
That is their right – just as we are free to offer.
Any Dane who is insulted to learn that something of theirs – Greenland is of sufficient value that someone else would make an offer for it – is bat shit.
I think this has zero consequence with respect to Denmark as an Allie – but if I am wrong – we do not want Denmark as an allie.
Frankly I remain with George Washington – we should not be forming allegiances,, we should be doing what is in our nations interests, and what is right, and hoping that other nations join us because we are right, not because they are an allie.
If Putin invades Denmark – do you think that Denmark is going to snub US aide because we offered to buy Greenland ?
Can you tell me a single example where the US needs Denmarks suppport where the Danes will snub us that is actually a good idea ?
Are the Danes going to tank NATO over this ?
This entire line of reasoning is nonsense.
I expect that Denmark will ALWAYS do what it thinks is in its best interests – whether the Danes like Trump or not. Nor do I want Denmark to do anything different.
The Danes should NEVER screw their own people – to make the US happy.
This is more of this nonsense that decisions should be made on emotion and personality not facts, logic and reason.
“Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?” Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… ”
Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!” Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”
Do you think that the Danish people would not think twice if Trump offered Denmark $2T for greenland ?
There is no insult to an offer.
This is Trump’s actual remark.
“Where has the Democratic Party gone?” “Where have they gone where they are defending these two people over the state of Israel? And I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”
If there are jews offended by that – I am prepared to listen.
But unless “anonymous” is jewish – you are doing the same thing Trump is – you are presuming to know the minds of jewish voters.
Except that I suspect Trump is better at “mind reading” than you are.
Further Trump’s remarks are far more tame than those of Tlaib – who seems to think that the US government is entralled to “the benjamins”.
While I disagree with “the Squad” on Israel. I support their freedom to attack Israel.
I think the members of “the squad” are quite obviously “anti-jewish” not just anti-Israel.
But many (not all) of their remarks are just anti-Israel, and I am opposed to the “fake” cries of racism when directed at Trump and the “fake” cries of anti-semetism everythime one of the squad says something stupid about Israel.
As to Trump’s remarks ? Jews are free to vote as they please. But Israel is a very important factor in the lives of many many many jews, and Trump is perfectly correct in noting that if Israel is important to you – you would be stupid to vote democrat.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong in saying that.
There is nothing wrong, because it is obviously true.
But there would actually be nothing wrong if it was false.
All misstatements of facts are not lies of moral failures.
Especially when the conclusion that something is a misstatement is ideological itself.
Hillary Clinton:
“In the last 24 hours, the administration has announced:
– They will seek the power to detain migrant children indefinitely
– They won’t provide flu shots to families in detention
Six children have already died, three in part from the flu.
This is a recipe for more tragedy.”
If you want more illegal immigrants to bring their children – treat them incredibly well.
The New Colusus does NOT say – “bring me your huddled masses yearning to be free – and I will give them free healthcare, free meals, …”
Every single family in ICE detention can leave anytime they wish.
All they have to do is drop an asylum claim that they have less than a 2% chance of winning and ICE will fly them back to their country of origen.
Contra the left and the press these people are not prisoners.
They are not free to enter the US, but they are absolutely free to return home.
We can debate all kinds of aspects of immigration policy, but we do not owe illegal immigrants anything – not flu shots, not food. We did not make them come here.
We may CHOOSE to give them aide,
But as a nations we owe ZERO positive obligations to anyone.
If that were not true – we are done as a nation, positive rights are unsustainable.
Are YOU entitled to a free flu shot from government ?
Are you entitled to a bad and food and free healthcare from govenrment ?
Why do immigrants have more rights than you do ?
I support very near open boarders.
I would be 100% behind a law that said anyone who wants can come here – so long as they have a sponsor who will meaningfully commit to supporting them if they need assistance.
I think most of us would.
That is ANYONE, no other questions. Let the sponsors do the vetting according to whatever criteria matters to them.
I would support allowing 10’s of millions to just cross into this country as they please.
I would revoke the laws that make hiring them a crime.
I would allow them the same opportunity as the rest of us.
But I will not support giving even ONE of them a single dime of public money.
I do not support our government giving citizens public money, why would I support giving non-citizens public money ?
I would sponsor immigrants myself, and I would give to groups that do.
But that is MY choice.
And I could make it as I please.
I could choose to sponsor immigrants from china – as my daughter is from China, and that matters to me. Would that make me racist ?
Regardless, you can sponsor whoever you please, and me who I please and Microsoft as it pleases, and churches as they please – my church sponsored several Muslim Burmese families
But our government should NOT be making such choices.
It should not be deciding whether Guatemalans or Asians get to come here.
Dragging your family several thousand miles accross treacherous parts of the hemisphere and trusting to human trafickers and drug dealers – that is the recipe for tragedy.
Alison Done:
“Trump is so DESPCIABLE, DISGUSTING, DISGRACEFUL & DESPERATE that the ONLY question really becomes:
WHY are We The People putting up with THIS???
The protests in #HongKong should inspire all of us to MARCH NOW.”
If you think Trump is as bad as Xi – why not go to China ?
If you think Trump is as bad as Putin – why not go to Russia ?
If you think Trump is as bad as Kim – why not go to North Korea ?
If you think Trump is as bad as Madoru – why not go to Venezuela ?
Protest Trump if that is what you want.
But comparisons to Xi and Hong Kong are idiocy.
I would note that While Trump’s public support of protestors in hong Kong is weaker than I would desire, He has said more in their support than Obama did of Iranians.
Further Trump needs to say little about Hong Kong.
Trump has put to screws to Xi and China.
He brought the worlds attention to China.
Trump’s “trade war” with China has served the protestors in Hong Kong AND
the Protests in Hong Kong serve Trump.
It is entirely possible that China will resort to the use of force.
They will pay a very heavy price, if they do.
I would further note that pretty much anything that happens with China – will help Trump.
If Xi capitulates – either on trade or on Hong Kong – Trump will get credit.
If Xi does not – Trump will be vindicated in taking a tough stand with China.
Trump has been incredibly successful in marginalizing the Chinese government in the past 2 years.
I have fought here with Ron over some of these issues.
I think that Trump’s trade related actions are wrong.
But I am not oblivious to the way they have played out.
Trump’s handling of Trade is WRONG. But it is benefitijng him anyway.
If you are opposed to Trump – you should be running as hard and as far as you can from China, as it is huge political win from Trump.
There are inumerable outcomes – whether of the protests or the “trade war” almost all favor Trump.
Anything short of a global recession that actually hurts the US substantially favors Trump.
Any response to the protestors – favors Trump.
To screw up Trump would have to turn his back on the protestors, and negotiate a bad deal with China – Like Obama did in Iran.
Worse yet – there is evidence, and more important stories, that China is meddling in the 2020 election. That is a huge losing story for democrats.
You have spent 2 years ranting about Russian interferance in the US election in 2016.
In doing so you have given Trump a “chinese interferance” story to flog through 2020.
Meanwhile Russia has its own problems.
It is about even odds Putin does not survive to 2020.
Trump asked a question. It is a valid question.
It is a question unrelated to immigration – that was just a gigantic “red herring”.
Lots of jews have been PUBLICLY asking the same question.
Trump showed up in Pittsburgh.
Where was Clinton ? Farakahn ? TLaib ? AOC ? Pelosi ? …..
And can we quit pretending that nuts are actually driven by ideology ?
Or do I have to point out to you how the Dayton Shooter was falling of the left edge of the planet and murdered his sister along with alot of others ?
These guys are NUTS.
You are NUTS if you think their “ideology” matters.
People have engaged in mass killing for centuries.
They do it today – throughout the world.
The US ranks 61st in Mass shootings per capita among 172 nations in the work over the past 40 years. 5 Europearn countries – including Germany, France, Norway and Sweden Rank higher. And those countries have strict gun laws.
The people doing this are NUTS.
Caron Rotz;
“A reminder that the Tree of Life synagogue shooter murdered 11 Jews on Shabbos because of their congregation’s social justice work and support for immigrant rights. The President’s labeling of liberal Jews as disloyal is a validation of this kind of violence. It’s chilling.”
American Footware Association:
“77% of U.S. apparel, footwear, and home textile imports from China will be hit with Trump’s additional #tariffs on September 1.
So make up your mind.
If you honestly beleive that you should NOT be free to buy footwear at the cheapest possible prices – then why are you opposed to Trump and Tarrifs ?
Regardless, clothing is moving out of china – and has been for some time.
There are many other countries that would are happy to produce US footwear cheap.
And I fully expect that you will tell me that they are evil – just as you have told me the chinese are evil, for doing so.
I am opposed to Tarrifs. But I am not stupid, or hypocritical.
Just as Companies can move out of the US – they can move out of China.
China has devalued the Yuan. That mitigates significantly the negative impact on US consumers. BUT it does so at the expense of the Chinese people.
Knowing what is going on in China is a black art, but the best guess is that have serious debt problems, and the shadows of a recession that may spark even more broad political unrest.
The protestors in Hong Kong know well that if Xi crushes them, the world will join Trump in sanctions on China.
Are you going to be bemoaning the cost of Sneakers if Xi crushed the HK protestors ?
Why would anyone seriously opposed to Trump think that China is a good issue to bring up ?
Logan Bayroff: “It is dangerous and shameful for President Trump to attack the large majority of the American Jewish community as unintelligent and ‘disloyal.’ But it is no surprise that the president’s racist, disingenuous attacks on progressive women of color in Congress have now transitioned into smears against Jews.”
Yes, any statement you do not like is dangerous, and …. racist.
There are many jewish democrats who have said the same thing,
Democrats are constantly claiming black voters should not vote republican – and republicans are claiming blacks should not vote democrats.
It is the same thing. Are you calling those people out ?
I guess trump’s adminisions to Xi to avoid using force in Hong Kong are … racist.
Do you understand when you make everything racist – nothing is racist ?
“But it is no surprise that the president’s racist, disingenuous attacks on progressive women of color in Congress have now transitioned into smears against Jews.””
Absolutely – Trump attacks “progressive women of color” – because they are progressives – aka idiots.
I can find you women of color attacking them too – are they racist too ?
Regardless, if this is a smear against jews – then the democratic party is a smear against all minorities. Trump is asking for Jews to vote against democrats – because Democrats do not care about Jews. You do not have to like that argument.
I would further note that he has not “smeared” jews.
If you are a jew who votes democrat despite the attacks of democrats on Israel.
That is “disloyal” to israel. And if israel is not important to you as a jew – that is choice, not a smear. The only people that Trump’s argument addresses in any meaningful way is jews that care alot about Israel.
Regardless, the criteria you are using to call something a “smear” would make all politics impossible.
No one could ask for anyone else’s votes.
If there are jews actually offended by Trump’s remarks – then his remark is going to drive them to vote against him.
They do not need you to tell them to do so.
Or don’t you think Jewish voters are smart enough to be able to make the decision as to how to weigh Trump’s remark themselves ?
Bruce Bartlett:
“For the zillionth time, Republicans don’t give a shit about the deficit. If they did they wouldn’t have decimated federal revenues with a POS tax cut. All they care about is slashing spending for poor people. Deficits are just an excuse.”
Do Republicans care about deficits ?
NO!
Are Deficits a problem ?
Yes!
If the sole criteria for your vote is deficits and your only choice is a republican or a democrat, which should you vote for ?
The republican – who really only cares about deficits when democrats are in power ?
The democrat – who never cares ?
You are screwed no matter what, but atleast you can shame republicans.
Tax cuts and deficits are interrelated and independent.
I would be happy for a constitutional amendment that limited total taxes to 10% of GDP
and max aggrate tax rates to 10% of total personal income.
I would support that even if it ballooned the deficit in the short run.
The problem – whether it is republicans or democrats is a SPENDING problem.
It is NOT the governments money.
“Spending government money on poor people” has done what Jim Crow failed to do.
It has made minorities into a dependent class. It has increased minority crime, it has decreased the quality of minority education, it has destroyed the minority family.
Nothing that any “racist”, KKK member, …. has ever done has been as harmful to minoritues as the very things you are lauding here.
Please tell me what “spending for poor people” has done them any good ?
You are advocating for the most racist programs that the US has ever implimented.
If you gave a damn about poor people you would do something to help rather than to chain them into government dependence and genocide.
https://reason.com/2019/08/22/a-truly-populist-social-security-reform/
The IDIOT speaks:
Donald Trump:
“Denmark is a very special country with incredible people, but based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland, I will be postponing our meeting scheduled in two weeks for another time….”
Roby, how are you?
So ?
I have no problem with Trump going to Denmark.
I have no problem with Trump not going to Denmark.
I can not think of anything of consequence Trump needs to talk to Denmark about – including greenland
I am sure if the price was high enough – the Danes would sell.
And if not they are stupid.
You seem to think there is something here.
If Trump offered to buy danish office furniture would that be offensive ?
I guess this is racist too ?
The Danes must be part of some oppressed racial minority
After all wasn’t the Dutch West India company instrumental in 17th, and 18th century african slave trade ?
“The Chinese are currently working on creating monkey-human hybrids, in order to produce organs which would be compatible with humans (nice of them to work on a project that would save the lives of political prisoners, so that they could just rot in prison:
According to the newspaper, the Spanish-born biologist Juan Carlos Izpisúa Belmonte, who operates a lab at the Salk Institute in California, has been working working with monkey researchers in China to perform the disturbing research.
Their objective is to create “human-animal chimeras,” in this case monkey embryos to which human cells are added.”
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614052/scientists-are-making-human-monkey-hybrids-in-china/
So far, they have only created a hybrid embryo, which they destroyed, but they apparently are still trying to figure out some of the issues that could arise from allowing a human-monkey hybrid to be born. For example, would human cells migrate to the brain, creating a monkey with human consciousness? Could monkey diseases/viruses mutate into ones that could affect humans? And so forth….
The information comes from a Spanish scientist, who has traveled to China, to work on the project. Seems incredibly dangerous.
More intemperate stupidity from the IDIOT:
“Trump threatens Europe. “We’re holding thousands of ISIS fighters right now. And Europe has to take them. And if Europe doesn’t take them, I’ll have no choice but to release them into the countries from which they came. Which is Germany and France and other places.”
OK Anonymous, instead of just posting sound bites and tweets, how about giving us your thoughts on the issues you address.
I will offer my thoughts. We captured 1000’s of ISIS fighters. They are now in camps held mostly in Syria.
1. Do we stay for years and hold them in Syria?
2. Do we enlarge our efforts in Gitmo and move them there?
3. Do we bring them to America and hold trials and the ones found guilty placed in prison here?
4. Do we do with them what we did with former Gitmo prisoners, only to have them back fighting like former Gitmo prisoners?
5. Do we move them to camps in countries where we have permanent bases, like Germany, France, Japan and hold them there?
6. Do we identify the country from which they came, return them to those countries and allow those countries to handle them in whatever form they find appropriate?
Please add any alternatives I have not listed and tell us why you support what you do. I support #6.
#1 I doubt Syria will want us there for years.
#2. The left woukd have a shit hemmorrage if we reconstituted Gitmo.
#3. Thevright woukd have the same reaction if we brought them here.
#4. I an option, but we need to know we will be fighting them again or msy be their target here.
# 5. I doubt citizens of developed nations would be willing to take ” our prisoners”.
So that leaves #6..
Ron,
You beat me too it.
And my response was more tongue in cheek.
Regardless, there is pretty much NOTHING Trump can say about what to do with these people that is not going to offend someone.
Given that apparently many of them came from other countries in Europe, I personally think it is quite reasonable to return them to those countries – essentially they are the problem for those countries.
But I am open to discussions.
Maybe we should send them to South Bend Indiana
I do not have a problem with turning them over to Assad.
I want us out of Syria – completely.
We never should have gone there in the first place.
I want us out of Iraq, and Afghanistan.
I do not care if that purportedly empowers Putin.
I can not threaten Trump with not voting for him – because I am not anyway.
But I wanted us out of these places faster than he has done.
Defering to “the generals” in Afghanistan was a mistake.
I am not isolationist. There are sometimes justifications for the use of US military power.
We were right to take out afghaistan. While we did the job badly, having failed to take out the taliban when we had the chance. We also made a mistake in staying.
Anytime we are actually justified in removing the government of a country.
We are equally justified in leaving that country in chaos.
However we should not have invaded Iraq, or gone to Syria or Libya.
It is not our job to depose despots.
It is our job to protect our country and to destroy governments that commit acts of war against us.
We are not responsible for rebuilding them after wards.
Further we are not any good at it.
Buy Greenland, and send them there!! 🙂
Well I know what I would do and it is the same, most severe punishment that a traitor receives, especially one that is a member of our military. If its good enough for our citizens that trun on America, its good enough for terrorist from other countries. And I would sleep good after it happened.
As I understand it, these people were captured on the battlefield as combatants.
They are the citizens or legal residents of other countries.
If they were merely combatants we are obligated to return them to the country they legally reside in – which can figure out what it wants to do with them.
If they have actually engauged in war crimes then the nation that captured them can address their “war crimes”. If they engauged in “crimes against humanity” then they are the problem of international tribunals.
Because of the behavior of terrorists – no one really wants them.
If Germany or France or … takes them back, there is a serious risk of acts of terrorism and hostage taking in an attempt to get them freed. And no one really wants them to be freed.
In fact many of our european allies would be happy if the US locked them in Gitmo forever.
That would nearly eliminate the risk of acts of terror targetting their countries as the means of liberating these people, and would allow the peoples and even governments of Europe to protest their encarceration and treatment at GITMO – even though no country really wants these people back on the streets anywhere.
But Roby pointed out the left has its anus all cramped up because Trump said he was going to give them back to their native country. Europe might be happy with them at Gitmo, but our fellow democrats would want them released.
What the left wants is Trump’s destruction.
With respect to issues like these combatants – the only thing they have thought of is – how to paint whatever Trump said as crazy racist, hateful. ….
They have not actually considered alternatives. If Trump had made a different choice – they would have attacked that.
No they do not want to release these people.
They do not even want to think about the actual issue or what should be done about it.
All thought is about how to paint Trump badly. Nothing else.
This is true in myriads of areas.
Just look at the DNC debates. Not a single issue is serious.
We are not going to forgive all student loan debt or have free college.
It is just not happening. If any of these democrats were actually elected – and had a congress that would rubber stamp whatever they wanted – they would not do this – because they are not that stupid.
They are not going to abolish ICE or CBP or decriminalize imllegal immigration.
And they are also NOT going to talk about actually doing anything about immigration.
They are opposes to Trump – but they are not for anything.
They are not even for the status quo.
To the extent they stand for anything it is “magic” and they are not even prepared to tell anyone the magic they are counting on.
They are all talking about gun control – eliminating semi-automatic weapons – that is all handguns and nearly all rifles.
But they are not going to do it. They do not have any real plan – including doing nothing.
They are going to take meaningless, annoying harrasing and inefective steps incrementally pissing people off further and further – but they are not ever going to do anything.
They stand for nothing – because their ideology is one gigantic cosmic disasterous self contradiction.
Dave, so I am trying to get my hands around Trump’s personality.
I watched the clip of the “chosen one”. Then I was told he was joking again. Then I watched it again. Well he and those who believe that have a very different view on a joke than I have or he has a sense of humor dryer than the Mojave Desert because I only saw a man talking fast, giving thoughts on issues and this came right out and he kept right on talking. Not a joke to me.
However Greenland. I am going to say he may be acting like a millioaire businessman who walks in, tells his minions that I wsnt this done, go do it and they all walk out ready to follow instructions all while asking, what the “F” are we doing this for? And many businessmen.operate this way.
So I will retreat from my “nuts” position on buying Greenland and there is a reason for it in some way. What that reason is escapes me, as well as millions of Americans because he is doing the same thing with Greenland as he would with his business.
Many Americans are walking around asking “What the “F” does he want to buy Greenland for, another site for Trump Tower”?. And that is NOT PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP!
So you have watched the clip and still do not think Trump was joking.
I do not understand how that is your perception.
But I am not going to argue about your perception.
I do not think it was “dry”, I think it was obvious. Je was behaving much as he did in the clip from one of his rallies where he does the “I can act presidential, but that would be boring” skit. But I do not think you have to watch alot of Trump to grasp the joke.
I would further note the Press, ran a few stories on that, and then moved on – even they know it was a joke.
I would also suggest something else ALWAYS related to Trump stories – though it is a good idea overall. DO NOT trust the media reporting – especially when they tell you what trump said or did, without video or actual quotes or only with small excerpts.
In nearly all the “Trump did something outrageous” stories, there are paragraphs of discussions of what Trump said – telling us exactly what it meant. But often there is not even a short out of context quote. There is never the full remark, particularly not with context.
When discussing tweets – we rarely get the actual tweet.
The press does not beleive we are capable of making judgements on our own.
Regardless when straight news reporters are telling you what you should think and not telling you what the facts are – things are very wrong.
If you really think Trump was serious – then the only conclusion I can see is that you must conclude that Trump is delusional – in a way that actually meets the 25th amendment.
Though I would note – if that is actually true – there is going to be mounting evidence of that – not in offensive remarks, but in actually delusional remarks, and not in small or arguable delusions, but in great ones.
Sorry Dave I watched it again. There was notong humorious in his comments!
Humor “ha Ha” arguably not – though it is not much different from his “boring president” schtick from his ralies, which is definitely funny.
Humor as in pres baiting – absolutely, and it worked.
Further the line is delivered in such an obviously and deliberately highlighted way that there really are only two possibiliies.
He actually thinks god spoke to him.
Or he is joking.
There is not some middle ground.
There is not even just being an arrogant prick – though he was being a bit self important.
He was quite literally “chosen” to deal with this problem.
If you really think that Trump thinks he heard the voice of god directing him.
Then it is time for the 25h amendment as it actually is supposed to work.
Further if that is the case – there will be lots more examples – not merely of offencsive behavior but of behavior indicating hallucinations.
Disagreeing with someone, does not make them crazy.
And the only choices here are crazy or humourus
I would further not this story did not even last a full news cycle – because most everyone understood it was humor.
Including those falsely reporting it.
I just do not get the Greenland outrage.
I am not going to jump onto the “We must buy Greenland” bad wagon.
But it is NOT a bad idea. Approx. 3-4 times in the past we have tried to buy it before.
Harry Trump tried to buy it and ended up with the Virgin Islands instead.
The Danes do not appear to want to sell.
That is OK too.
What I do not understand is why the fuss ?
What is wrong with Trump trying to buy Greenland ?
Yes, Trump tweeted out the meme somebody put together with the giant golden Trump tower on Greenland. I thought that was brilliant of him, and self efacing.
The actual reasons for wanting greenland are strategic.
Alaska is our only connection to the Arctic. Russia has substantial borders on the arctic. They are actively seeking to make it their private domain. Canada and Denmark are not up to standing up to Russia. The US already has more personel in Greenland that the Danes do. Our early warning system for much Russian malfeasance depends on Greenland.
Further there are indications that Greenland might be a significant source of “rare earths”
What though not as “rare” as the name implies, are still only found a few places – none of which are in US control, and Rare earths are a strategic resource.
Yes, there is a little bit of the businessman in Trump.
Greenland would be an asset to the US – so why not buy it ?
Harry Truman was a businessman at one Time. so is Trump.
Trump did what business people (and even ordinary people) do when they want something that someone else owns – he offered to buy it.
You do that dozens of times a day.
Governments rarely do that – they generally use guns and try to take it.
To me this whole greenland thing is a total non-issue.
We should buy it if we can. But the Danes do not wish to sell.
Unless they change their mine – end of story.
Businesses do not do things that are “nuts”.
There are many reasons for the US to buy greenland – but mostly that is just an issue about how much we should be willing to pay.
Regardless, I do not understand all the outrage over Greenland.
I do not understand why you or anyone else thinks it is “nuts”.
If it ever becomes serious, there will be a debate over the “price”.
Personally I think it is much more valueable to the US than to Denmark.
But I do not think we are going to have that discussion.
I do not know if the golden Trump tower on Greenland was done by a supporter or Someone on the left. But Trump’s use of it is brilliant.
If you actually Think Trump wants to put a Trump Tower on Greenland – you are the one who is nuts. I do not think there is a Trump Tower anywhere in the world with less than a million people and I mean in the city it is in. There is not enough high end tourism in all of greenland to support a Trump tower. There is not enough people in all of greenland.
Greenland is going to be sparsely populated forever. But it does have strategic military value as an outpost on the Arctic, as a means of constraining Russia, as a means of protecting the US. I doubt as an example the Danes would currently allow the US to place ABM’s on greenland, yet it would be an excellent site for ABM’s to protect against Russian ICBM,s
Again So ?
What do you want to do with these people ?
Send them to Gitmo ?
Release them into the mideast ?
Send them to Los Angeles ?
Execute them ?
Speaking of idiocy.
https://babylonbee.com/news/portland-police-wish-there-were-some-kind-of-organized-armed-force-that-could-fight-back-against-antifa
Yes, this is a satire site.
But sometimes the satire is so true.
Wasn’t someone here constantly posting Joe Walsh attacks on Trump ?
https://twitter.com/noreallyhowcome/status/1164230723391254528
An execellent Rubin Report with a Black NRA advocate mostly covering the actual facts regarding guns.
When I worked. at the hospital, there were many stories about those cominv for treatment, many high on drugs or with mental conditions.
Had someone wslked in and said they “were the chosen one” cosideration for a complete mental evaluation would have been considered.
This guy is totally off the wall. Cant wait until tomorrow to hear what he comes up with next.
Antichrist maybe?
President Trump yesterday joked about giving himself the Medal of Honor: “I wanted one, but they told me I don’t qualify … I said, ‘Can I give it to myself anyway?’” hill.cm/kZbvIEK
That doesnt count if he ” joked” about that. People, even politicians, say things all the time joking about different things.
I want the “serious” comments that are off the wall.
“I think one thing that should be distinguished here is that the media is always taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously, but it always takes him literally. … I think a lot of voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally, so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment, their question is not, ‘Are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China?’ or, you know, ‘How exactly are you going to enforce these tests?’ What they hear is we’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.”
Peter Theil.
But others have noted the same thing.
I would further note that The left did the same with Obama.
In fact we all tend to take the politicians we like seriously but not litterally.
And those we do not literally but not seriously.
Many of the ‘offensive’ remarks of Clinton, Obama, leading democrats were not meant to be taken literally
Such as the deplorables comment or the clinging to guns and bibles. or taking a gun to a knife fight or punching back twice as hard.
The problem with the remarks of most democrats – is they are awful whether litteral or merely serious.
Fundamentally the left hates PEOPLE who do not support the IDEAS, while the right hates IDEAS, and attacks PEOPLE for supporting them.
Look at the public conversation:
“Trump is a racist”
Sometimes followed by some weak evidence to support that.
Quite often the purported evidence reguires enormous amounts of mind reading to reach a conclusion like racism.
But it is easy for the left to jump to racism – if you disagree with their ideas you are vile, and presumptively racist.
The right has gone after Obama, Clinton – Nearly the entire 2020 Democratic lineup for “Socialism”. We can debate how strongly that characterization applies – though many 2020 democratic candidates have openly embraced socialism.
The world does not fit anything perfectly – and obviously you can find counter examples.
Still there is a pattern.
Even the article on the Hill grasped that Trump “Joked”.
Watch the actual clip. It comes off entirely different in context.
Trump was being playful, and he was goading the press.
To an extent he was suggesting Chosen by god.
To an extent he was suggesting chosen by voters.
To an extent he was suggesting – I am the person was was president at the time this problem had to be dealt with.
Regardless, you can like the way he speaks, or not.
But he was clearly not delusional.
Dave, there was NOTHING playful in that comment. He was 100% serious. He said it without thinking or hesitation. He believes what he said. And to most people who have just one religious blood cell in their veins amoung millions, “Chosen One” has only one meaning.
John 15:16 – Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Trump truely believes God chose.him to take on China!
I have called him obnoxious, assinine, asshole and other adjectives, but I am now in the mentally unstable category. Right now Delusions of Grandeur to start.
Find and play the clip.
I did.
I would also suggest you find clips of Trump’s at his rallies. There is one a couple of minutes long of Trump pantomiming “acting presidential”.
When you get past the picture of Trump that NYT and MSNBC paint – he is actually having a great deal of fun as president. And Trump clearly does not take himself seriously.
Sometimes Trump is somewhat Serious. I think what he says and does regarding China is very meaningful. I do not think it is the “truth”. But I think it is very calculated.
He is saying what he wants whoever his audience is to hear. That audience might be Xi, not the press. Further I think Trump is incredibly good at playing different factions off against each other. He is working Asia incredibly. We were told that if we did not join TPP we were going to be 2nd fiddle in Asia. Trump owns asia, He has the vietnamese eating out of his hand, the Japanese, the South Koreans. He has them all playing against each other and for him. Today the US is the dominant power in Asia – not China, and we are not part of the TPP.
But at other times he is incredibly playful – Like Reagan’s mcrophone test about nuking the USSR. Only Trump does it all the time.
Yes, he is absolutely self obsessed – everything is about him. He is the focus of his world.
But that does not make everything he says serious.
He is often the jester in his own world.
Absolutely he loves being in front of the camera and he plays for it.
but that is exactly it – he plays for it.
regardless, watch the clip. It is very tongue in cheek.
He knew exactly what he was doing. He was playing the press.
Like I said, I watched it. Not even a flicker.of a smile. Guess I worked for to many egotistical assholes that acted just like Trump that were not joking to find humor in his comments.
People generally do not smile or laugh at their own jokes.
I do not even think this is a close call. He clearly went “deadpan” – pretty much exactly the shift he does when he does his “Boring presidential Trump” riff in his Rallies.
Regardless, if you want to try to treat this straight.
There are two “chosen” options. Chosen by the people – in that sense Every president is the one chosen to have to deal with whatever comes up. That is just a tautology.
The other is chosen by god. Do you really want to have that discussion ?
One of the big problems with the left – is they can not distinguish between
“I disagree” and
You are …. evil, crazy, racist, delusional, ….
If you are making moral judgements of another person – regardless of the basis,
you had better be right, because if you are not the moral cost is yours.
People generally do not smile or laugh at their own jokes.
I do not even think this is a close call. He clearly went “deadpan” – pretty much exactly the shift he does when he does his “Boring presidential Trump” riff in his Rallies.
Regardless, if you want to try to treat this straight.
There are two “chosen” options. Chosen by the people – in that sense Every president is the one chosen to have to deal with whatever comes up. That is just a tautology.
The other is chosen by god. Do you really want to have that discussion ?
One of the big problems with the left – is they can not distinguish between
“I disagree” and
You are …. evil, crazy, racist, delusional, ….
If you are making moral judgements of another person – regardless of the basis,
you had better be right
Ron, he was joking! Watch the clip.
OK two against one, he was joking. I still dont see it. But like I told Dave I worked much of my career where the CEO’s were much like Trump. I can desribe them, but not worth the time to do that. But after working 35+years in one location with two CEO’s that were sarcastic egotistical idiots that would say they were the ” chosen one” to do something difficult, my views on comments like that is much different than others would vew them.
Haha, didn’t mean to ‘gang up’ on you, Ron. Trump can be an asshole, and his sarcastic style of humor is not really funny.
I was reading an article last night about how exhausting it is to try and follow the 24 news cycle in the age of Trump, and I completely agree that it is. I have seen many people simply stop following the news entirely, because they can’t stand the constant outrage. Both of my sons, who were very interested in politics, have basically checked out, and I’ve been tempted to do so myself.
As we have all pointed out, at one time or another, there is plenty of blame on both sides. I was listening to an interview with Piers Morgan the other day, and he made a very good point. (He’s about as neutral as source as you could find these days : a Brit, who knows Trump quite well and likes him ~ he was the winner on the first season of “The Aprentice.”) He thinks that Trump is both sane and smart, but disagrees with him on many issues. Morgan considers himself a liberal, voted against Brexit, but now finds liberals to be completely intolerant and illiberal, both in the US and the UK.
He said that the death of journalism is almost entirely at fault for the situation that we find ourselves in. He believes that, if Trump got praise when he was right, in addition to condemnation when he was wrong, he would be a very different president, and would, for political reasons, behave in ways that were politically advantageous for him. But, as it is, he is condemned no matter what he says or does, so there is no political upside for him to try and change. The only upside for him lies in fighting back, and condemning his enemies.
It strikes me that this will be our politics going forward, on both sides, regardless of whether Trump wins or loses in 2020, and it will destroy our political system.
Now, maybe we’ll survive as a democracy, but it will be a very different democracy than what we have known. And there is a real danger of authoritarianism taking the place of constitutionalism. Already, the Democrats have made it known that, should they win the Senate/House/Presidency, they will end the filibuster entirely, pass whatever laws they want, and pack the Supreme Court with activist justices.
I don’t realistically see how we come back from that.
Democrats get away with alot more in the way of political stunts than republicans.
I vigorously oppose all the efforts to erode the senates anti-majoritarian rules that have existed for centuries. I oppose them whether democrats do it or republicans.
With few exceptions though both parties threaten, Democrats always cross the line first.
Had presidents been able ot put the justice of their choice on the court with a majority of the senate – SCOTUS would have between 7 and 9 extremely conservative justices.
But more stupid here.
The coming election is near certain to be about Turnout.
SCOTUS is a major turnout issue for Social Conservatives.
A major factor in Trump’s victory – atleast shoring up his support of social conservatives was his list of prospects and his promise to pick from it.
Announcing before the election that you are going to change all the rules and stuff the supreme court is less likely to bring democrats to the polls that Republicans.
And it is going to alienate those in the middle.
I recently read a 2020 analysis – that I think was overly optomistic for Republicans – but it did make a very very important point. Trump has locked nearly everyone who voted for him in 2016. To the extent he has lost some neo-cons, he has won over many never trumpers.
Put simply Trump does not have to work very hard to replicate his 2016 results.
2016 was not the peak voter turnout year – but it was 0.4% shy of the highest voter turn out ever. Current signs are 2020 will NOT be a peak turnout year.
To win the whitehouse Democrats have to get almost 2% higher turnout than in 2016 – that would blow away the record. Current indications are minority turnout will be lower than any recent presidential election AND that Trump will pick up about 8% more of the minority vote than any prior republican.
The other big issue for 2020 is that 2016 had the largest 3rd party vote in a long long time.
about 5%. Nearly all of that was libertarian.
Contra what the left has claimed – if every stein voter voted for Clinton Trump would still have won.
To make a difference Clinton would have had to get MORE than half of the libertarian vote – and that is not happening.
If third party voting drops to historic norms and third party leaning votes split 60:40 republican as they normally do, Trump pick up something like 1.5M votes.
Trumps biggest area of concern is among white women.
They have to run out and 10% more have to vote against him than did in 2016
Regardless, Democrats announcing reasons that republicans should get out and vote is stupid.
Priscilla, I have absolutely no problem with “ganging up” on me from you and Dave since you both address the issues and offer debate. Those that question you personality are the ones I have a problem with. And I dont mean like saying someone is not understanding or not reading/ hearing something said and saying future debate is fruitless, I mean other personal comments like ” if you cant understand x, then I cant help you”
So to address Trump. Trump called Rubio “little Marco”. Bush “low energy Bush”. Now its “sleepy Joe”. And in my mind he is constantly demeaning people. I retired after working 20 years with a CEO that was about 10 years younger than I was. I was called Ron by everyone at the hospital. Superiors, equals, my employees. Except this ass. Everytime I saw him individually or in meetings, it was ” Well how is Ronnie doing today” or some such demeaning use of my Nick name only my mother ever used. And he did that with Don’s, Jon’s, and women with names he could make child like. It was his way to make others inferior, just like Trump.
So I have no use for people like that and find no humor in anything they may say unless it is a true joke.
Almost everyone that Trump has “labeled” – including everyone you cited, came after him first.
I can not think of an instance where Trump has tossed the first insult.
What distinguishes Trump is that his insults stick.
I would agree with you that I do not want the president to “punch back twice as hard” – which BTW is a quote from Obama.
But it is what we have.
And of all the things I do not want in a president – it is far from the most important.
My name is the same as my fathers.
I have been called “little david”, “Davie”, “David Jr”. and an asortmet of other things.
I was never especially happy with them.
I worked for/with my father. At one point in an office with 50 people 6 were named david.
That Guaranteed I was getting called “david Jr”. most of the time.
A very tiny number of people have called me “junior” – aside from a sister who is a sociopath and unfortunately a member of the family, my mother fired all the rest.
During the conflicts over my fathers estate, we received the some of the communications of the executor. This was a person who had been a freind – if not close. Who had worked for me, and knew that no one called me “junior”.
Throughout his communications it was “junior” this and “junior” that.
Mind you this is AFTER my father is dead, and when I am nearly 60 years old.
Anyway – I am not aware of Trump doing this with freinds or co-workers.
In fact I am not aware of many successful people who do not go to great efforts to call people who work with them whatever they want. It is a trait of good leaders.
One I lack. I do not insult or demean people, but I do not remember their names either.
Tell me that Trump is using these kinds of terms for freinds and subordinates and you have my ear.
Back to the my executor thing above – After the executor called the police and falsely accused me of stealing, AND he and his lawyer told the court he has done no such thing and AFTER I produced the police report where the officer states that the executor reported to the police that I was stealing, After those things on occasions in court I refered to the executor and his lawyer as liars.
When someone attacks you – especially falsely, they are no longer entitled to the respect we normally afford people.
I wish as president that Trump would go there less. But it is still not a moral offense.
How do we come back ?
The route we are headed is towards a constitutional convention.
Arguably enough states have asked for that that Congress could call for one now.
But we are only a few states away from there being no arguably left.
Anything is possible at a constitutional convention – but the most likely result is a plethora of amendments.
A few of those could favor the left.
We could get proposed amendments restricting campaign financing.
Or trying to reverse CU.
But the net impact will be positive.
Term Limits are extremely popular.
And remember – whatever comes from a constitutional convention must be ratified by the states. It will be easy to gets states to ratify limiting federal power.
They are not going to agree to limit their own easily.
I do not think that you can get a constitutional convention to change the rules the house and senate operate under
But a trivial amendment would be to require that any changes the house or senate make to their own rules can not take effect until the next session. That would get rid of these nonsense attempts to get rid of the fillibuster.
Big, important news stories of the week:
1)Trump is asked about rumors that he thinks buying Greenland would be a good idea ~ an idea that has been tossed around since the Truman administration~ and answers that he believes it would be, based on strategic military considerations, as well as Greenland’s wealth of natural mineral resources. (The press goes wild, mocking him for such a “stupid” idea)
2) Trump explains that China became a much worse problem after the previous 3-4 administrations failed to stop Chinese currency manipulation, corporate espionage and intellectual property theft, and the targeting of American industry/jobs through exploitation of NAFTA loopholes. He jokes that he’s the “chosen one” who got stuck with the job. (The press goes wild, mocking him for believing that he is a god)
3) Sean Spicer is announced as part of the umpteenth season of Dancing With the Stars. The press goes wild, ranting that he will politicize the serious, respected show. (Unlike Tom DeLay, Tucker Carlson, and Rick Perry, who were definitely not political figures)
Totally unimportant news stories of the week:
1) Overstock.com CEO gives major interviews on Fox and CNN, alleging that he was asked by the FBI to help get his ex-girlfriend, a Russian agent, into the Trump, Cruz and Rubio 2016 campaigns. Says that Peter Strzok was the agent who communicated with him.
2) Joe Biden explains that the JFK, MLK and RFK assassinations occurred in the late 1970’s, forcing the Biden campaign to release a statement from his neurosurgeon, claiming that he does not have brain damage.
4) Anti-Semites Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib slam Israel for barring them from coming into the country of “Palestine” and promoting the BDS anti-Israel movement. (The press goes wild, praising them for their anti-Semitic bravery, and calls Netanyahu a puppet of Trump)
Naddler just criticised boththe anti-semitism of Trump and “the squad”.
I really do not like Nadler – but Kudos to him for treating both sides the same.
In this instance I think he is wrong – but atleast not in a politically biased way.
It is not anti-semitism to attack Israel. It is not anit-semitism to praise israel.
It is not anti-semitism to question why jews are loyal to Israel.
It is not anti-semitism to ask why they are not.
Just as it is not racism to ask why minorities still support democrats who have F’d them over repeatedly.
Trump is not anti-semetic – and only in the nonsensicaly world of the left could someone whose CLOSE son-in-law is extremely jewish, and whose daughter converted be “anti-semetic”
My kids are both asian – if someone accused me of being racist against “yellow people”
I would be frothing mad.
“The Squad” is actually stupidly and ill informedly anti-semite, and they are mostly wrong regarding Israel. But those are independent. Attacks on Israel are not anti-semetic -even when they are wrong
NBC -“NEW: President Trump tweets that he is “ordering” US companies to look for alternatives to China, though it’s unclear under what authority the president would invoke to force businesses which are not state-run to comply with what he views as an order.”
Was President A-Hole joking here too
Word Of The Day:
BAFFLEGAB
MEANING:
1-Messy, wordy jargon
2-Incomprehensible gibberish
3-Confusing legal or bureaucratic language
SYNONYM: Trump-speak
EXAMPLE: Trump’s American business bafflegab causes stock market tumble:
We are not citing Joe Walsh again ?
https://www.mic.com/articles/148139/dallas-police-shooting-joe-walsh-racist-tweet
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/joe-walsh-tweet-racial-slurs-redskins-radio-show-108108
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/09/24/stevie-wonder-kneel-trump-racist/
There are much worse Walsh tweets, but that is not the point.
It is arguable whether many of these examples of Walsh’s remarks are actually racist.
It is not arguable that Whatever the standard is – Walsh is more racist than Trump.
It is also not arguable that YOU have associated yourself with someone who make Trump look civil.
Arguments of the form – “someone else says” – are fallacy. Most are appeals to authority. All are fallacy.
Regardless, they are a type of fallacy that inextricably weds you to the “authority” you cite.
Please keep using Joe Walsh to make your arguments.
How about some Max Boot too ?
And some Bill Krystol, he was pushing Walsh as a republican challenger to Trump in 2020.
If you wish to pretend the rest of us have some guilt by association with Trump
You guilt is worse.
There are reasons you should make fallacious arguments.
One of the reasons is that fallacy ultimately leads to natsy bitter debates full of accusations, and recriminations.
The responsibility for that rests with those who resort to fallacy as their means of argument.
Put simply – on your own terms, you OWN (or ar OWNED by) those you cite.
There is a gigantic golf between defending one persons speach – whether good or bad.
And using that of another to do your bidding.
I can defend the right of NAZI’s and even Joe Walsh to speak his mind, without defending what they actually say.
But when you offer someone else’s as an authority on anything – you tie yourself to them much more strongly that if you are merely difending their right to be wrong.
Saying someone IS right about something weds you to them.
Saying someone has the right to say something weds you to liberty.
Trump is the GOP reaction to Obama ‘s “Administration by Force”.
Sanders/Warren etc is the extreme lefts reaction to Trump.
Hold.on tight for the GOP reaction to socialist force driven politics. Trump will look tame compared to what will come after that fiasco.
Executive orders are limited tin domain to the constitutional powers of the president.
They are further limited by constitutional laws.
And they are further limited to the direct conduct of the executive branch.
Trump can not Order citizens to do anything.
He can not order Congress or the supreme court.
The most he can do is order the executive ranch not to do business with companies that do business with china.
That would be unwise but still within his powers.
“If President Obama had ….”
President Obama DID do many of those things.
It is possible to argue that Trump is the most vigorous enforcer of US immigration laws in a century. But even if Trump is #1 Obama is #2. The cages that the left bemoans were built by Obama.
Trump’s “muslim ban” EO version 1 was nearly word for word the same as a an Obama EO that was mostly ignored by the press.
The better statement is that if Trump had the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, IRS,…. targetting political oponents – he would already have been impeached.
Yet there is zero doubt Obama did all of that, and increasing evidence that he did much more. If what the CEO of Overstock is telling us is correct:
Not only did the Trump intelligence investigation being in 2015 but Rubio and Cruz were targeted TOO, and this was not been directed as normal by field offices of the FBI but entirely from big muckety mucks in the top of DOJ/FBI in DC.
Please tell me excatly what it is that Trump has DONE that is nearly as egregious as Obama.
As time moves we are even learning more about the Clinton investigation that is damaging.
During the entire Clinton Email investigation – no one was obligated to make any statements under penalty of perjury. We now know that not only were Clinton’s emails on a private bathroom email server bas ass naked to the world, but they were echoed to a gmail account.
We now know that Clinton and her staff were repeatedly told that what they were doing was a massive mishandling of classified information, that it was illegal and that it needed to stop.
We now know they were taking pictures of information on secure terminals inside the SCIF using ipads and then retyping them into emails. Put simply that means they KNEW they were sending classified information. Everything on a secure terminal is presumed classified, and if you need to take a photo of it to copy it you KNOW you are doing something wrong.
I do not think we yet know how they got ipads into the SCIF – that is not allowed.
Merely taking pictures in a SCIF is a crime.
So please explain to me what the basis is for the obama administration to by spying on Trump, Rubio and Cruz in 2015 ? Steele has not yet raised his ugly head.
All this appears to be tied to Butina. And what appears to have occured is that people in the top Tier of the FBI/CIA/NSA were using the CEO of Overstock to redirect Butina at political enemies and to provide them a heads up ahead of time so that they could monitor her.
Eseneitally unbenownced to Butina and the Russians the CIA, NSA and especially thge FBI were “running” her as a foreign agent targeting political enemies for the purpose of gaining political advantage.
Do you not understand how wrong this is ?
From what I can tell – nothing Butina was actually doing was improper or illegal.
She appears to be a pro gun libertarian from Rusia trying to connect like minded people in both the US and Russia.
The crime is not what she was doing – but what the Obama administration was essentially using her for – The FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA were being used to create the appearance of campaign related foreign espionage for political purposes where there was none.
It is pretty much certain that Mueller uncovered this. We know that After telling the country Butina was a major spy, and locking her in solitary for a year, that Mueller ultimately agreed to just deport her.
It is arguable that silencing Butina was the actual goal, because too deep a lok at Butina exposes the entire Obama administration.
So is this stuff OK with you ?
What exactly is it that Trump has done that compares ?
If you are going to say Obama could not have gotten away with What Trump did – you are going to have to have real examples of something Trump has done that is worse than Obama ?
Thus far I beleive Trump has lost in the Supreme court 2-3 times. One was a case Obama started that it is arguable Trump deliberatly lost.
The other two were 5-4 decisons. Obama has lost in the supreme court 9-0 more than all prior presidents combined.
Surely you are not saying that SCOTUS thinks that Trumps actions thus far have been more lawless than Obamas.
What are these acts that obama could not have gotten away with ?
70% of Trump’s presidency has been undoing the extraconstitutional things Obama did.
THAT is what all these nutjobs thik is outrageous.
China is illegally exporting massive amounts of fentanyl into the US.
Enough to kill every man, woman and child in this country, and it is the Chinese government that is doing this, using the subterfuge of false packaging and labeling, among other things.
It is, for all intents and purposes, an act of chemical warfare, and it’s been going on for some time.
If Trump wants to order American shipping companies to cooperate with our goverment’s efforts to stop a foreign enemy’s attempts to poison and kill our citizens, I’m good with that. And, if you’re not, because you hate Trump? Then you’re seriously deranged.
Turn about is fair play – but Chian should be targeting the UK not the US. It was the british that were adicting the chinese to opiates 200 years ago.
I do not know all the details of this.
But I am still opposed to Trump directing private companies.
I am even more strongly opposed to efforts to find ways to filter our shipments.
I do not want the government to easily eb able to figure out what I am buying from Who.
If I want to Buy Amoxicillian from Canada, or RU486 from France or whatever from China circumenting our FDA and regulations and drug laws – I think that is fantastic.
I want all economic regulation to fail because it is beyond govenments ability to enforce.
If that means more narcotics – so be it.
Portugal decriminalized everything over 20 years ago. The results have not been perfect. Drug addiction has not disappeared. But many of the negative impacts have disappeared completely.
I am not a drug user, so I have to trust what I hear. but it is my understanding no one deliberately takes Fentenyl or CarFentynyl. The high is too short and not that good.
It is becomeing more common because it is cheap – because it is synthetic and opiates are not. And because it is easy to transport because of its incredibly high concentration.
As I understand it a sheet of paper dipped in carfentinyl provides the equivalent of 10000 hits. The bad news is that an inocent person just touching the paper without gloves can overdose.
Regardless my understanding is that fentinyl and carfentinyl would likely disappear if you legalized drugs. Their values are low cost and the ability to thwart law enforcement.
We have lots the war on drugs – just as we did prohibition. It is long past time to admit that.
It is time to figure out how we can quit trying to deal with drugs as a crime problem.
I know families that have been destoryed by drugs. I know good people who have become bad people over drugs. I am not pretending this is not a problem.
I put a great deal of effort into tilting the odds that my kids would not develop drug problems – and whether by effort or luck I have been fortunate so far.
But I understand that everyone is not.
So, if I gave you a “cookie” and you consumed it, because I told you that it was made of flour and sugar, but it was actually spiked with poison,and I knew that it would kill you, that would be acceptable in your view?
Why have a government at all, if not to protect us from foreign enemies who seek to harm us?
Fraud and murder are not economic transactions – they are crimes – they are uses of force against another, and they are the legitimate domain of government.
If I give you money expecting Fentinyl in return – and I get fentinyl from you – that is not within the legitimate domain of government.
If the chinese(government or private) lie to american consumers – even drug addicts, there is a role for government. but so long as the exchange is free an honest, it is not the business of government.
Government has three roles – all of which are inextricalbly related to the social contract – yeilding out natural right to initiate force, in return for the protection of our other rights by government – particulerly when force or fraud are used.
Most of the time the use of force or fraud is a crime (or an act of war).
Governments first role is the punishment of crimes.
Its next role is the enforcement of agreements.
The only role government has in free exchange is – ensuring that it is free, and then ensuring that the parties live up to what they agreed to do.
That is the 2nd role of government.
We have a duty not to harm our neighbors.
When we do so through force or fraud that is a crime.
But sometimes we harm others without using force or fraud – usually, if not always unintentionally. If I skid on an icy road and run into your porch – I harmed you.
I am responsible to repair the damage to your porch.
That is the third role of government – enforcing the requirement that I make you whole if I harm you.
Harms must be real. If you are a snowflake and go into emotional shutdown because of my words – that is your problem. Nor can the harm by hypothetical. Nor can the harm be diminish.
Those are the three legitimate roles of government
Criminal law
Civil/contract law
Tort law.
Free Trade between individuals within a country – within the constraints of LEGITIMATE criminal, civil and tort law, is not the business of government.
Nor is trade between individuals and different countries.
If China is exporting fentanyl ILLEGALLY, that is, exporting it in boxes that say “baking soda,” and they are doing so for the express purpose of harming the US, that is NOT free trade. And the President of the US has a duty to stop it, and, if necessary, to retaliate. Do you not accept that a government has a right to defend its laws from foreign state actors who try to violate them? I wonder if we are talking past each other, because I have never known you to make an argument like that.
Priscilla, Dave makes these arguements all the time. If “A” buys anything from”B” and its a fair exchange , then he believes that should be legal. Anything from any one or any country.
However, how is Trump going to enforce that regulation? No one can expect UPS, FedX or any shipper to search every box sent from China. I suspect he would find some derogatory comment to say about UPS if they began opening shipments destined for Trump Resorts to look for fentenol.
And the Chinese could care less what he does. They could be taken to the WTO about illegal shipments, be sanctioned and they will just give us the finger and continue shipping.
Your argument that UPS, Fedex etc can not inspect every package is good too
Government should not be seeking to do the impossible. If it can not be done properly it should not be done half ass.
Next we have govenrment converting Law enforcement to a private task.
And imposing the cost on private actors.
China and Xi are not immune to their world image – or Tanks would have rolled through Hong Kong long ago.
Fraud in free exchange is NOT deceiving the government, it is deceiving the other party to the exchange.
I do not care how the chinese package the product.
I do care if they are selling baking soda to people expecting baking soda, and they are getting fentinyl.
Nor do I care about the phrase “illegally” when that is refering to laws outside the legitimate scope of government.
The rule of law is NOT the rule of any law that can get made.
It is the rule of actual legitimate laws.
The declaration of independence is a claim that England both did not make laws for the colonies that were needed and made laws that were not legitimate.
And that both actions were outside “the rule of law”.
A nation can have volumes of laws – and still be lawless.
I do not accept that ANY nation has the authority to “defend” itself against breaches of invalid laws. Slavery was constitutional and legal in the US at one time. It was never moral, or just or inside the legitimate power of government.
I have attacked those on the left for their claims to be able to read Trumps or anyone else’s mind. The same is true of your efforts to read “china’s” mind.
Further what is on china’s mind – does not matter.
I do not care what their “intent” is.
Are their actions within the legitimate scope of government to interfere with.
In each of the areas I noted regarding legitimate government – what mattered was ACTIONS not intentions.
While intention is often an element of crimes. It is NEVER sufficient alone.
There must be an actual act that abridges a right.
We have also discussed this in the context of whether Trump “obstructed justice”.
Intent alone is NOT obstruction (or any other crime), partly because we do not prosecute thought crimes, and partly because we can not read minds.
I similarly opposed Bushes “preemptive war” doctrine – again we can prepare for the bad acts of other nations based on our guesses as to their intentions.
But “acts of war” require ACTS,
So long as the buyer and the sellor both understand the transaction and enter it freely – the hypothetical “intentions” of either are irrelevant.
I do not think we are talking past each other.
You are just bumping into the fact that I am a really hard core libertarian.
I have problems with China’s purported actions – they too fall outside the scope of legitimate government. But outside of actual acts of aggression (force) against the US or its people, the responsibility to address the illegitimate and unjust actions of the chinese government belong to its people.
I would further not – while legitimate government absolutely positively rests on a MORAL foundation, all acts that are immoral are NOT within the scope of govenrment.
I think that it is wrong – immoral to sell people some drugs. I think it is wrong – immoral to take some drugs. But everything that is immoral is not and should not be illegal.
I think that chineses efforts to amplify drug problems in the US are immoral. But that is not inside the scope of legitimate government to thwart.
I think the efforts of the Russian govenrment (as well as those of the US government) to influence foreign elections are immoral – they are also outside the legitimate scope of govenrment. But thwarting them is ALSO outside the legitimate scope of govenrment.
Many people – drug dealers, foreign govenrments try to persuade people to bad choices – that is immoral. That does not make it illegal.
Beyond those three pilars of legitimate government, fighting immorality is private – meaning outside the scope of government. It is the role of individuals, churches, civic groups. charities.
If I wish to sell Tide Pods – is it the business of government to prevent that ?
People have been injured or killed by eating tide pods.
So long as I sell Tide Pods as Tide Pods, so long as I do not sell them to you as candy – why should government have a role ?
Can I sell you a gun ? A car ? A Bicycle ? These are all dangerous things.
Can I sell you a gun – even if you might harm your self of others ?
So long as I can sell you other dangerous things – why can’t I sell you drugs ?
People buying Drugs know they are dangerous. But they want to buy them anyway – just like cars and guns.
Government has a role:
If I offer you candy and give you tide pods.
If I sell you candy and give you nothing.
If high on sugar I run down your mailbox.
This is actually the kind of discussion that I really like about Rick’s site. The 3 of us have been here for umpteen years, and we have agreed and disagreed on any number of issues ( Dave, I do remember practically begging you to vote for Romney, and running smack dab into your argument that Romney would just take us to the same place that Obama would, just more gradually) And, over the years I have come to understand and even agree with many of your arguments. It helps that Ron is also libertarian in his outlook, but with a more pragmatic, conservative side. Or maybe it’s the other way around. I guess that I genuinely am somewhat of a populist, now. Or, at least I often argue like one. Is there such a thing as a conservapopitarian?
Anyway, all that aside, any American president has a duty and obligation to insure national security. In my opinion, Trump is doing the right thing, although , as time goes on, he might be more successful using a different strategy. Right now, he is pursuing a trade war as opposed to a shooting war, because trade is how the Chinese have chosen to weaken us and strengthen themselves. Unfortunately, success may lead to more aggression on the part of the Chinese, who have used “free trade” to provide a platform for them to become the world’s leading exporter of consumer goods.
The truth, that everyone now knows, is that free trade with a centrally controlled economic power does not result in everyone prospering, and in our case, it’s resulted in the hollowing out of our industrial jobs base, among other things.
So, what is the job of a chief executive in this situation? How does a president protect American interests, without being rolled by a foreign government who uses “free trade” as a weapon?
Priscilla, now are you mixing arguements?
1. Trump ordering companies like FedEx UPS and all other carriers to search for and refuse all deliveries of fentanyl
2. Trade war to get actual fair trade between countries
Because I think I am 50-50 with each or you on these.
Dave does not support Trump on trade policies. ayou seem to.
Dave does not support Trump on inspecting Chinese shipments, you seem to.
I’m with you on trade.
I’m with Dave on inspecting shipments from China.
Just to be clear:
Trump’s trade war with China is about two things – China buying more US goods.
Intellectual property.
Both of these are inconsequential.
Ultimately China WILL buy more from the US – despite their efforts to avoid that.
Intellectual property is a misnomer. It is fundimetally unprotectable.
Furhter the whole premise of stealing IP rests on the false premise that a nation capable of stealing IP AND making use of it, was not capable of developing it in the first place.
What the US should fear is not China “stealing” but what happens when circumstances reach the point where the average chinese person is as able to create as the average american.
Japan reached that stage – but Japan is not a nation of 1.3B people.
China has a LONG way to go to reach the US standard of living which is a prerequisite for real intellectual competition. If it ever reaches that – china will dominate the world – just from the sheer number of people.
I am much more concerned about the US trying to limit what americans can buy – that negatively impacts our standard of living.
Even if inspections of all packages were possible the cost increase to US consumers would outweigh any benefits.
Dave, I will say this one more time. I know completely that you accept China doing anything they want with trade. I understand. I also understand that jobs may not return regardless. If we stop importing from China, we may import from Mexico.
HOWEVER!!!!! Please understand my position on trade even though you dont agree. Before all this China trade war started, China imposed a tariff on our cars going to China at a minimum of about 25%, with some higher. We imported Buicks from China without tariffs. NO!! I dont support protectionist tariffs except for limited, specific reasons like Harley Davidson reorganization in 1983. Limited for reason and duration. I dont support farm supports or tariffs on agriculture to protect our farmers that keeps foreign product out if those countries dont penalize anything going to them, ie sugar tariffs.I can accept some African nation trying to build a democratic nation and their economy by manufacturing something like jeans and then putting tariffs on jeans to protect their business, but not China. Its close to #1 economy. They need no tariffs! Free, Fair, Equal, Matching! 0%= 0%. 50% = 50%
No I do not accept that China should do whatever it pleases regarding Trade.
But China doing stupid things – HARMS CHINA, and is therefore not the business of the US government.
“the jobs are not returning”.
If I said that it is incorrect. More accurately
One way or another the jobs were going away no matter what.
The difference is the former presumes they went away by some chinese malfeasance – never to return.
The other that their departure was inevitable.
That is the only thing that is actually true.
To the greatest extent possible a functioning free market will ALWAYS strive to DESTROY as many jobs as possible and replace them with more productive ones.
ALWAYS.
It is completely irrelevant whether less productive jobs go to china, robots, mexico, outsourcing, india, …..
The process of raising standard of living ALWAYS requires the destruction of jobs.
That is what being MORE PRODUCTIVE means. Doing more with fewer people.
We have 8 years of 2% stagnant growth – if you really want to stop ALL job losses – you are looking at an economy that would be significantly worse than that.
None of this has anything to do with China.
Dave, you are not reading or understanding my positions on trade. So I dont have to enter it again, I will copy and paste.
“HOWEVER!!!!! Please understand my position on trade even though you dont agree. Before all this China trade war started, China imposed a tariff on our cars going to China at a minimum of about 25%, with some higher. We imported Buicks from China without tariffs. NO!! I dont support protectionist tariffs except for limited, specific reasons like Harley Davidson reorganization in 1983. Limited for reason and duration. I dont support farm supports or tariffs on agriculture to protect our farmers that keeps foreign product out if those countries dont penalize anything going to them, ie sugar tariffs.I can accept some African nation trying to build a democratic nation and their economy by manufacturing something like jeans and then putting tariffs on jeans to protect their business, but not China. Its close to #1 economy. They need no tariffs! Free, Fair, Equal, Matching! 0%= 0%. 50% = 50%”
I said nothing about jobs. I also said I dont agree with our protectionist ag policies. I said nothing about productivity. I said I support fair, free, equal , matching trade!
So, dont respond. It will do no good and this tread is beginning to get bogged down with too many cooments trying to load.
Ron;
I read, and I think reasonable well understand your position. I just disagree.
Am I prohibited from making arguments that are not direct responses to yours ?
What I will cede is that:
1). Trump has demonstrated that their are instances in which the negative impacts of Tarrifs to the imposing country are not large.
Just to be clear – there are many instances in which they are large.
2). There are POLITICAL circumstances in which the negative impact of Tarrifs on a trading partner might be of value.
Overall, I do NOT support using trade – such as sanctions, as a weapon. It is not usually very effective. I am not sure how unique the situation with China is right now.
Trade Sanctions – which are nothing more than an infinite tarrif, have been far less effective than their advocates have claimed in the past – Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, …. all come to mind.
However it is my impression at the moment that Xi/China are under significant pressure right now. I think if Xi could do so without losing face (and losing power) he would do so.
As with most of the issues that I disagree with you and Trump on – such as immigration:
There are good choices, bad choices, and ones in between
In immigration Trump is complying with the law, and doing what is best out of what is politically possible. I do not have to fully agree to reject the claim that Trump’s approach to immigration is disasterous. It is not. It is not what I want, but there are far worse choices.
Trump’s handling of Trade is much the same. It is not what I want, It is not the best, but it is not the disaster that the left and media are trying to sell.
Further if Trump succeeds in opening China – and I do not mean merely with respect to Trade. I mean if Trump’s pressure creates the impetus needed to bring about political change in China – that would be good.
Just to be clear – even if that happens – I expect it to be chaotic – atleast at first.
Dave “Am I prohibited from making arguments that are not direct responses to yours ?”
No, but when one responds within the thread of comments on a discussion, it seems to be safe to assume that the comment is a direct response to what others posted. That is what “reply” refers to. The message I get at the top of notifications shows ” in response to Xxx”, and then the original comment is listed so readers know what the response is for.
When one clicks ” leave comment” at the beginning of the comment section, that opens a new discussion. I thought that was for comments not in direct response to what others had posted.
How else are we to determine if a comment is a direct response to one made by another or a new line of thoughts?
To clarify.
Often I respond point by point to other comments.
Often I respond to the broad theme of a thread.
Sometimes both.
Further – I am not alone,
If I were we could not have jumped from mass shootings to trade and immigration.
I post more frequently and often more voluminously than others – guilty.
As to deviating from the core of some comment I am responding to,
my posts are not unique.
So when we deviate and others react to the original issues being discussed and it is not posted in the heirarchical root of cooments, then we should not be surprised when others respond as though they pertained to previous comments in the heirarchy. WordPress is like an outline of comments. Based on that, I assumed you were respond ing to my comment.
I was responding to your comment.
I was not necescarily point by point responding to each of your arguments.
Why is this an issue ?
I thought I was the one who purportedly has asbergers or autism or some spectrum disorder that can not cope with deviation ?
“Why is this an issue ?”
It is totally impossible for me to follow comments on wordpress after 50+, so the only way I can follow someones lines of thinking is through email notifications received from Word Press.
In these email notifications is much or the original comment from person#1 and then the response from person#2.
So if person #1 says the sky is blue.
And person #2 says the ocean is salty and its in response to the sky being blue comment,
That is an issue since I have no clue as to what the salty sea has to do with a blue sky.
And going back sorting through 200+ comments to find what it refers to is impossible.
So why is it an issue for you when I respond in the way I do asking what does a salty.ocean have to do with a blue sky?
But to make things easier going forward, I will ignore your comments that dont relate unless in the beginning heirarchy of comments.
I have WP email me new comments.
For the most part my response is driven by the portions of the comment excerpted in the Email. Only rarely do I go back to WP and research the original comment.
That is my “style”,
Once in a whole I have had problems with that – because my replies are to a single comment – and then only part of that comment, not the entire thread.
But I post for my own pleasure. Not formal debate.
With respect to your “position on china”.
China, Mexico, Michigan, Pitsburgh – it makes no difference.
There is no RIGHT to sell to someone. There is only a right to offer.
There is no RIGHT to buy from someone. There is only the right to ask.
There is no RIGHT to a job. There is only the right to ask, and to get paid what was agreed on for the work that you completed.
That does not “sound” pleasant, or fair. But it is life. You can attempt to intefere though govenrment, but you can not actually create a right where one does not exist.
Further the absence of these rights is extremely important.
It is the absence of rights to buy, sell, a job, that require us to persuade others of the value of what we are offering. That is the single most important factor driving rising standards of living. To get the sale, the job, … you have to strive to deliver more value than others for less cost. As buyers as sellors, as job seekers as employers. We all are competing. Succeeding requires we do better than others.
This is not a “china thing”.
Absolutely China is making poor choices.
But it is stupid for america to respond to Chinese stupidity with stupidity of our own.
I will qualify this in only TWO ways.
First – thus far all of Trump’s “completed” deals have resulted in freer trade than when he started. That makes this debate about the morality and efficacy of means not ends.
Put simply thus far Trump has succeeded in doing good by behaving badly.
I am NOT an ends justifies the means person.
Further MOST of the time people argue the ends justify the means – they end up with both bad ends and bad means.
Second – there is more going on with China that just Trade.
Reagan quite literally spent the Soviet Union into oblivion.
Trump appears to be applying a permutation of that to China.
That is an entirely different discussion.
Can we use economic warfare to bring about change in a totalitarian regime.
Again MOST of the time – that does not work. Sanctions as an example are pretty ineffective.
At the Same time I think that Trump – like Reagan, became president at the right moment, and had a rare oportunity to act – possibly effectively.
Trump has been so “lucky” that an intelligent person must get past beleiving it is just luck.
At a time when most of us have thought of China as strong and beligerant, Trump has recognized that the China is weak.
Nor does this just appear to be with respect to China.
In area after area where the conventional wisdom has been the US does not how the power to accomplish its will. Trump has succeeded in getting pretty much what he wants.
China has been fighting the fact that significant difficult structural and political changes are necescary if it wants to continue to raise the standard of living of the chinese people.
Further that if it fails to keep raising standards of living – change will come about a different way.
There is only one legitimate reason for Tarriffs – as taxes to support government.
For that, they must be uniform and low, and other forms of taxes must be eliminated.
Regardless, the actual economic evidence on Tarriffs is unequivocal. All are bad, some are worse. Does nto matter which side.
But an awful lot of what Trump is doing is Political – on multiple levels not economic.
Whenever you use words like “fair” and equal, you are wrong, you play into the hands of the left.
Our founders fought for liberty – not equality.
The french revolution was about equality more than liberty.
Every bloody revolution in history promised fairness and equality.
These are chimeras. They do not exist and we would not want them if they did.
Further – freedom will be equality and fairness hands down all the time.
I like debating how things SHOULD be.
But the fact that everything is not as I think it SHOULD be does not make everyone who disagrees evil.
I do not agree with some of what Trump has done – particularly on Trade.
Btu I am capable of looking at things as they are and grasping that even thought Trump is not doing what I think is best, he is doing “good enough” or better than the prior status quo.
I am not nearly so worried about china. All the issues raised regarding China – are problems for the chinese people. They are not really problems for the US
Further I find it interesting – in two years, Trump has successfully (with Xi’s help) made China into a Paria.
Regardless. I expect China to change – radically, in my lifetime.
I do not know if that change will come tomorow – which is possible, or in 15 years.
I find it really odd that american youth is embracing an ideology that has failed so miserably throughout the world – that STILL has a grip on too many people, and that we are still seeing the last of its failings arround the world.
Anyway overall I think the parts of China that are working – that are the reasons for its success post Mao – are a very good influence on america.
And the parts that are not – will eventually fail on their own.
BTW Trump’s “Trade War” appears to be “succeeding” because of mostly free markets.
china is dependent on the US for what we buy from them. There is no replacement for access to the US markets. Conversely the US is not dependent on what China buys from us.
China MUST buy the things it buys from the US – and if it does not buy them from the US it will buy them from another country and US producers can replace as suppliers whoever that country shorted when if shifted to selling to China. China buys global commodities from us.
If China does not buy our Soy – someone else will.
But if the US does not buy Chinese iphones – the global market will not provide China an equivalent market.
That is why China has devalued its currency – and that likely more than vitiates even the Tarrifs Trump has not yet imposed.
The “truth” is that China’s trade gamesmanship harms its own people more than anyone else.
There is no “right” to sell to someone, nor a right to buy from them.
Free trade EXPLICITLY means trade that occurs when both sides CHOOSE to exchange.
China wants one sided trade – that is a valid choice, but one that harms them.
“Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.”
Adam Smith.
We have been seeing production shifting from China for a long time – and accelerating now.
High end production is returning to the US – because we are better at flexible mass production of high end goods – but that is highly automated, there are few jobs, but the pay very well.
Low end production is shifting to countries that are where China was a couple of decades ago.
This has not wreaked havoc on China until the present – because even as production leaves China, global demand grows, so china produces ever more – even as production of many things moves elsewhere.
In the face of Trump’s confrontation with China – the departure of manufacturing from China is accelerating – and that production is NEVER coming back – just as the US is never getting all those textile manufacturing jobs back.
China is NOT responsible for hollowing out our industrial jobs base – that was inevitable.
SOME of what has occured with China is much like what occured with Japan previously.
And will occur again with other countries.
Jobs will ALWAYS flow to places that can make goods cheaper.
As with Japan before and with China now – low paying jobs – the jobs the chinese purportedly “stole” from the US are leaving China – for other low wage low skill countries.
The only way these jobs ever return to the US is if robots do them.
This is NATURAL. It is how it MUST be forever.
Standard of living rises only when we produce greater value with less human cost.
China taking crappy jobs from the US was on NET a very good thing for the US.
Even though it might not seem that way for those who lost jobs.
Just as the ever improving spinning machines were a good thing when the ludites tried to burn them all.
We are approaching the point at which millions of US jobs are going to be lost to driverless vehicles. That will be very bad for people whose job is to drive. but it will be very good for the country as a whole.
And that story will repeat forever. It is the story of how standard of living rises.
The mechanism is painful, but it is effective.
IT is so easy to pass a firearms background check that a reporter with a clean record failed TWICE at Walmart
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/reporter-testing-the-availability-of-guns-at-walmart-fails-background-check
Dave, not sure where webdisagree with immigration. So lets discuss.
I have said many times that what we have is not working.
I have said all barriers need to be removed. They dont work anyway.
i know terrorist are much more able to enter, most wont risk getting caught with hispanics escaping their home countries.
I have said our immigration regulations need complete rewrites.
I support almost unlimited immigration.
Immigrant coming here come here for a better life.
No government support of any kind, money, healtcare, food stamps, etc. Better life = working.
The only government support is vaccinations at ports of entry to ward off illnesses from other countries. (Remember the indians welcomed Europeans and thousands died from plague, chicken pox, influenza, measles, scarlet fever, smallpox, tuberculosis, and whooping cough. Then the Europeans were not welcomed!) And greed and colonist negative views of indians created more problems!
Your thoughts.
I am going to disagree only in the sense that there is not necescarily a single best solution to immigration.
We can discuss what you have proposed.
There are many other possibilities we could discuss.
But while you and I can have a rational discussion – even if sometimes we disagree over immigration, trade, ….
Right now the country can not manage to do so.
The problem is NOT an absence of ideas to discuss.
The central problem is that one side of the debate – of pretty much all debates, has no interest in debate. They are not even interested in finding an answer. They are merely interested in using the existance of the debate as proof the other side is immoral.
You and I can discuss immigration – and I would enjoy that.
But nothing is happening regarding immigration – unless republicans manage to FORCE something through congress somehow. And that is unlikely.
Democrats and the left are not going to have a discussion – they have precluded themselves from being able to do so. Merely to attempt to find answers is “racist”
There is no “other side” to this debate. I do not mean the other side is short of ideas.
It is worse than that. The only thing they want from the immigration debate is to assail opponents with claims of racism.
Every attempt to solve the problems of immigration are “racism”.
They are not even arguing for the status quo. They are not arguing FOR anything.
I would say they do not know what they want – but they actually do.
What they want is to be able to constantly scream racist, hateful, hating hater.
That is it, that is the goal.
And that is not something that can be worked with
“Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., defended the presence of both legal and illegal immigrants on Tuesday, asking his constituents: “Who do you think is mowing our beautiful lawns?””
Damn, the Democrats can only dream of a GOP member saying somsthing this racist and not having the MSM demanding his resignation.
Dan’s comments are no more/less “racist” than Trump’s.
i.e. None.
But I would ask – why we have “illegal immigrants” mowing our lawns ?
Why not the neighbor kids as kin decades past ?
Likely because our laws have made it such that hiring people to mow your lawn is illegal, and the only people who will do it are “illegal immigrants”.
Get rid of the Minimum wage. Get rid of “payroll taxes” – each of us is individually responsible to pay our income taxes – not our employers.
Get rid of all the assorted mandates on employers to do all kinds of stupid things to benefit government, and allow people to hire people to do anything under any terms that all parties can agree to.
Get rid of the “social safety net” – that is what savings and private charity are for, and if you eliminate those and their taxes – you will eliminate the deficit, and have enough extra income – even at low wages to fund those services yourself. Government is the most ineficient and expensive way to deliver services anyway.
If you can not “get rid” of those things, then at the very least restrict them to citizens.
If you do all of that, you can actually have open boarders.
Unfortunately this is unlikely to ever get the attention the Kavanaugh free for all got last fall.
The gist of this is that HuffPo defamed a black College professor that was an aquaitance of Kavaugh’s in its reporting. Frankly the media defamed lots of people.
Regardless it accused Evans of dealing drugs and being involved with Kavanaugh and others in acts that lead to the death of David Kennedy.
When you accuse someone in the press of murder – you had damn well better get the story straight. HuffPo did not.
Frankly this is little different from the entire media reporting on Kavanaugh – and in fact on most everything today.
Much of the press is worse than gossip.
This is also part of why Trump is likely to win in 2020.
There is nothing that is in the press that is likely true anymore.
Every straight news story is an op-ed, and all are liberally spliced with rumors rather than verified facts.
Recently Rick chimed in noting that 23 of the last 24 “mass shootings” involve assault rifles.
Somehow that was evidence that he was using facts not feelings.
First the data asserted was wrong – just about every mass shooter has hand guns, and that is the primary weapon they use. Only about 40% of mass shooting involve rifles. Those are just the ones that tend to make the news.
Mostly because the lone wolf mentally disturbed mass killer is fixated on image.
They want to be seen and remembered as a dangerous person. They seek infamy.
So they will do whatever it takes to get the atention of the press.
And AR-15, body armor and targeting a school, as well as leaving behind a manifesto are all techniques that increase their profile – that and body count.
Regardless, it is also true that every single mass shooter in the past 40 years was ambulatory – they were not physically handicapped. They had two working arms, legs, …
My Point is that correlation is NOT causation – even if Rick had gotten the “facts” straight.
Choosing feelings over facts does not mean – not having any facts.
It often means asserting that some facts have meaning, when there is no evidence that they do. Though the very commonly ties to asserting facts that are WRONG.
Recently the media and several prominent politicians have claimed that the US is by far the worst country for mass shootings – by a factor of 4. That based on a single study by an ideological professor, that refused to share either his data or methods, and that was simply disproven by researchers who bothered to check the data.
Nor was this fundimentally a question of reasonable differences in interpretation or data collection.
The US has kept excellent records of mass shootings for several decades.
The error in the FBI records of “mass shootings” is likely to be small – though it near certain is a small understatement of the total US mass shootings.
Most foreign countries do not keep records of the same quality – the primary source of records of such information is news stories.
Gauging the number of mass shootings in a foreign country from news reports is fraught with error – pretty much all of which lean towards massively understating the numbers.
If ten researchers using the same defintion of mass shootings do independent research on a specific foreign country, they are likely to come up with 10 different widely varying results.
But the nature of the methods of research and the data tell us that absent deliberate bias and failure to use the agreed criteria, that the best number will be the largest number.
When doing research it is very important to understand the nature of the problem and the nature of the data.
I have had multiple projects over the past several hears that involved collecting massive amounts of data of a physical phenomena, that was very noisy. The data smeared all over the place. But in both instances the physical facts, dictated that as noisy as the data was it did NOT distribute in a traditional “bell curve”. That the data distributed essentially as a waterfall with a fairly hard edge at one end. And that Edge was the “correct” value.
A version of this is true about gleaning data on anything from press reports.
Absent fake reports of mass shootings, and accidentally conflating two different reports of the same shooting, the “best” number of mass shootings derived by gathering data from press reports will be the highest number – nearly always.
Using press reports over the past 40 years – the US ranks 61st out of 172 countries in mass shootings per capita. The US has less significantly mass shootings per capita than about 1/2 of europe – countries were private ownership of guns is illegal.
There is no evidence that any gun law ever concocted has had any effect at all on mass killings, and little on “mass shootings”.
Absent actual evidence of an effect – and random factoids such as asserting that most mass shooters are red heads – whether true or not, is STILL arguing feelings over facts.
We need more of this type humor and satire and less of the insane attacks on politicians we see today. We have become blinded to the real problems being created by our government.
What is overlooked too often by everyone is the loss of rights such as those experienced by this legal immigrant. Few understand when this can happen to one, it can happen to anyone. And when it goes on for 82 days, we are no better than third world countries.
https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/other/man-held-for-82-days-for-bringing-honey-into-us/ar-AAGkwME
A tale of two reports.
So the Mueller report comes out and finds:
No evidence that Trump or the Trump campaign “colluded” with Russia during the 2016 election.
Evidence that Trump was angry about an investigation that we are increasingly learning had absolutely NO LEGITIMATE basis, that was purely political, that was the product of actual collusion between a politically corrupt administration and the opposing political campaign.
That Trump was NOT the only target – that Senators Rubio and Cruz were also targeted, and that Trump MIGHT (everyone Mueller claims Trump talked to about this denies it publicly) have talked about firing Mueller.
Mueller speculates that Trump might have fired Comey to “obstruct justice” – despite myriads and increasingly good reasons to fire Comey, and despite the fact that Mueller produces the evidence that Trump KNEW that firing Comey would not end the investigation.
But Mueller is unwilling to make a legal assertion that constitutes Obstruction.
At the end of the day, that is all Mueller comes up with.
From this the “news” is that Trump was not “exhonerated”.
That he obstructed justice – a claim that is ludicrous on its faces and that despite all his hemming and hawing Mueller refuses to assert.
That the only reason that Mueller did not conclude Trump obstructed Justice was an OLC oppinion that a sitting president can not be indicted – Mueller bungles answering this in his testimony and as a result publicly explicitly denies that, but still that is what the news reports.
Then we have the IG Comey report(s).
In the Clinton email report the IG excoriates SOME of Comey’s actions as insubordinate, and outside his authority. But finds his refusal to recommend prosecution of Clinton within the domain of legitimate actions – though at the extreme end, despite excoriating the way he handled it.
In the separate report on the Comey’s role on the Trump/Russia Collusion investigation,
The IG refers Comey to the DOJ for prosecution – that is the STRONGEST conclusion of criminal conduct that is inside the power of the IG.
The IG may convene Grand Juries, Indict, or prosecute, he also may not subpoena anyone not currently employed by government.
The DOJ deside NOT TO PROSECUTE – because such a prosecution would appear to be political.
So you basically have the STRONGEST assertion the IG can make of CRIMINAL misconduct – and Comey, the Press and nearly the entire democratic party reports this as exoneration.
In the actual IG report on Comey the IG concludes what Trump and others have argued all the time – that the briefing of President Elect Trump by Comey of the Steele Dossier was:
the result of a conspiracy of top Obama administration officials, for the purpose of leaking the steal Dossier to the press as well as an effort to hopefully entrap Trump into some admission, or action that could be used to jump start the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. That Comey has lied to Trump repeatedly – when he Comey told Trump he was not under investigation, and that Comey LIED TO CONGRESS when he told Congress there was no investigation of Trump.
The IG repeatedly finds that Comey violated DOJ/FBI rules regulations, procedures and protocols. Just to be clear – in many instances that is a CRIME.
There is much more in the IG’s Comey report, and we still do not have the IG’s overall
So how is it that there can be so much disagreement regarding what is purportedly the clear meaning of each of these reports ?
How is it that some of us see a government conspiracy against Trump, and others see dutiful public servants doing their jobs who have been exonerated, and a President who should be indicted and jailed ?
Further – it is not just this issue – but myriads of issues, like Catastrophic Anthropocentric Global Warming and a host of others – that ALL divide much the same way, and pretty much exactly the same groups of us are on opposite sides of each issue.
Speaking of CAGW, The Mann defamation lawsuit against Dr. Tim Bell has been dismissed, and Mann was ordered to pay Bell’s legal fee’s. Skeptics portray that as “proof” that Man is a fraud, and Bell is correct. It is my understanding that the case was NOT decided on its merrits, but was thrown out because Mann refused to provide discovery. The distinction is small. Usually people refuse discovery because it is damaging to them. Discovery failure is usually interpretted as the legal equivalent of an admission. But actual evidence – beyond what already exists (and there is alot of that) that Mann is a fraud was not presented.
Regardless, Mann is somehow spinning this as a victory too. I am not quite sure how, as he must pay Bell’s legal fees, and his defamation claim has been tossed.
Speaking of CAGW – recent Finish study found that the Human component of the past 40 years of climate is about 0.1% that the primary driver of global temperature changes is variations in low cloud cover.
Regardless, My point is how is it that reality is perceived so radically differently in so many many ways by one large group as from the rest of us ?
This pervades most everything we discuss here.
I accused Rick of responding emotionally to the gun control debate.
There is no evidence of any kind of any net beneficial (or even a positive effect) of gun control aside from a temporary reduction in suicides.
You can lob whatever talking points or spin you want, you can lob erroneous facts, or maybe good ones – the claim that the US has the highest per capita rate of mass shootings over the past 40 years is FALSE – we are ranked #61 with 1/3 of europe with higher rates.
It is also not true that “assault rifles” were used in 23 out of 24 of the most serious mass shootings. About 40% of mass shootings involve some form of long gun – rifles, shotguns, 90% of mass shooters use handguns, and most of the actual shootings are by handguns.
Regardless, the point is that if we are unable to agree on facts, how can we possibly agree on anything ?
Cognative biases are present in ALL of us. All of us must be careful – it is very easy and tempting to only see the evidence that supports our personal point of view and not that which contradicts it. And the world is incredibly complex, and there is ALWAYS evidence that APPEARS to support just about anything you wish to claim.
At the same time it is usually possible to determine the most probably correct set of facts,
Those consistent with the rest of reality.
I have repeatedly said that environmental and other safety improvements will occur regardless of government action if they have merit.
The article below covers many things, but one is that numerous companies are IGNORING Trump’s elimination of regulations – particularly environmental regulations.
Somehow this is presented as proof that Trump is evil or wrong or that we should not deregulate. Yet it is exactly the opposite.
While I absolutely OPPOSE nearly all regulation of the economy, I particularly OPPOSE efforts of industries to get government to regulate them.
The is only one purpose for an industry to demand that it be regulated – and that is to create barriers to entry to competitors. That is it, the only reason.
Industries can develop good practices standards entirely on their own. There are myriads of those – such as ISO 9001 or UL certifications. The only purpose served by government regulation is preventing those who choose not to join industry standards – to create barriers.
Conversely the CHOICE of BP, car companies to continue to follow regulations that have been relaxed of eliminated – is NOT proof that government should keep those regulations.
It is closer to proof they were never needed.
Even though CAGW is bogus – it is generally in the interests of all businesses to do what consumers value. If a significant enough portion of clients want something – even something stupid, businesses will do it. They will even call it “smart” or “green” whether it is or not, if that is what consumers want.
Further much of what regulations seek to force is often a good idea for other reasons.
As I have noted before all waste is just a product waiting to happen.
When oil companies release methane into the air – whether it is actually harmful or not, they are releasing something that is a potential product. Almost always that is INITIALLY cheaper.
But in the long run all businesses SLOWLY convert waste into new products.
Methane has value. It was never going to be released or burned forever.
More efficient automobiles have value. Car makers are always going to seek to make better more efficient cars – particularly if consumers value that.
The only difference between having regulations – laws, and not having them, is whether absolutely everyone is FORCED to do something, or whether each business gets to decide on its own what the best ideas are.
In a free market methane emissions will be curtailed eventually automatically – either because consumers value it, or because methane can be captured and resold as a product.
Or both. But 100% of producers will not do that all of a sudden. In a free market each producer will seek its own way to reduce costs, increase sales and expand its market, and make consumers happy. Other businesses will follow those approaches that succeed.
Regardless of what BP or automakers saying – the choices they make are ALWAYS what is in stockholders interests, That is nearly always what is in consumers best interests.
Businesses do not behave civically or environmentally responsibly because of morality,
they do so because it is in their interests.
Following their interests constrained only by a few restrictions prohibiting the use of force, IS moraliy. Because morality is rooted in freedom.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/30/trump-climate-strategy-1695813
In compiling the US temperature record the NOAA makes adjustments to the raw data from thousands of US weather stations. Because the quality and siting of many of more than 90% of these stations have problems that effect their long term accuracy
In 2005 NOAA started a program to address the varied quality of weather stations across the US. They identified 114 – out of over 4000 weather stations that all met extremely strict standards – such as no heat sources within 100ft of temperature sensors.
They further picked stations that were geographically evenly disbursed across the US.
One of the objectives was to have a core of extremely high quality stations that required no adjustments.
Recently the NOAA reported on US temperatures since the start of the program in 2005.
This certified high quality network shows no warming in the US since 2005.
The importance of the US temperature record is impossible to understate.
Despite the problems with most US weather stations – the US weather station data is much higher quality than the rest of the world. The US also has the longest term robust geographically disbursed data of any country in the world.
In 1900 90% of the weather stations in the world – were in the US.
In 1900 the only large land mass in the planet with a uniform network of weather stations was the US.
While the oldest “thermometer” records go back to 1645,. Most of the world is not well covered even today. There are still land masses with 1000sq miles with only 1 weather station. 75% of the earths surface is water and there is no actual grid of coverage of oceans.
Others have taken the NOAA high quality station information further.
They have pulled the historical raw data for those stations going back 80 years.
That shows that temperatures in the 1930’s were HIGHER in the US than those today.
They can use core samples and read the trees to get much of their historical info. I have no problems accepting that the earth is warming. It has happened for eons, I just have a problem when government tries to get involved, especially ours because they are not doing it to change anything, they are doing it for political reasons that lead no where. If Trump was to come out tomorrow and say the earth is warming and immediate changes in our policies need to take place, the democrats would immediately fond data that supports the earth cooling.
No question about it. Whether or not the earth is warming or not is not the issue. The issue is whether or not government can or should do anything about it, even if it is.
Apparently, green politicians in Europe are called “watermelons.” Green on the outside, Red on the inside.
No coincidence that AOC’s priority is the Green New Deal.
A supremely asinine response.
By that obtuse illogic the government should not be making plans to address Hurricane Dorian, because, you know – it may not reach landfall; or plan for any future possible natural disasters, because, duh, governments should mind their own business.
And the US government at all levels should stop testing water and air quality because, you know, double-duh, AOC and her pals drink water and breathe air.
Nothing at all wrong with making plans to address genuine concerns and urgent situations, Roby.
Particularly when we have evidence that those plans will save lives, as in, for example, evacuating people out of the likely path of a hurricane.
The climate change pushing Obama’s are not sufficiently concerned about global warming that it stopped them from dropping a cool $15 million on beachfront property in Martha’s Vineyard, or stopped Barack from taking his umpteenth private jet flight to a luxury climate conference in Italy this past spring.
And self-avowed socialist, AOC, is fine with you and I not traveling by air when it suits us, but she hops planes and takes private cars when it suits HER.
Because she’s our better, you know? And elected by at least a couple thousand New Yorkers!
So, yeah. They’re power hungry hypocrites, maybe not red on the inside, but slightly pink…
“Nothing at all wrong with making plans to address genuine concerns and urgent situations, Roby.”
Nearly always those concerns are NOT genuine or urgent and even when they are government is almost entirely ineffective.
“Particularly when we have evidence that those plans will save lives, as in, for example, evacuating people out of the likely path of a hurricane.”
With extremely rare exceptions evacuations are voluntary – and for the most part government does very little except tell people “please get out”,
Shetlers are provided by non-profits, churches, or people stay with relatives.
They mostly drive themselves.
Getting people out after disaster has struck is done mostly by volunteers, not government.
Again the same MAGA hatted people Roby hates.
The real big deal about the Martha’s vinyard property – much like the billions being invested in the maldives is that it proves that people who care a great deal about money and tend to be extremely careful with their own money do not actually buy this bunk.
According to the Warmests – Obama’s Martha’s vinyard property will be under water and worthless within his lifetime, before the mortgage if any runs out.
if he beleives in CAGW he is either betting the government will compensate him, or throwing away his money.
But the real truth is more likely something else. He is smart enough to know that the CAGW garbage he is selling is just that – poppy cock.
As you said – WaterMellons Green on the Outside red on the inside.
None of this – not the environmentalism, not what is offered about governmnet on air and water, or dealing with disasters has absolutely anything of consequence to do with solving problems. Government does very very little of that. It in fact sucks at it.
Just to be clear – I value the environment – both near me and elsewhere.
But the environment is far better off int he hands of the robber barrons of the past – than government. Our air and water are better left to ourselves, the efficiency of our cars is something we get to express our views on with every purchase – and believe me car companies listen to OUR whims. We are better off dealing with our own disasters – in fact we are extremely good at it.
I have a friend who does disaster evaluation work for insurance companies. When Dorian strikes somewhere – he will be sent out QUICKLY to assess damages and expidite repairs.
One of the things insurance companies have learned is that the quicker you deal with the damages they less severe they are.
Christy (a republican) botched things royally post Sandy by baricading the AC Island and prohibiting people from coming and going.
Mold is a huge problem when the interior of buildings get wet.
Mold problems are Cheap to deal with if you act fast.
Dry the place out. Get air moving, reduce the humidity, open up the walls at the bottom to let air in and moisture out. Spray everything with bleach.
2,000 dollars in the day or two after or 50K two weeks later.
You chose. Insurance companies have learned to act fast.
It is their money.
Government gets in the way. The incentives are wrong.
So Roby “By that obtuse illogic the government should not be making plans to address Hurricane Dorian, because, you know – it may not reach landfall; or plan for any future possible natural disasters, because, duh, governments should mind their own business.”
Is it governments responsibility to provide you with transportation for you, your family and your pets from your $1M home on the barrier islands of Ga, SC and NC, or is it their job to give you information so you can make your own decision to get in your Mercedes and leave before the storm hits?
For some, government is responsible. For others, government is not responsible for much of anything other than national security. And even then, there are huge differences when some believe security begins with the border and others believe in open borders.
Then there are those that understand government plays a limited role. Yes, water safety when supplied by government services or private suppliers with government contracts. But who should pay for testing if you have a well? And who should require you to have it tested and how often?
If the government monitors meat packing plants, should they monitor you beef if you raise them and slaughter them yourself? How about chickens?
If those that dont get flu shots spread flu to others, should we require everyone to carry certifications yearly that they are vacinated, or blocked from public places for safety reasons for others if they are not?
Government plays a role, but it has become way out of hand with what people think that role is.
How do you see governments role?
Ron, the anonymous post wasn’t from Roby…
He writes at a much higher caliber of vitriol….
If I have attributed an anonymous post to anyone particular – that is an error.
We are all free to post anonymously.
But anything you say has far more credibility if you are willing to attach your name and reputation to it.
OK Sorry Roby, I “assumed” it was you since your last post was from “A” and Priscilla responded previous to mine as an answer to “roby”
Whatever, my comments still the same.
“Is it governments responsibility to provide you with transportation for you, your family and your pets from your $1M home on the barrier islands of Ga, SC and NC, or is it their job to give you information so you can make your own decision to get in your Mercedes and leave before the storm hits?”
It is Entirely YOUR responsibility.
It is your property, your home, it should be your insurance.
There should be ZERO govenrment disaster insurance. All that does is encourage people to build in stupid places, and make the public foot the bill.
More and more government disaster insurance is a subsidy for the uber wealthy.
It is not governments business to tell you whether to stay or go.
It is not governments business to provide you adivce on the matter.
NOAA should go. We had an opertunity to get rid of them a few decades ago.
A caribean weather satelite was failing prematurely and there was no scheduled replacement for years.
The re-insurance industry quickly came up with over a Billion dollars to privately build and loft a new satelite BEFORE the old one failed completely.
But government changed plans and found a way to get a replacement up – because they did not want private competition. Weather – and Huricanes particularly are one of few places where government has a near monopoly and thinks it has a stellar reputation.
But it is a task that we can easily manage privately.
Who shoudl tell you when to leave your home when a disaster might strike ?
Why not your insurance company ?
They can monitor the weather, and they can notify you – by phone or myriads of other ways and they can tell you – that if you do not get out – you will have waived personal injury and death benefits. They can decide if they will pay to put you up.
They can decide if they will insure your million $ barrier island home, and at what rate.
And you can make intelligent decisions as to whether to build or own there and whether to stay or leave based on the actual costs to you.
I do not care where you build.
I do not care whether you stay or go in a huricane.
What I care about is that whatever decisions you make the costs and benefits are YOURS not MINE.
“By that obtuse illogic the government should not be making plans to address Hurricane Dorian,”
Actually bother to learn something about this – governments role in things like huricance – particularly the federal government is nearly non-existant.
We have had “natural disasters” for 4billion years, they have not required government.
Government involving itself in natural disasters is extremely recent. Coolidge did absolutely nothing – nor did his predecessors, I do not thing that FDR, Truman, Kennedy, .. involved themselves in natural disasters.
Even today – Government spends money but does NOTHING of consequence.
We spent an unbeleiveable fortune on New Orleans after Katrina. You can not find evidence of that money. Smaller fortunes were spent after Sandy,
More Recently both Puerto Rico and Texas were hit by massive Hurricanes.
Billions were spend – much more on Puerto Rico than Texas.
If you go to Texas – you will find no evidence the huricane ever happened.
Puerto Rico still has not recovered.
8B was spent on Haiti after the earthquake – decades ago – the country is still a pile of rubble.
Government is totally ineffective in natural disasters.
It is more of an impediment than a cure.
HOWEVER there are things that do occur regarding natural disasters.
Denny’s, Walmart, Lowes, Hom Depot – are preparing. They have had national plans for disaster relief for decades.
They have moved in the supplies that they need. Every Denny’s has a disaster plan.
They are prepared to open 24×7 in the event of a disaster. They are prepared to provide a place to stay – and hot food and coffee if possible, and sandwiches if not.
Walmart has not merely stocked up on food, but on the specific types of food that people consume in emergencies – aparently Strawberry poptarts are very high on the list.
Regardless the point is they actually KNOW what is needed.
And they not only have supplies on hand – but they have reserves prepositioned already in trucks and warehouses just outside the storm zone and they will have those supplies available almost immediately.
Home Depot and Lowes are similarly prepared – BEFORE and AFTER, with what people need to secure their property, and with what they need immediately after.
And again they have supplies prepositioned outside the likely effected areas,
And they dynamically adjust as needed.
And that is merely the national chains. nearly all businesses do this.
Some particularly small busineses and entrepeneurs will be transporting water, fuel generators, into the effected zones. Those people will likely “gouge” – which is stupidly illegal. Because the spike in prices immediately after a disaster makes sure that people take only what they actually need and leave some for others.
If water’s price is fixed before and after a disaster – the shelves will be cleared by a few people who panic and water will be in short supply. If the price is allowed to float – people will only take what they need relative to the supply available and every will be able to get some.
Regardless, prices will normalize rapidly – because those “national chains” do not gouge.
They know damn well that a disaster is a time in which they are judged and the impact of that is for decades. If they deliver what people need in large supplies affordably – everyone will remember.
A Texas Walmart after the last huricane had a mess inside the store. There were damaged goods as well as stuff in good condition, the aisles were blocked and it was impossible to open the store.
The store manager took a bulldozer and pushed the entire contents of the store into the parking lot and put a “free” sign up.
Then she quickly restocked the store with the items that were needed by people post disaster at normal prices.
People remember who is there to help when they need it.
Wise businesses know the good will they can build during a disaster lasts for decades.
And ill will lasts just as long.
Further even the people who work at national chains – are part of the communities where they live.
Even those things that you think are actually governments job like directing traffic – are almost entirely handle after a disaster by volunteers – not government. There are just not enough police to do the job, and they have other things to deal with.
The people helping you when disasters strikes – whether local or people coming from elsewhere – a disproportionate number of them are the MAGA hatted people that you hate.
When Trump called Baltimore rat and trash infested – hundreds of his supporters mobilized to clean up parts of baltimore – not the city, not government.
All the government does in the aftermath of a disaster is get in the way – and months later write checks – usually to all the wrong people. There is little more corrupt than the way government cash is distributed in a disaster – which should be self evident by the different ways places recover.
“We have had “natural disasters” for 4billion years, they have not required government.”
Wonderful; you now surpassed Priscilla for asinine statements.
Aparently facts are now assinine because .. Feelings ?
Are you capable of making and defending and argument ?
Or is all you are able to do is post slurs.
Yes the US government should stop testing water and air quality.
You are free to test the quality of your own water and air.
I have my water tested every couple of years.
I am capable of deciding what I need to do to my water to make it as I want.
Further governments involvement actually makes it worse.
We have a problem in my community because some local KFO’s are spiking problems in the water. But nothing can be done – the government approved them, and approved the way they are processing waste. You can not sue them – because since they have done what government asked they are protected from lawsuit.
But everyone including the government knows they are the source of our most significant water problems.
If there were no regulations – poluting water is a TORT.
We could get together and file a class action tort and get them to clean up.
But because they are protected by regulations we can do nothing.
Government is not the answer with respect to the environment – it is the problem.
Two of the top three sources of water polution are GOVERNMENT – directly.
There are almost no incidents each year in the US of private septic systems poluting our water supply. Even though there are a massive number of private septic systems in much of the country. The largest single source of water polution today is municiple sewage treatment.
That is a GOVERNMENT failure not a private one – yet we increasingly make it harder and harder to have private sepitc systems and require people to use polluting overloaded municipal ones.
AOC and her pals do drink the water and breath the air – and the water and air are the worst where govenrment has the most control.
That should tell YOU and HER something.
CAGW is a religion, It makes little pretense of being anything else.
It is much like the church telling Galileo that the sun orbits the earth.
Facts do not matter.
If it is “your truth” that is sufficient to use force against others.
I was listening to an interview with a meteorologist who studies hurricanes, and he said that the conventional wisdom that warm waters are causing more intense hurricanes is simply not borne out by the facts. He admitted that the idea of it made sense, but the reality is that hurricanes have not been any more or less intense over the last 20 years that they have ever been.
Dave this has been discussed many times. Joe Bistardi with Weatherbell Analytics, formerly of ACCU Weather, now with his own company and a regular on many different news stations has provided this info many times just himself. He also has a Saturday update on the subscription site Weatherbell.com that is free where he discusses global climate and constantly points out how warm in one part of the globe is cool in another. Right now sea temperatures in the southern hemisphere is below normal, while the northern sea temps are slightly above.
There is also evidence that solar activity has declined over the past couple years and will continue to be below normal for its solar trends, but sea temperatures that control much of the global climate takes a few years to cool, which it seems to be happening.
There is nothing at all happening regarding huricanes, extreme weather – either in the norther hemisphere or southern the atlantic, the pacific, ….
The total number of large violent storms per year is nearly constant and has been forever,
When the Atlantic is active – the pacific is quiet and visa versa.
There is no difference in the numbers, there is no difference in the total energy.
I found another graph that suggests strongly that huricane formation and strength is increased by COLD water.
My actual understanding is that it is really really dificult to form a huricane.
That the conditions of temperature humidity ets are very narrow increases and decreases in temperature result in no huricanes.
There is a completely separate issue regarding damage and making landfall.
The majority of huricanes and tropical storms do not ever make landfall.
A huricane of mass shooting making landfall is much like a mass shooting – it is sufficiently random and low probability that spikes and drops have no meaning – there is no trend.
US Huricane damage has increased over time.
But adjusted for inflation it has decreased.
Though there are all kinds of caveats – we are building better,
But we are also building more very high value homes in more dangerous places.
Further though Dorian still threatens, this is the first time in a number of decades that no huricane or Tropical storm has struck the mainland US during august.
But one must be very careful with such statistics.
The earth is HUGE, dozens of records that have stood for 100 years – are broken every single day – and have always been and will always be broken.
There is nothing actually unusual about unusual.
One of the things that has changed in my lifetime, is that the media is going farther and farther accross the world to fine “blood”.
The world as a whole is getting SAFER, and the media must go farther to find the disasters and other bad stories to fill the news.
We get a message that things are getting worse, when nearly everything is getting better.
“They can use core samples and read the trees to get much of their historical info. ”
Actually no they can not – or more accurately, they have NOT demonstrated the ability to do so yet.
That is the entire point of the “hide the decline” critique of Mann Hockey Stick.
The big deal is NOT grafting the thermometer record onto the tree ring record.
It is that Man truncated the tree ring record when he did so.
He did that because since 1960 The tree ring record has been “declining” – hence “hide the decline.”
A proxy has little value if it does not CONSISTENTLY reflect what is really occuring.
We can not trust that Tree Ring temperature measures 1000 years ago are correct if the same tree rings did not accurately reflect the real world temperatures in the past 70 years.
This is a critical problem with ALL proxies – how do you validate them ?
BTW not even warmists claim that Tree Rings are a proxy for temperature.
Tree rings are effected by a very large number of factors – by far the largest being the moisture.
Tree Rings are only usable as a proxy for temperature where NATURE controls the other variables – such as moisture. That is why all the tree ring proxies are in arctic climates – because the humidity in those regions has been close to constant for 1000+ years.
but skipping past that – the infamous Mann Hockey stick was constructed from Tree Ring Cores from 12 siberian Trees – but that sample came from collection of tree ring core data with well over 200 trees. Mann (and Biffra) used criteria to select the specific trees they used that produced the results they wanted.
There is pretty much no other subset of the same 200+ tree that will produce the same results.
The entire sample produces quite different results.
The critique above has taken nearly a decade to evolve. Why ? Because Mann/Biffra and company refused to provide their data and methods.
All that skeptics knew was that they used some subset of the 200+ siberian Tree Cores – data for which is publicly available. Skeptics had to literally reverse engineer all the methods used and determine the specific tree core subset used. they had to test every possible combination of the 200+ samples to determine which exactly matched Biffra/Mann’s published works.
This is NOT how real science works. One of the major problems with the politicization of modern science is that we have altered the scientific method.
The most fundimental part of the scientific method is repeat ability.
Past scientists published papers with data and methods and other scientists decided based on whether they could reproduce the results whether they were meaningful and valid.
Modern Science has been politicized – this is the effects of the rise of post modern philosophy – which essentially rejects reality.
I keep trying to tell you that philosophy is important.
Ideas matter – when good ideas – sound philosophy is broadly accepted – humans throughout the world thrive.
Western thought – which has evolved starting with the greeks (arguably much before), has lead to a gradually accelerating improvement of the human condition.
One of the fundimental problems of the left is that it is rooted on an entirely different philosophical premise.
We discovered – Correctly in the past century that there is no such thing as objective truth.
Or more accurately that human perception is not the same as reality and that reality is perceived differently by each person.
The left has falsely concluded from this that each different perception of reality is equally valid.
The consequences of this are enormous.
Steven Pinker does an excellent critique of “The Blank Slate” on you tube.
The Blank Slate is the transformation of this idea that all perceptions are equally valid to biological science – and we see the problems with that in the news today.
Most of us over 40 understand that a person is determined partly by nature and partly by nurture. But the modern left rejects this – Humans are a “blank slate” – everything can be programmed.
If you are born with XY chromosomes – you can still be fully female.
This concept that everything is perception, and everything can be changed by altering perception pervades the left. It is fundamentally a form of nihilism and it is inherently chaotic and destructive.
It is why science has become completely unmoored. Because scientists have received an education that tells them essentially that reality can be whatever they want it to be.
CAGW is true – because it is the reality they choose. Cherry picking Trees to get the results they want is acceptable – because it produces the results they want – and it is even from real data, if carefully selected data.
I am not saying there is some great organized conspiracy.
I am saying that ideas have massively pervasive effects.
That the fundimental idea of the west – that humans have free will – is an incredibly powerful idea that has had an unbelievably positive impact on humanity, and that this left post modern concept that all viewpoints are equally valid is incredibly nihilistic and destructive.
That is poisons everything it comes in contact with – including science.
Further it explains why today with few exceptions educated – often highly educated people are the most out of touch with reality.
“I have no problems accepting that the earth is warming. It has happened for eons,”
In the broadest terms – the universe, the solar system, the earth are all COOLING,
and that is inherent. It is rooted in the laws of physics.
But even outside of the cosmic scale, merely looking at the earth – the trend in all but the shortest terms is cooling.
Over the past million years the earth has been an ice ball more often than not.
It is only within the past 150,000 years that the earth has been mostly habitable
And even human recorded history corresponds to a 10,000 year period of unusual warmness.
During that period – the spikes in human acheivement almost all occured during unusually warm periods.
Prior to about 1970 – which is the earliest point at which human CO2 could have a measureable effect on climate, the drivers of climate were NATURAL.
We can hindcast the past with a very high coeficient of correlation solely using 6 know astronomical/solar cycles. There is a problem with these in that though the correlation is near perfect, the mechanism by which these cycles drives climate is not understood.
Variation in direct solar radiation is NOT sufficient to explain historical climate.
This is the basis that climate scientists use to determine that 90% of “climate change” in the 20th century is “anthropogenic” – because they THINK they understand the impact of solar radiation completely and therefore whatever is left unexplained must be human.
The problem with that is that does not work hindcasting the past.
It results in past climate with very little variation – no roman warm period, not medieval warm period, ….
In other words Micheal Mann’s “hockey stick”.
If you accept that the climate of the past 2000 years was not nearly uniform until 1960 or that it varied greatly over the past 10,000, 100,000 1,000,000 years – then you have rejected modern climate science. Because modern climate science REQUIRES the past to be close to FLAT. if it has substantial variation, then there are natural drivers of climate that we do not understand, and therefore the conclusion that humans drive 90% of warming since 1960 has ZERO scientific foundation.
This is also important because those 6 natural solar cycles started trending downward in approximately 2000. We are in the midst of a solar minimum that occurs about once every 200+ years. Early indications are this may be one of the largest minium’s of the past 2000 years. The earth has enormous thermal lag in some aspects. Cloud formation responds rapidly to changes in solar radiation, but ocean temperatures take decades to shift.
Regardless, there are alot of less left leaning scientists who are more concerned about the possibility of dramatic cooling than warming. We do not KNOW what is going to happen.
It is also possible that Human CO2 has substantial effect AND that the sun essentially going inactive has a negative effect and that the only reason we have had stable temperatures for 20 years rather than declining temperatures is because of human CO2.
That is not my view, at the same time I do not presume to know absolutely the truth about climate. Regardless the possibility exists that in the near future we could be dliberately trying to massively boost CO2 to offset the impact of a quiet sun.
The Oval Office Idiot’s infatuation with the NK’s dictator facilitated these advances:
“Hard to know who deserves more credit: Kim for successfully completing tests of a rapidly-deployable solid-fuel rockets that threaten the region including American bases or @potus @realDonaldTrump for allowing it to happen. nytimes.com/2019/09/02/wor… via @nytimes
“The Oval Office Idiot’s infatuation with the NK’s dictator facilitated these advances:”
Talk about assanine remarks.
Are you really saying that NK is getting WMD capability faster and better, because we are not ignoring them like we have done the past 75 years ?
With respect to Trump – In numerous areas I would act and speak differently than he does.
Past presidents have acted and spoken differently than Trump.
I do not like the way Trump speaks and some of his actions.
But the past track record of those who spoke more eloquently is not so stellar as to give meaning to any claim Trump is making things worse.
North Korea is and has been a problem for decades. No one has done anything effective about it.
The worst Trump could do is not arguably worse than what presidents past have allowed.
I pray that Trump is actually effective with NK – because no one before him has, and arguably
Trump is now having to try to fix this well past the time it is probably too late.
In the end I will Judge Trump – in NK and elsewhere based on his accomplishments.
Thus far though less than perfect Trump is doing quite well internationally.
He has struck many trade deals that are atleast incrementally better than those of precessors – we are closer to actual free trade with Canada and Mexico.
We shall have to see what happens with China – asia in general is a giant mess with many things going on. Trump’s actions to contain China are having small temporary negative impacts on our economy and stock market. but they are bolstering much of the rest of Asia.
China is suffering from capital flight as factories and investment moves elsewhere.
Nor does 100% of industry have to leave China to be effective.
I keep reminding people that 1% 2% of change radically impacts nations economies and the viability of businesses.
The rest of Asia is booming. Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, The Philpines
China’s loss is their gain. This also radically alters the balance of power in the south china sea. Obama kept the US navy out of the way of the chinese – even in international waters.
Trump has demanded the navy fly the flag throughout the south china sea.
That not merely hurts China – but helps everyone else – Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, ….
While we fixate on all the negative news about China – we forget that the rest of asia is benefiting from the US conflict with China.
In the mideast – I wish we were OUT. But we are closer to that than we would be with any other president.
The mideast is still a mess – but it is mostly NOT our mess.
Trump has reduced our dependence on foreign oil, which has large positive benefits for our relations to the world.
Russia – more specifically Putin is suffering. Your can credit Trump or not, but it is happening regardless, and it was not under Obama.
Europe has lots of problems – they are not OUR problems.
Whatever the problems of Europe with the US or Trump – they are tiny compared to their own internal messes.
The worst rational predictions for the economy are better than under Obama.
Regardless we have had more than 2 solid years that were better than any two year period under Obama – and those in the midst of total political chaos.
I am of a split mind over the effect of Trump overall.
On the one hand he actively fosters chaos, and too much chaos negatively impacts us all.
On the other – though not doing as great as Trump claims we are doing 50% better than under Obama and bush.
Maybe we would be doing better still without the chaos. Or maybe it is the chaos that gices Trump the ability to do what is making the economy better.
I do not knwo.
I do know that 2 years of Clinton would have been much worse.
Memorial Day the federal US holiday for remembering and honoring the military personnel who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces was celebrated by President Trump playing golf at his hotel in Ireland the past two days. His resort, located far from Ireland’s capital city, is benefiting from the substantial fees – paid by US taxpayers – for Donnie’s golf dalliance.
Brain Dead Trump enablers (his voting block) don’t find anything obscene is this scenario. Let’s give the Devil his due: in America this apparently is acceptable behavior. Future US presidents can count on substantial revenue flows if they own the right businesses.
On memorial day 2017, Trump gave a speach at Arlington. On memorial day 2018 Trump gave a speach at Arlington.
On memorial day 2019 Trump gave a speech on the Carrier USS Wasp in the pacific.
On the 75th aniversary of D-Day – june 6. 2019 Trump was at Normandy.
If he managed to stop by HIS golf course in Ireland for a round between the Pacific and France, does that piss you off ?
If you wish to cancel the Secret Service and return to what was done for almost 200 years of US history – I am fine with that.
But current LAW requires that a host of people follow the president wherever he goes.
No matter who the president is.
No matter what we are paying someone for that – unless we change the law.
Obama went to his own home in chicago and the one he bought in Hawaii, and to frinds in Martha’s vinyard, where he know lives.
All of this cost tax payers.
A great deal of the cost of presidents residences is covered by tax payers – as the government must provide facilities to secure them as well as to conduct the business of the nation while the president stays there.
So far Trump has NOT had the government foot part of the bill for new homes anywhere.
Trump already has gazillion dollar shiny edifices across the world.
He does not seem to need a new home in Hawaii or Martha’s vinyard with tax payers footing the bill.
Absolutely I oppose tax payers footing the bill for any of this.
So change the law. I will support you – so long as you change the law such that NO one gets to suck at the government teat – not this nonsense that only Trump can’t benefit from being president.
Whoever is posting this crap, get your facts straight!.
According to CNN “Trump arrived at his Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia shortly after 10 a.m. ”
Pence is in Ireland And he arrived about 8 hours (!:30p.m. edt) ago.How did he get a round of golf in when they are 4-5 hours ahead of us in daylight?
I am not sure if you are educated in communication these days, but everyone (except me and a few others) have a smart phone. They are connected 24 hours a day. Trump knew the hurricane was moving at walking speed and might make it across one of the islands (THAT IS NOT ONE OF OURS) before he completed his golf outing, but days from our coast. If anything happened, it was a short trip back to Camp David or the White House. He was always connected to any news that would happen. And once he made sure all the assets were in place, was he just suppose to sit at his desk and pick his nose? At least he was not tweeting.
But then Obama could march his ass across the globe and no one said a damn thing about that! AND OH, by the way, Obama played over 300 rounds of golf while president. So was he disconnected?
I have many things against Trump, but being disconnected with the news is not one of them. In fact, I would prefer him to be more disconnected than he is!
The facts are completely screwed up.
For every “memorial day” since being elected. Trump has been either at arlington or otherwise with the military. In 2019 he went from the Wasp in the Pacific to Normandy for D day.
I presumed that the poster meant that Trump somehow stopped at his golf course in Ireland on the way between the two. I have zero problem with that.
But apparently the poster is confusing labor day – which is NOT military, and Memorial day, as well as Pence with Trump and Virgina with Ireland ?
Or am I wrong ?
But other than that the facts are correct.
Regardless, facts do not matter, because “feelings”.
Trump is entirely evil as far as the poster is concerned – as a concept.
If he did not actually do whatever evil he was accused of – whether that is an actual evil or not. It does nto matter – because the accusation “feels” right therefore it is true.
So Trump is guilty of a non-crime that he did not actually do.
How is that different from saying “its monday” ?
“Memorial Day the federal US holiday for remembering and honoring the military personnel who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces was celebrated by President Trump playing golf at his hotel in Ireland the past two days.”
Heh. If you don’t know the difference between Memorial Day (May) and Labor Day (September), I don’t think that we can take anything you say very seriously. Not to mention that, as Ron has pointed out, Trump is not in Ireland.
My apologies to Roby, wherever he is.
I do not know what Trump is doing today or where he is – and our anonymous reporter does not seem to either.
I am not personally a golfer, but relaxing seems to be exactly what all of us shoudl be doing on memorial-er-labor day.
Unfortunately I am working.
But the work is fun.
Yes, I confused Trump’s earlier Ireland visit with Pence’s Ireland Memorial Day visit where he, like Trump, stayed at Trump International Golf Links and Hotel in Doonbeg, US taxpayers forking over money again to a Trump business 180 miles or so from Dublin (where previous US Presidents stayed for state related meetings), adding the additional cost of two additional flights to ferry Pence to Dublin and back.
And you’re right, Pricilla, anyone making a gaff like the one I made shouldn’t be taken seriously. And I’m sure you’re going to hold others to the same standard. Like Trump confusing 9/11 with a 7/11 convenience store. And misstating the country where his father was born. And mistakingly mixing up Toledo with the Dayton mass shooting. Or his Independence Day speech when he praised the Revolutionary Army for ‘taking over the airports’ from the British. Or confusing the Mayor of San Diego as the Mayor of Oakland?
But after his daily continuing barrage of mistaken mental spillage, you’ve remained mute about those gaffs, misstatements, lies, and idiocies, and instead keep offering him subservient loyalty. That reminds of a classic scene from the Danish silent film Häxan, about witchcraft beliefs in the Middle Ages, where the witch supplicants to curry favor line up to kiss Satan’s behind.
https://youtu.be/CkXlXc0lA9c
I am all for setting rules for presidents, vice presidents, cabinet officials, congressmen, regarding their travel and other expenses where those are covered by tax payers.
Nor would I object to radically reducing the government provided security for these people.
Given the oportunity I will take a hatchet to government expenditures of all forms.
I would not pay the president, vice president, cabinet appointments, or congressmen AT ALL.
Those positions are public service – they are not “jobs”. You want to work for the government – work for it.
You want me to bemoan the expenses that Trump and Pence are racking up – ABSOLUTELY! As well as those of Obama, Pelosi, ….
But you want me to pretend that there is anything unusual or uniquely outrageous regarding Trump ? Nope. In this regard he is indistinguishable for presidents of recent past.
Go ahead – reign him in. I am behind you.
But lets not pretend it is about Trump.
Do it because it is the right thing to do – for ALL presidents and politicians.
And if you do not beleive that – then quit complaining.
I am very much not interested in this – nonsense that Trump must abide by made up rules that did not apply to anyone else from George Washington or Barack Obama.
We all make errors on occasion. I concentrate on trying to get my facts straight and care less about, spelling, grammar, or expressing myself succinctly. That is my choice.
For the most part I enjoy writing comments. My one concern is that I will someday get something substantive wrong. Everyone makes mistakes and once in a while big ones.
But I have zero doubt that the very people here whose posts are fact free, or have the facts wrong most of the time, will not EVER let me live it down if I make a small mistake on a fact,.
No a doubt in the world.
I expect to be held to a far higher standard by you and everyone who disagrees with me, then they hold themselves to.
There are two problems with the error you made.
The first is that the frequency and scale of errors that we make is and should be reflected in our credibility. As I said – we all make errors. Those who make them rarely are much more credible than those who do not. Those who make a few significant errors are less credible than those who make more insignificant errors.
The 2nd problem is that your error is insignificant – EXCEPT for the importance you placed on it.
The discrepancy between the facts you offered and the actual ones is only consequential because you are making a MORAL claim.
It is of small importance whether this was labor day or memorial day, whether it was Trump or Pence, if your argument is that we are paying too much for the accomodations of our leaders.
It is of great importance when you are claiming fraud, corruption, lying.
When you make a moral claim – you are betting more than your personal recollection,
you are betting more than your correctness on the facts, you are betting your own morality against that of those you are attacking.
When you accuse someone else of a moral failure – you had better be right, you had better have your FACTS straight. Morality is not determined by feelings.
Elsewhere today I read that the conflict we are having today is so bitter because it is a conflict at the level of first principles.
This is also why the core problem is with the left.
There is no one on the right, no trump supporters, no actual moderates, independents of libertarians who seek to change the foundational ideas that have shaped humanity for 500, 1000, or more years. The most extreme libertarian position, still rests on the foundation of western Judaeo christian free will – and the entire human philosophy – that has taken millenia to evolve, is the product of atleast 10,000 years of evolving global thought but is primarily today associated with the west.
The conflicts I might have with conservatives or even actual liberals as opposed to progressives, do not threaten that foundation. At most they are about the edge cases – what rises to sufficient level to infringe on individual rights. But the fundimental presumption of individual liberty is shared.
The left today seeks to destroy all ideas, all philosophy that is an impediment to acheiving their desired ends. Nothing is a legitimate impediment to getting what they want.
The Trump mis-statements you reference – were NOT moral accusations.
I would prefer that Trump gets his facts perfect. I would prefer the same of you.
But all misstatements are not equal.
If you like your doctor you can keep them – caused real harm to real people.
Further it was a lie that people relied on in voting and other life decisions.
And many of the people who relied on it got screwed.
Who was harmed because Trump said Toledo instead of Dayton ?
With regard to your mis-statement. You not merely alleged unique corruption, where there is nothing more than the status quo corruption that has existed for decades by those from both sides – in fact all the way back to washington. But you separately claimed that Trump had disrepected veterans.
Both of those are MORAL claims.
You are free to call out immorality. But you should do so carefully.
The damage to you for factual errors is substantially smaller than moral errors.
“If you like your doctor you can keep them” – was not just a factual error – it was a moral one.
And that is why it is significant.
The Trump/Russia collusion nonsense – which has always been a self evident fraud, but we are increasingly learning that those foisting it on us KNEW that, and did so to a far greater extent than we knew before – and THAT is a MORAL failure, not just a factual one.
“But after his daily continuing barrage of mistaken mental spillage, you’ve remained mute about those gaffs, misstatements, lies, and idiocies,”
If we exclude “lie” – which is another moral claim on your part, we can debate the extent to which Trump is more prone to factual error than say Obama. we can also debate whether the scale and frequency of those errors is different.
I do not expect perfection – from Trump, Obama, myself, you.
I do expect that the more important the fact is the more important it is to get it right.
I also expect that when we are talking about more than facts – when we are talking promises, or coverups, or lies, that it is both important to uncover those, and important to be correct when making claims of moral failure.
The “lie” regarding Benghazi – was not a factual error – Obama, Clinton, Rice, Powers new the facts – we now know that Clinton and Obama knew this was a terrorist attack and knew the group that perpatrated it during the attack.
That lie was a moral error. It was a deliberate attempt to escape responsibility for failure, in order to win what was at the time a close election.
We had much the same going on regarding Clinton and her email.
We now know that Clinton and her staff were repeatedly told – this was wrong you can not do this, that there were enormous security problems. Eventually she fired the guy telling her that and continued to do it anyway.
The claim that Clinton did not have intent – is garbage. Did she intend that the Chinese get classified communications – probably not, But she was told that was possible.
More importantly she did not accidentally have a private mail server for government documents, she did so deliberately. She did not accidentally send classified information – she did so deliberately. This was a moral failure.
Trump does lots of things I do not like, or that you do not like.
He does not pretend to be “holier than thou”. He does not lie about what he is doing.
He is not hiding what he is doing.
Openly doing things you disagree with is radically different from covertly hiding the mistakes you have made.
You can not even find a moral failure on the part of Trump that reaches the level of “if you like your doctor you can keep them” – much less Benghazi, IRS Gate, Fast & Furious, EmailGate,
The wikileaks emails hurt Clinton because they confirmed what most of us already knew – she was immoral.
Find an actual moral failure – not a policy difference.
Find ONE and you are 1% of the way to proving Trump is as morally bankrupt as Obama or Clinton.
This is not about “loyalty” – there are lots of things Trump could do that would get many of them to turn on him on a dime. He danced arround with Gun regulations for a few instants and saw his support drop by several points quickly, until he back pedaled.
Almost no one is loyal to Trump.
But we are enjoying the degree to which he drives the left to apoplecty.
Your own frothing and foaming are entertaining.
So we have switched from Hitler allusions to Satan ?
So accusing everyone who is not frothing as you are over Trump of being Satan’s supplicants – that is your idea of how to persuade ?
You do not seem to grasp that you went far past attacking Trump. You are attacking half of the country.
So one came out today and demanded that no one wear red baseball caps, because they were being confused with MAGA hats and this was traumatizing people.
I do not “support” Trump. Though there is a huge gulf between support and oppose.
But I do actually support MAGA.
I am happy that the Obama America Appology Tour is over.
America is far from perfect, but it is self evidently pretty dam good.
Here is another example of why you are not taken seriously.
More than a Year ago The WaPo fact checker gave Sara Huckaby Sanders 2 Pinochios for saying that Comey’s actions where improper and possibly illegal.
To anyone with a brain that was SELF-EVIDENTLY True at the time.
Comey testified to congress that he had provided memos that he deliberately made of converstations with Trump to Richman with the intention that he provide them to the press for the purpose of getting a Special Counsel appointed.
The IG refered Comey to the DOJ for prosecution for those actions.
That is the closet thing the IG can do to indict.
DOJ has purportedly declined to prosecute.
The IG report not merely says Comey’s actions were improper, it says so by multiple standards and it loudly notes that his actions were a horrible example of misconduct to an agency with 35,000 people that he was charged to lead.
Put Simply Sanders statement was accurate. WaPo’s assessment was ludicrously false.
This happens so constantly, that almost no one outside the left pays any attention anymore to the latest “argh Trump” rant.
Not only do YOU have no crediblity left – nother does WaPo or NYT.
To the extent we have a consequential problem with “public deception” it is not with Trump.
It is with the left and the press, and with you.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/02/us/california-boat-fire-rescue/index.html
Bad things happen – and people die.
It does not require someone with an “assualt rifle”.
There are other ways to kill numbers of people.
and if bad guys don’t, accidents and even nature will do so too.
It is time for Trump to pardon:
Flynn particularly,
Papadoulis,
Stone,
and to commute Manafort’s sentence.
If we are not going to prosecute Clinton and Comey for multiple clear violations of the law.
For using the power of an appointed federal office for personal political gain, for lying under oath, they we can not be prosecuting people outside of government who can legitimately engaging in politics using their own resources for much lessor offenses.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/2/unequal-justice/
While this is MOSTLY about democrats behaving badly, there are bad republicans in this.
As you listen to those early on defending this you should note that when this finally made it to court – and ONLY because someone refused to abide by the gag order the court found not only was no law broken, but that the premise of the investigation was rooted in law and crimes that do not exist.
Dave Rubin interviews are usually longer than this – but it is still not short.
But if you want to understand alot of what is wrong with the media, and silicon valley this will give you a clue. The best stuff is towards the end.
but the begining is necescary to understand that the story is about the person who made VR into reality and was destroyed by the left, the press, silicon valley, facebook because he supported Trump in 2016.
He was called a racisist, a homophobe a mysoginist. he lost he company.
Today you have a choice – if you wish to accomplish anything, if you want to contribute, change the world, be judged on your accomplishments and you harbor even mildly republican thoughts – shut up about them, or you are done.
You are only free to hold a controversial opinion if that opinion leans left.
The oligarchs of the left are actually doing what the right has been accused of through history. Worse they are doing so badly and through egregious misrepresentation.
Your citing one source – there are many others.
To falsify a scientific theory only ONE fact has to be at odds with the theory.
Just one.
CAGW has myriads of flaws. Does human activity have an impact on climate – probably, but the scale of that impact is not established as a question of science and is likely small.
We talk about fossil fuels – yet Dorian has more energy than all fossil fuels ever consumed by man. The scale of natural energy flows is gargantuan and humans though in our present numbers are no longer unnoticable, are still PUNY in comparison.
Much of CAGW depends on awe at large numbers – we likely accurately know the giga tons of ice melting in antartica and Greenland. But we ignore the larger amounts of new ice created each year.
The explanation of different facts is often less than obvious – parts of antartica are rising – suggesting a buildup of snow and ice. Other parts are dropping – suggesting ice melting.
But wait – it also appears that the continent as a whole is sinking into the mantle slowly – aparently because of the massive INCREASE in the amount of ice.
Additionally for a frozen continent Antartica is surprisingly volcanically active.
And this too melts ice.
There are atleast 3 major ocean currents. Each has a cycle and they are almost never in sync. These currents have massive effects on weather.
But the biggest issue with climate science is the presumption that we know much more than we likely do.
I just read evidence that the electromagnetic field of the sun has a dramatic effect on the field of the earth. And that the energy transfers their are enormous – making the energy of Dorian look tiny. These are areas that we have almost no understanding of – and they potentially have massive effects on climate.
We have only recently started to understand the link between solar activity – sun spots and gravity, and the orbits of planets. But we have known that sun spots correlate strongly with climate for more than a century.
CAGW is crap science. But that does not mean we know whether future climate will be warmer of colder. My guess is colder. My guess is that solar activity is a big factor and it is declining. But my guess is just that – a guess. It is a guess that has more REAL science behind it than CAGW. Which is amazing we have spent many many billion dollars on CAGW research – which of course mostly found what scientists wanted to find. And yet we know little more than 40 years ago, and much of what we know is likely wrong.
Someone asked for proof that Democratic candidates were talking about actually confiscating weapons.
Few believe me when I use the analogy of us being crabs in the warming water unnerved by the rights that slowly cook away.
As they are stripped away, propaganda will be spread on how the government is protecting us.
Well, Ron, don’t you know that politicians like O’Rourke just want to confiscate all of the weapons of good law-abiders in order to protect us from those people!
And, I love the way that these politicians talk about gun “buy-backs.” As if the government sold them in the first place. It’s like a kidnapping being called an adoption…
At least Beto pretty much called it what is. I suppose he doesn’t have much to lose, being that he’s under 2% in the polls…
Beto is not alone. Virtually every democratic candidate has said something.
All of them want bans – even though they are clueless about what they are banning.
Most of them want “buy backs” – they are not saying whether they are “manditory” buy backs.
Voluntary buy backs are stupid arrangements like “cash for clunkers”.
The government overpays and people tend to take the money and go out and buy a better gun.
I have not verified this yet, but I heard reported recently that despite draconian gun laws – gun ownership in Austraila has returned to pre-ban levels.
I am not sure if the law is being ignored or if the government is just handing out gun licenses like candy.
New Zealand passed similarly draconian laws post Christchurch, and I am told that very large numbers of people are refusing to turn in their guns.
Any law that is disregarded by as little as 10% of the population FAILS.
BTW Biden openly admitted some time ago that government is NOT going to verify that people are not LYING on their background checks. The law enforcement resources do not exist to do so.
This BTW applies to EVERYTHING – including clean air and water regulations.
If you do not have the resources to enforce the law
DO NOT MAKE THE LAW. All you do is UNDERMINE the rule of law and create opportunities for corruption if you pass laws that are not going to be rigorously enforced.
If you pass a law that requires significant resources to enforce you are BY DEFINITON creating a police state.
Law is not about “feeling good”. Either the law efficiently accomplishes a valid purpose – or the law is IMMORAL and anyone advocating for it is IMMORAL.
In fact by advocating for “feel good” laws the left is actively undermining its own key principle.
The left is fixated on absolute equality – particularly equality of outcome.
The rest of us are focused on equality before the law.
Any law that has/requires significant discretion is INHERENTLY unequally applied and has an unequal outcome. At best a law that can not be strictly enforced becomes RANDOMLY enforced – more likely it is used, to target the very people that the left claims to advocate for – the poor, the least well off.
Do you think that Tom Steyer worries about “vagrancy laws” ?
At worst the application is corrupt.
Do not make laws you are not going to vigorously enforce – that is called EVIL.
Priscilla, just to be clear, I blame both the extremist left and extremist right for trampling on rights. I blame the right for forcing moral decisions on individuals and the left for taking rights away and forcing social decisions on citizens.
Examples, the left, PPACA and forced purchase of a private companies product. The right, abortion and marijuana laws.
We now have a very damaging law going through our state legislature and supported by the idiotic right. After years of losing revenue from the decreased production of tobacco, many former tobacco farmers invested into planting hemp once the feds said ok. The state did not have hemp laws. Much of the hemp is smokable and due to police not being able to tell the difference without testing, they have passed in one chamber a law where hemp can not be grown nor sold. Farmers have invested $100 thousands+ in growing this product since it is used for various mefical conditions and this coming year would be the first harvest.
The police can buy mobile testing equipment as many states have done, but ours does not want to spend the money, so harm comes to farmers to assist police in an ever ending fight against marijuana that will never be effective.
Hate to say it, but unless I live to 100 I will never see the reaction to the impact these changes will have on society, but I see nothing good coming from them, unlike liberals and conservatives supporting their social agendas.
I don’t disagree, Ron, but I draw a line between stupid and counterproductive regulation and the outright trampling of constitutional rights, which are considered unalienable. What Democrats are doing when they say that they will confiscate legal firearms, create gun registries for that purpose, is far worse, in my opinion, than passing a law that can be repealed. Protestors in Hong Kong are not waving American flags because of our marijuana laws.
“but I draw a line between stupid and counterproductive regulation and the outright trampling of constitutional rights, which are considered unalienable.”
There is no difference.
All regulation and law – even legitimate law tramples rights.
All bad law:
is stupid and counter productive
AND tramples rights.
The constitution for the most part does NOT identify unalienable rights.
In the constitution the term “priviledges and immunities” is used – deliberately.
The 14th amendment DELIBERATELY repeats the term.
Priviledges and immunities was used specifically to strongly assert that the privilidges and immunites clause in the constitution itself as well as the 9th amendment really mean what they say.
Do not take my word for this – we actually have the debates over the 14th amendment
And those debates are relevant to the question of citizenship too.
I actually support “if you are born here, you are a citizen” – even for illegal aliens.
But the issue did come up, and the authors and ratifiers made it clear – they meant people who were legitimately in the country and willingly subjected themselves to its laws.
The did not mean the children of diplomats or others who were not here legitimately.
We had actual open borders – mostly at the time
But they still did not mean being born here alone was enough.
I think it should be.
But I also think the constitution should be enforced AS WRITTEN,
and it should be changed when we do not like that.
But back to “priviledges and immunities”
The right to trial by jury is NOT a natural or unalienable right.
It is a right created by the constitution.
The right to the protection of the law is NOT a natural or inalienable right,
it is a right created by government.
The right to free speech, or to firearms or to property
ARE inalienable rights
Priviledges and immunities was used specifically to engulf ALL rights – natural rights as well as the rights we enjoy as a consequence of legitimate government, and the right to equally benefit from legitimate government. It was also intended to give more teeth to the 9th and 10th amendments which were very important to the framers, AND to the reconstruction amendment authors, but which SCOTUS has intentionally completely ignored.
The constitution created a government with ONLY enumerated powers.
IT made allowance for those additional primarily administrative powers that were “necescary and proper” to accomplish the ACTUAL enumerated powers, but still requiring the LEAST infringing means of doing so. All else was within the priviledges and immunities of citizens and outside the power of government to infringe.
Put simply – for people – whatever is not prohibited is allowed.
For govenrment – whatever is not allowed is prohibited.
Gun laws have UNIVERSALLY failed even utilitarian requirements.
A huge variety of different gun laws have been tried throughout the planet.
THEY DO NOT WORK.
That alone should be sufficient – no need for the 2nd amendment, no need for the 14th.
No need even to recognize self defense as a right.
Laws that do not provide a NET benefit are WRONG.
Period. They are IMMORAL.
The use of FORCE is NEVER justified if you can not produce a demonstrable benefit.
There is no need for even a constitution to accept that.
The entire purpose of govenrment is to use FORCE only for our net BENEFIT.
Anything else violates the fundimental purpose of government.
Well, I view anything that infringes on anyones life that impacts individual freedom stupid and illegal, regardless if it can be repealed by congress or overturned by courts.
I view the constitution as the law of the land for anyone living here legally, either a citizen or immigrant. ( Illegals are not covered in my mind). So we now have a president that supports policies where legal immigrants possessing honey can be locked up for 82 days without legal assistance. Who is next, you or I?
This is what I call a crab in the crab pot. Who is concered when things like this happen? Bet few have any concern that someone can be locked up without recourse.
https://www.omaha.com/news/trending/innocent-man-spends-days-in-jail-for-bringing-honey-back/article_708d750b-5edc-59ee-87c8-e2263e65671a.html
Is this less egregious than government taking guns? I think this is worse since I view this violating multiple rights covered in the bill of rights, whereas guns is covered by one original and one additional after the civil war.
But the issue is not if you or I find loss of rights more serious if due to that constitution or by law. It is that 80% of people care less or are oblivious.
Fair enough guys, but I still think that the right to self defense is a bedrock right that supports all of the others. ( Did Trump say he supported what happened to that honey guy? If so, that’s not good!)
Now, I am not one of those who thinks that the right to bear arms is limitless, but I think that, if we agree to confiscation of legal weapons, or force gun owners to register in a federal database, we are fully cooked crabs.
Trump did not comment. No one commented. Just a few mefia outlets commented. I saw it on a Libertarian Nation Facebook post. No where else. Notice I had to find in on just a few media places that I could share.
And that is the problem. You or I.might not be any different than the honey guy. How would they view you coming through customs with honey?
But I am not one to ask about Trump and immigrants. He makes it very clear how he views anyone that is not white european ancestry blood people.
I do not beleive the president needs to individually condemn every racist act in the country.
I do not beleive he needs to speak up about every single bad act by law enforcement.
I would like it if Trump did, and I will hold him accountable if he defends this nonsense.
But the corrections to these problems reside with the courts and legislature – not the president.
We do however need to start holding those in power accountable.
I do not know that he needs to go to jail – and I doubt that would happen regardless,
But James Comey needs prosecuted.
Not because Trump was his target – but because his conduct was illegal and wrong.
I am less concerned about his “leaking” – though there is a very important issue their – and LOTS of law enforcement does this – when a cases is dead, they “leak” information to the press in the hopes that a news story will “make something happen”.
That is exactly what Comey did, and it is what others in law enforcement do all the time,
and it is mis use of the power of govenrment – and yes that is actually a crime.
When you act inside of government in a way that abridges the civil rights of others – that is a crime.
“But the corrections to these problems reside with the courts and legislature – not the president.
We do however need to start holding those in power accountable.”
Corrections will never happen because too few care. We already have a large portion of the country buying into anti-republic society policies and most everyone else not faring.
Right not that warm water feels so good on our aches and pains!
Where things fit is complex.
Even creatures we do not beleive have free will, or freedom are presumed to have a rigt to self defense.
But no freedom exists without free will.
Regardless, Self Defense is far far closer to axiomatic or a principle than a value.
And you can not say – you have the right to defend yourself – but we are going to deny you the capacity to do so.
This is what the left gets wrong about Citizens United – though Money may litterally be a form of speech it does nto matter if it is not, nor was the decision based on that. Nor was it based on corporate personhood.
The basis of the decision was that you can not regulate speech through the back door.
Government can not as an example constrain a free press by regulating paper, or radio, or the internet.
Govenrment can not constrain free speech by passing laws that permit you to say whatever you please – on tuesdays after 3am in the shower.
You can not regulate a right by boxing it in with regulations on the tools to effectuate that right.
If you have the right to self defense – you have the right to the tools to defend yourself
“Government can not as an example constrain a free press by regulating paper, or radio, or the internet.
Govenrment can not constrain free speech by passing laws that permit you to say whatever you please ”
Effective now. Maybe not once a Democrat president, Democrat congress and Democrat SCOTUS passes, signs and approves legislation that violates rights in the constitution, but interpretation finds different legality.
“I am not one of those who thinks that the right to bear arms is limitless,”
We presume that everything more substantial and an AR-15 is not allowed.
That is false. Private citizens have owned tanks, artilery, and warships.
You can legally own a gattling gun today – so long as it is hand cranked.
You can not own an automatic weapon – or more accurately owning one is very severely restricted,
I beleive we have restricted explosive devices, but most “weapons of war” are not regulated.
More problematic is that no one will sell them to you.
If Trump has something to do with the Honey case – then “fie on him”.
but I am pretty sure this is just ordinary government stupidity having nothing specific to do with The president and more to do with the fact that law enforcement will do anything the courts let it get away with.
Trump not directly involved, but his policies concerning immigration caused much of this problem. Then add the infringement on right we allow to go unchallenged, you end up with issue like this.
I am not a big fan of the word (or concept) of “policy”.
Government is about LAW.
I do not always agree with the law.
In fact I often disagree with the law, and I expect that we should all change it.
But the role of the executive is to enforce the laws as they are.
As best as I can tell that is what Trump is doing on immigration.
He has done everything up to and including beg democrats in congress to pass better immigration laws. And they have refused.
I see very little related to immigration as “trump’s” problem.
Even Obama’s head of DHS has come out publicly – though quietly supporting Trump’s “policies” – because they are the law. Because Obama tried to do things differently, and it blew up in his fact, and in the end – except for the fixation of the press Obama did many of the same things Trump is.
Familiy separation was implimented by Obama.
There is not a single place ICE is housing immigrants that was not constructed BEFORE Trump. All the “cages” were constructed by Obama.
I am fully prepared to discuss better immigration policy.
I am fully prepared to let ALOT more people come here.
Because I think that it can be done such that it will be NET good for US.
But I do not have huge amounts of sympathy for illegal immigrants.
Though I do have some admiration of them.
Regardless, they are making a choice.
They chose to leave their countries – I do understand why.
They chose a long arduous and dangerous trek to get here.
They all choose to stay in detention. Any of them can get out of detention at a moments notice – if they agree to be deported.
They are not in prison – they can leave.
What they can not do – is get into the US.
That is all.
That is something they have a desire to do. A desire I greatly respect.
But they do not have a right.
And government is ultimately about rights.
Charity is a private not public obligation.
Well, a see I did comment about immigration, so I was wrong where I said I had not. Since it is impossible finding anything on wordpress after 300+ comments and it takes minutes to load all the videos, I am not accessing word press to see the complete discussion. But I will say that a president cant blame the predecessor after months in office. As much as immigration was in the news, its not that difficult to issue E.O’s to clarify how regulation should be enforced. Trump can not blame anything that went wrong with immigration, such as separating kids from family and not letting them see their parents for months. I said at the time if you come here illegally, then expect to be separated, but I never said I supported that happening for months without families seeing each other for konths, as reported by a recent report concerning the separated kids.
You say there is nothing called common sense. I believe there is. Common in this definition is an acceptible belief held by a large number of citizens. Sense is the intellegence driving an acceptible belief. So in this case, common sense is separating kids from parents if the parents are locked up, but allowing visitation regularily to insure kids are not tramatized, as has been reported. Trump can not blame the lack of common sense on Obama since this happened in 2017-18.
The honey man is another issue, but related. His directives concerning immigration severely impacted this mans rights. If they can lock him up, then you or I may be next coming through customs.
I am not trying to blame Obama for Trump’s policies.
I am merely pointing out that despite the rhetoric from the left and the media – there is very little substantive difference.
Obama started out with relaxed immigration policies – and he ended up with a massive influx of unaccompanied minors and then with “families”
Both of those changes were a direct result of his changes in policies.
Way too many people fail to note that immigration for the south is actually predictable, it is driven by economics, and it is also driven by the incentives we create – even if unintentional.
The ranting and railing of the left about famility separation is actually encouraging people to come and bring their families – because they beleive it increases the odds of their getting in, and they beleive that in the conflict between trump and the left – the left MIGHT win.
Anyway Obama’s lax policies resulted in an influx that required him to reverse his policies – to actually become more draconian than before.
That was necescary to stem the swell that the relaxed polices created.
Trump inherited Obama’s more stringent policies.
There are only a few things that are different from Obama.
First the economy is stronger – and that is driving increasing numbers of illegal immigrants.
Both Obama and Trump want to deal with “the dreamers” – Obama just acted outside of the law unilaterally, Trump is following the law and trying to use the dreamers to leverage better law.
Trump has a bug up his ass over “the wall” that Obama did not.
“The wall” Will have a significant effect, but it is NOT sufficient on its own. It is not an “answer” just a tool.
Last Trump is NOW acting to try to reverse regulations and other decisions that made it more difficult to deport people quickly, that essentially produced “catch and release”.
The existing law allows Trump to expedite hearings and deport people who cross outside of border crossings in something like 90 days. But congress will not fund enough beds to keep people for 90 days.
Even Jeh Johnson – Obama’s DHS director has supported most of Trump’s policy’s regarding immigration. Because with few exceptions they are the same policies that Obama had.
That is not “blaming Obama”. That is pointing out that the left and the media are hypocrits.
I am not trying to microparse your comments and make accusations because your present comments differ from your past ones in some insignificant way.
To the extent I would point any thing out – it is that just as you are not lying – neither is Trump over similar minor inconsistencies.
One standard for all of us. I prefer that we do not level accusations of lying easily over matters of little consequence.
Based on your own definition of terms – there is no such thing as common sense.
What is commonly held is quite often NONSENSE.
And what actually makes sense is not often commonly held.
All we need to do is look at all the failures of “Common sense XXX laws”
Common sense gun laws
Common sense drug laws
….
Preceding “Law” with “common sense” pretty much guarantess that what follows will be nonsense.
We noted here constantly – that gun laws DO NOT WORK.
In my book when you do something over and over and expect a different result – that is insanity not “common sense”.
With respect to child separation.
No, there is no “common sense”
The entire arrangement is caused by our own existing screwed up laws.
And whether they “make sense” or not – I expect the actual law to be followed not ignored because it is not “common sense”.
With respect to “child separation”.
What I would recommend would be keeping the family together, but “the law” prohibits holding children in custody for long enough to get through the deportation process.
To keep the families together requires releasing the parents and that takes a process that could be completed in 90 days and makes it last over 2 years – the instant you release the parents.
Congress will not change the law allowing families to be kept together, and will not fund facilities to hold the number of immigrants detained in a week for 90 days, much less all of them.
Familiy separation is not “the right thing” – it is the only thing that conforms to existing law.
Nor is your visitation idea “common sense”
The children are placed in foster care. Foster care is always FAR AWAY from where these people are detained. Foster parents would have to transport kids long distances regularly,
DHS would have to handle massive numbers of visitors.
Regardless those being detained can end the separation in an instant by agreeing to return to their country. We are constantly forgetting – these people are NOT incarcerated.
They are “free to go” at any time. What they are not is “free to go into the US”.
Actual rights matter. There is a gigantic gulf between the use of force to interfere with someones ability to obtain something they want but have no right to, and the use of force to deprive someone of something that is theirs by right.
Most of the “fact check” sites “claim” that it is false that the “family separations” occurred under Bush and Obama.
That “fact check” is absolutely false.
There is only a single difference between Bush/Obama and Trump regarding “family separation”. That is Trump is trying hard to 100% enforce the law that those caught within 100 miles of the board and NOT at a checkpoint, can be held until their 90 day hearing and then deported immediately. That is what the law perscribes.
Obama and Bush excercised “discretion” and released significant portions of those caught at the border – especially those with families.
One of the results of this was that illegals learned quickly that if they crossed as a “family unit” they would likely be released and it could take years to get deported.
Almost no one seems to grasp that often “humane” “Common sense” creates incentives that make things WORSE. Not better.
The only “policy” that has changed between Obama and Trump is the “Policy” of enforcing the law without discretion.
I do not call that “policy” that is “the rule of law”.
I think that a “policy’ of disregarding the law, is actually called “lawless”.
But there is very little regarding immigration that Trump is doing differently from Obama – EXCEPT that Trump is not excercising discretion. He is just ‘following the law”
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article213525764.html
The “honey man” never should have been detained. That was a stupid decision of individuals in law enforcement.
The big problem has more to do with our idiocy and lawlessness with regard to drugs than immigration.
80% of us could care less – until we are the ones sitting in jail.
I am opposed to any group that seeks to Trample Rights – left right, or whatever.
At different times in our past – the right has been the bigger threat than the left.
Today that is NOT the case.
The most egregious likely potential abuses by the right are fundimentally continuation of a bad status quo. I will fight to change that. But the right is not seeking to burn down the house. The left is. The Left is seeking massive disruption. I would really like to see massive disruption. But all forms of massive disruption are not equal, and those the left seeks are pretty much the exact opposite of those I seek AND those the left seeks come at the EXPENSE of individual rights.
I am not going to get what I want. But I can and should hope to see small steps in my direction. And that IS POSSIBLE with the right in power. Trump IS actively deregulating.
He is “lying” about the scale of deregulation – but we really are seeing 5 regulations removed for each new one added, and we really are seeing way less economically significant regulations.
I am not Ecstatic About Trump’s court appointments. But I do not think there are enough qualified libertarian candidates to fill available positions. I do however think that “outsourcing” judicial appointments to the Federalist society has been a HUGE success.
The federalist are the most libertarian of all consequential groups within the law today.
I am still pissed at 1 in 5 of Gorsuch’s decisions, and maybe half of Kavanaugh’s on controversial issues – but I am pissed at nearly all of Roberts on controversial issues.
Frankly I am more likely to agree with Ginsberg than Roberts.
And even when I don’t – her wrong decisions are better than Roberts wrong decisions.
Regardless, my point is that the big threat to liberty at the moment is NOT from the right.
That does not mean we should not keep a watchful eye on them – AND Trump.
It does not mean there is not lots of the status quo that should be rolled back.
But the left is not looking to roll back to greater individual rights – that is libertarians.
They are not looking to protect the infringements that exist – that is conservatives.
They are looking to impose a vast set of new ones – that is progressivism.
And they are not even slightly bashful about it.
Our drug laws are absolutely idiotic.
This nonsense did not work during prohibition.
It is not working today.
What is pretty disturbing is that we had to pass an amendment to the constitution to prevent the volstead act from being declared unconstitutional.
We have repealed that amendment.
If the Volstead act was unconstitutional without the 18th amendment and that has been repealed – why are drug laws constitutional ?
It is decades past time to GIVE UP.
We have lost the war on drugs.
There is absolutely no possibility of ever winning.
We are not going to ever do any better than the moment
and that is pretty bad.
We are never going to reach some utopia where illegal drug use vanishes – or even diminishes through current means.
We know what works – well, what works better.
Portugauls solution does not work.
But it is 10 times better than what we currently have..
If idiots in your state are passing stupid hemp laws.
Fie on them
Fie, fie, fie
“He makes it very clear how he views anyone that is not white european ancestry blood people.”
Intrigued to have you bring this up, Ron, and I don’t mean to put you on the spot, but how does he make this clear?
I am with you Priscilla.
We are lobbing these stupid “racist” grenades all over.
Disagree with anyone on anything – and you are racist.
In some moderate profile conflict that was completely about sex, the result was the press repeating claims of racism – yet there was not a racial minority in the argument.
To the extent that you MIGHT be able to argue that Trump’s immigration policies are “racist” – he is seeking to favor “yellow” people over “brown” ones. Though even that is not accurate.
Trump has repeatedly said he is looking to increase legal immigration and decrease illegal immigration.
There is not and will not be significant immigration of “white people” to the US.
White Europeans make up pretty much an inconsequential portion of US legal immigrants.
This debate is about very low skilled immigrants from central and south america vs much higher skilled immigrants from Asia.
Dave, I think you are jumping to conclusions. I dont think I said anything about immigrants and his racist speech. I did provide Pr iscilla examples that are a trend in Trumps comments that support my thinking. And this is something where my thoughts have gone from people claiming this are full of 💩 to there is something there. No one can be so stupid to continue making these remarks without there being something behind their comments.
Ron,
I can not find the microscopic difference between “racist speech” and Trump does not actually say anything racist, but what he says taken as a trend is racist.
To me this is like the lefts claim that Republicans use “dog whistles”.
Absolutely !!! And only when only the Cats hear them – the problem is with the cats, not the dogs, or the “dog whistles”.
If you have to work hard to figure out the secret meaning of what someone else says – the problem is you, not them.
Priscilla, I won’t go into all the detail statements and actions Trump has taken since becoming president, but will just list a couple. And put this in context with the reaction of the right when Obama took sides on Treyvon Martin and said if he had a son he would look like Treyvon.
The first I will list is the case concerning the Latino judge in California. Trump did not react to the negative ruling because the case ruling was wrong, he attacked the judge because he was Latino.
The second was Trump response to Puerto Rico and the hurricane. How much did he say the hurricane was devastating to that area and how we needed to assist compared to the amount of times he commented about how corrupt the government was and how much money they wasted, blah, blah blah.
The third, and I think most revealing, is Trumps rallies. Word is that many Latinos support Trump, but not one of his rallies have been to any area that is not hugely white.
And last, but not really anything big except for the native American, his calling Warren Pocahontas. One who does not view native American secondary citizens would not use this name to describe someone claiming to be native american since Pocahontas was an historical woman important in the history of this country.
So do you want more because almost weekly he comes up with something that may not seem racist by itself, but when added to everything, there is a pattern.
The latino Judge thing was BEFORE the election.
Trump’s statement was not as bad as painted.
If you think Trump attacked him because he was Hispanic rather than because of his decision – then you do not know trump at all.
I do not know whether the decision was right or wrong.
But I do know that Trump attacked because of the decision.
AS to Puerto Rico.
I am really really tired of this lame nonsense.
1) The federal government should not have a role in natural disasters.
2) Whether the federal govenrment has a role or not, the money and other things it does are ineffective.
TX recovered – rapidly. Not because of federal money, but because TX is a functioning first world region – because it was in the interests of the people their to get back on their feet.
Because they solved their problems quickly so they could go back to earning money.
PR failed for the same reason Haiti failed and Somalia, and ….
Because it has crap for institutuions and no amount of money will fix that.
Every dollar the federal govenrment spent on PR was wasted – litterally.
We can not find most of it. It disappeared in corruption.
So why should we give more ?
If you want to fix PR – cut them loose. Make they solve their own problems.
They can, and will, when there is no one their to bail them out.
And Sorry – Trump should be praised for Tagging Warren Fauxcahantas.
She is a fraud. Her ludicrous claims to indian herritage perfectly represent what is WRONG with the left.
If you want to call yourself a woman – you are a woman – even if you have a penis, and xy chromosomes.
If you want to call yourself an indian – you are an indian – even if there are no indians in your family tree.
If you want to call yourself black you are black regardless of how white you are.
If I want to be rid of my “straight white male priviledge” – it is trivial.
All I need to do is “identify” as a non-binary, cherokee lesbian – and my “priviledge” is gone.
I find it absolutely hillarious that the left which fixates on all this discrimination is solving the problem of discrimination against women, and minorities by empowering white men to quite litterally take over minority status.
Dave, as Ricky Ricardo woukdcsay to Lucy, “Let me ‘splain somethin to you”
1. There is a difference between what is and what should be. Right now it is accrptible behavior for the government to help out after natural disa sters. You can not defend a Trump negative by attacking the acceptible behavior. It is very clear to me today that Trump is anti-brown. And dont bring up employed browns because that is a buy productnof making a good white evonomy.
2.Can you imagine the outcry by liberals if Warren had said she was black because she had some miniscule amount of African American heritage and Trump called her “Tubman”?
Yes, there is a gulf between what is and what should be – in fact reasoning from one to the other is a fallacy called Hume’s Guillotine. Or the is/ought problem. And you are on the wrong side of it.
What “is” is not “acceptable” or right. merely because it “is”.
Government actions regarding natural disasters are expensive, ineffective, more often harming that helping and corrupting.
There is lots of data on all of the above.
That we “accept” something does not make it right, nor does it make it work,
And yes, absolutely I can “defend trump” by attacking an “accepted” behavior – BTW accepted and acceptable are NOT the same.
That is a “majoritarian fallacy”.
Or as your mother would have put it – “just because all your friends are jumping off roofs does not mean you should”
As to Trump being “anti-brown”
AGAIN if you claim a moral failure in another, that is radically more serious than claiming a factual error.
If you say someone is wrong about a fact – and you are incorrect – the world does not end and while your credibility may take a hit, your morality need not.
If you say someone is EVIL – either you are right, or you are immoral.
There is not much middle ground.
As to “anti-brown” – Trumps support amoung blacks and hispanics is horrid.
But it is approximately twice that of Romney. Trump’s hispanc support is about what Bush’s was and his support among blacks is double that of bush.
Most of the people screaming “racism” regarding Trump are neither brown, nor black – though obviously there are exceptions.
Is Trump racist ? Probably – in the same way that 95% of the country is racist.
In the way that the KKK is ? Not a chance.
Attacking Trump for the same meaningless racism that most people have – including the very people accusing him, is going to create a huge problem for those who think they are getting rid of Trump in 2020.
You can not call Trump “racist” for holding views that 60% of people share, and expect to win an election.
“2.Can you imagine the outcry by liberals if Warren had said she was black because she had some miniscule amount of African American heritage and Trump called her “Tubman”?”
If you make a false claim of “victim status” – you deserve whatever anyone calls you.
I back Trump 200% in calling Warren “Fauxcahantis” and I would note – Warren was attacked for that before Trump was on the stage.
And she deserved it.
If you claim to be black – when you are not – you deserve whatever epitaphs you are given.
I do not care as an example if you were born with an XY chromosome and wish to live as a woman. Your business. I will likely personally respect that wish MOST OF THE TIME.
But that will remain MY CHOICE. When you start showing up in children’s restrooms – I am locking you up. When you start lecturing teenage girls on the use of tampons – I am calling you out, when you start competing in women’s sports I am shutting you down, When you start calling your penis a vagina I am calling you nuts. When you start forcing women to wax your genitals – because you claim to be a woman – I am going to send you to jail – certainly not attack those who refuse to wax a penis because you call it a vagina.
REALITY matters. FACTS “trump” what you call “common sense”.
Though there are TWO evil things going on.
One is the demand that we reject facts for feelings.
The other is that the status of victim has become so important that people will lie to acheive it
Jussie Smollet being one example.
Neither of these two women are “black” – they are the same woman.
If you can not come up with actually racist ACTIONS,
or OBVIOUSLY racist words,
When you play this – well what he is saying is not actually racist, but take in context with all the other not actually racist things he says it still adds up to racism – you are DESTROYING meaning.
Trump is about as “racist” as tens of millions of his supporters.
He is about as racist as tens of millions of his opponents.
Are there ar few serious racists in this country – a few ?
Does racism rank anywhere on the list of problems that even minorities should be concerned about today – NO.
Regardless the “trump is a racist” argument – will guarantee Trump’s re-election.
Calling Trump racist is calling half the country racist. ‘
I think it is an exaggeration to call Trump anti-brown. I think that he is anti-PC, and, these days, being politically incorrect necessarily leads to charges of racism. He is also a product of a political system that encourages divisive rhetoric, and he has been uniquely successful at using it. But divisiveness and racism are very different things.
I have a good friend, with whom I worked for many years. For the last few years, she has been a leader in a nationwide wellness movement, called GirlTrek. GirlTrek forms walking groups that encourage black women to get more exercise. The mission of the group is to reduce the high rates of cardiovascular disease in the African-American community.
A few years ago, after seeing pictures of one of her groups on her Facebook page, but not knowing at the time that it was an organization meant specifically for black women, I texted her and said that I was interested in joining. Her response was that she would welcome my participation, but wanted me to know that I would be the only white woman in the group, and she didn’t want me to be uncomfortable with that.
Long story short, I was uncomfortable with it, so I chose not to join, but I appreciated her giving me the heads-up, and she and I remain close today. I didn’t want to crash an organization that was clearly not meant for “people like me.” To be clear, I do not consider Girl Trek to be racist or sexist. Nor do I think that I am racist or sexist.
But, here’s the thing… if the situation had been reversed, i.e. if I had been an organizer and leader of a group that was marketed specifically toward white women, regardless of whether or not the racial aspect of the group was based on credible health risks that white women face, both I and the organization would likely be branded as racist.
Trump critcized a judge who belonged to an organization called La Raza (the Race) Lawyers, which advocates for citizenship for illegal immigrants. Granted, Trump was not clear that it was this judge’s immigration advocacy that he regarded as a conflict. Nevertheless, even after he clarified his tweet, why would Trump be called a racist for expressing skepticism of an activist judge, but the judge was largely spared from any scrutiny for advocating ethically-based immigration policies?
Bottom line, I just think that intersectional politics, constant allegations of racism, and charges of white privilege have made the definition of racism so broad as to be almost meaningless. Like almost everything else in politics today, it’s made to divide us along racial lines.
There is complexity to lots of this.
The simple part is
just because you do not like the position of another person does not make them racist.
Tucker Carlson just did a segment on the “racist trees” at some California community.
The segment was totally insane – even Tucker started saying some nonsensical things – anthropomorphizing the trees.
Trees are not racist – PERIOD. They have value – to humans. But they do not have RIGHTS.
We need not care what the trees think.
But that has how insane this gets.
Trump attacked a judge who was hearing a case he was involved in.
Attacking a judge is generally stupid.
But it is NOT inherently “racist” to attack someone whose decisions you do not like.
It is not even racist if they are actually right and you are wrong.
Disagreement – even vigorous disagrement is not RACIST.
Being Wrong – even badly wrong is not RACIST.
Most of the time when I am at odds with Ron, I understand his point – even if I still disagree.
But on this claim of – the individual things Trump says are not racist, but when you look at the entire package it is clear is CRAP, and it is WRONG.
That is like saying – the defendent is accused of a crime.
I can not prove that the defendant committed a single element of the crime,
but taken a a whole all the things I can not prove, prove that he committed the crime.
That is garbage.
Nor is this about “defending Trump”.
It is about we are headed straight for hell fast if we are lobbing racist had grenades at everything anyone says that we do not like.
Your “GirlTek” example raises an entirely different issue.
Racism, Sexism, … are not in all circumstances inherently evil.
A group that wishes to restrict its members based on some shared identity.
Race, sex, or any of bazillions of other shared attributes or experiences – is INHERENTLY discriminatory, but it is not INHERENTLY immoral.
We would tend to frown on an all white males organization. We have even in many instances made those illegal.
While we should frown on those MOST of the time,.
We should never have made any form of discrimination illegal.
There is no rational basis for making discriminating against women illegal – that would not also make discriminating against men illegal.
Canada is having a nasty mess because some MTF trans person is trying to get grooming salons that only serve women to serve him.
It points out the idiocy of anti-discrimination laws – if you can not discriminate against women, you can not discriminate against men, and even if you somehow manage to distinguish between those – making one legal and the other not, then how do you sort out discriminating against men who identify as women ?
There are differences between various types of discriminiation, but sorting out those differences is for people within their own live – not for the law.
We choose not to join groups with only blacks or only women especially when those groups are formed arround that shared identity – because we are uncomfortable their.
Those are private decisions.
The most fundimental issue regarding Trump’s attack on the judge is that it was ABSOLUTELY clear Trump was attacking the judge because he did not like his DECISIONS.
So he looked at the judges other life choices and affiliations and attacked whatever he could.
If the judge had been affiliated with NAMBLA – or NORML that is what Trump would have attacked.
You can bemoan that Trump attacks everything that moves – particularly everything that disagrees with him. You can claim Trump should be more discerning and limited in his attacks. But the pattern is not that Trump is “racist” it is that he attacks everyone he disagrees with.
His attacks are typically fallacious – ad hominem, they are logical nonsense,
but they are not racist.
Even being WRONG is not racist.
What is wrong about our public discourse today is that one side does not tolerate any disagreement at all. They do not resolve disagreement with argument.
They seek to pummel any dissent into silence.
A survey just came out – 70% of college conservatives say that they must self censor in school or their grades will suffer.
Ben Shapiro addressed a bit of that in a short video on Elizabeth Warren – who aparently taught him at Harvard – she also taught my wife at UofP.
Warren has always been on the left. But Shapiro noted that when she was teaching law school her leftism was moderated by facts. Her famous paper on the effects of health care costs on bankruptcy – is remarkably good and rational. Her writtings as a professor disown the very things she is saying today as a senator. She explicitly wrote that what she now advocates for will not work.
Anyway Shapiro noted that in college and law school he was a strong advocated for his conservative views in class – that he clashed with professors including Warren and they had excellent discussions.
But when he took exams or wrote papers – he wrote as a flaming leftist.
He made the point that tests and papers were submitted using student numbers and that he would have failed had he wrote what he actually beleived.
We are increasingly that way – our public and private persona’s must be different.
And voters are learning that the ballot box is truly secret.
If you want a solid attack on Trump – he does well by using the same tactics as the left against them.
Several editorials have noted that Trump follows “alynski’s rules for radicals”
Trump does not “argue” facts, logic, reason. He engages in ad hominem.
He does exactly what those who oppose him do – except better.
Elizabeth Warren chose to make her racial origens a public issue. Trump thumped her on the grounds that SHE chose.
But ultimately whether Warren is part Cherokee or not has absolutely zero bearing on whether she is right about issues or not.
The efforts of people to use “intersectionality” as a substitute for valid argument is WRONG.
It should be ZERO surprise that the counter attack will be rooted somehow in their own intersectional claims.
When you claim authority based on membership in a racial minority – pointing out that you are WRONG is not “racism”. It is not even racism if your counter argument is false.
You do not get a free pass, an exclusion from the requirment that you make a valid argument because you have chosen to make your race, gender, …. part of the argument and a phony basis for having some authority.
Priscilla, first, I do not want a Democrat president. I did not vote for Trump nor Clinton, so I have not voter dog in this show. So, when I say what I say it is not coming from any support position for Trump.
I support most all of Trumps policies, even immigration, but the way it has been implemented is a disaster. And his messaging in the issue has fed that belief in me. The first story to come out about kids being separated should have had Trump on the phone telling DHHS managers to get the problem fixed with in days or they were fired! And his tweets should have supported that message. Voters dont know if Bush or Obama did the same. And after 18 months in office, it was no longer pertinent.
I did not like Trump because he was the “bully bastard”. I did not like way, and still dont, like the way he belittles others. But I did not think at the time of the election that he was racist.
But most people are not like you and Dave. Dave has an encyclopedic memory that allows him to pull data from years ago supporting positions of others that offset actions by Trump. You have a way to look at actions and not words. But I think I am closer to many voters where words are about as damaging a deeds. And his words TO ME show a racist leaning because there are no “deeds” that offset the words.
But there might be another issue. 25% far right, 25% fat left, both active controlling the message and messenger, 50%:turned off and tuned out ( accepting what they are given by 25%)
Your beliefs are your beliefs – and your feelings are your feelings.
I do not understand them. but they still are what they are.
As to how he has “implimented”…
He has to a large extent done what Obama did, he has followed the law more closely, and he has done what those who voted for him expected.
As to messaging – no he has not done so in a way in which those on the left and in the media would be happy – is that a surprise ?
Do you think that the media would have been kinder to a president Cruz ?
President Jeb would not have done what Trump promised – the Press still would have savaged him, but not as badly.
I have very little interest in the tribal spats between Trump and the media.
They deserve each other and I prefer not to listen.
There is no “getting the problem fixed” with respect to “family separation”.
If you follow the law – families will be separated. PERIOD.
If you do not like that – change the law. That is CONGRESSES Job not Trump’s.
Immigration is a complex mess – the law is crap. But Trump’s legitimate choices are relatively simple and narrow.
And even if I do not like the law – I want Trump to follow it.
If we had honest press – that is where this would have ended.
I absolutely agree that Trump “throws his weight arround” and I do not like that.
That is why I am neither a billionaire nor president.
I get very upset with Trump – when he “bullies” people who are not really part of the process.
He sort of stepped in it with the Gold Star families – while they were engaging in politics, we still give latitude to people who have made sacrifice for the country – we do not agree, we do not do as they say, but we listen politely and do not attack them.
The same with the families of children shot at Sandyhook or Parkside.
But if you have a bully pulpit at CNN to attack Trump – I have zero problems with his attacking you back.
I do not care if the “”heavyweight” engage in their own MMA cage match with each other.
Trump rarely makes the mistake of “bullying” people who are not themselves in the business of throwing their weight arround. And he rarely attacks them first.
Put simply, while I do pay more attention to that than I should, I just do not care in the way you do.
BTW – while I have a pretty good memory. Mostly I just live in the internet ERA.
Everyone in my family is adept at their own “fact checking”.
Dave, “As to messaging – no he has not done so in a way in which those on the left and in the media would be happy – is that a surprise ?”
Your micro-tunnel vision misses a macro-huge problem!
Yes, the left is not happy. Yes his base is happy!
BUT the happy and unhappy ARE NOT the ones that will reelect Trump or elect Biden/Sanders/Warren. They are not you or Priscilla type voters. They are the ones like me who had to make a decision to vote third party, hold their noses and pick between two awful choices ( in their mind) or not vote at all. They were the few tenths of a percent in three states that put Trump in office.
They, not his 35% base he keeps energized, are the ones that are going to say ” I cant stand anymore of this crap in the White House” and will vote for one of the Three Stooges on the left. It takes very little to shift <.5% of the vote and that is the percent that could change control.
Despite what the media says everything sane I am reading says this will be a low turnout election. Further there is lots of evidence that the democrats numbers from 2016 and 2018 are the best they can possibly do. Without an Obama on the ticket – and even he was weak in 2012, there is no charasmatic democrat draw.
Trump appears to be doing poorer with white women than in 2016, but better with white men. He is also doing badly with minorities – but BETTER by alot than Romney or McCain and as well with hispanics as bush and better with blacks.
You say moderates with decide 2020 – not if they stay home.
Further, lots is made of the effect of Stein and Johnson in 2016.
It is near certain that Clinton would have gotten near 100% of stein voters.
But Trump would have gotten 65% of Johnson voters, and it there is no third party draw taking 6M votes from D’s and R’s – Trump picks up almost 2M votes.
When you say Trump keeps his base – that is not 25% of voters that is very near 100% of those who voted for Trump in 2016.
He will lose a few, but he is near certain to pick up even more.
The democratic base meanwhile is in trouble. You are seeing all the candidates go hard left right now – because D’s have a serious danger of alienating their base by not being far enough to the left.
But by the time of the general, they will have driven many moderate D’s to sit this out.
There is a further HUGE factor in 2020.
Like it or not Trump will be the “safe Choice” – he was NOT in 2016.
In 2020 he will be an absolutely known quantity.
Better the devil we know than the one we do not.
You can not extrapolate from Trump’s negatives to voting.
Finally 2020 is looking to be a replay of
Nixon-McGovern,
Reagan-Mondale,
Bush-Dukakis.
Dems are going left. History tells us that whenever they do – the lose in a landslide.
Absent the economy tanking in 2020 Trump wins in a landslide.
I know that is not “conventional wisdom” – though lots of credible political analysts are saying that. The atlantic did a story interviewing all the losing 2016 Republican campaign managers about the democratic candidates. They all thought this would be a “fun” election.
They were handicapping the democratic primary like crazy.
But they were 100% agreed on the fact that no democrat will be Trump in 2020.
BTW, I may not vote for him – but I want Trump to win in 2020 – this Trump exactly as he is.
That is the only thing I think that will shock democrats enough to get their act together.
I think the democratic party is in danger of becoming irrelevant. They have gone too far left.
Historically in the past 100 years Voter turnout averages at 58%
Since Nixon only 3 elections have been over 58% turnout
Bush Kerry, Obama McCain and Trump – Clinton.
Turn out losses will almost entirely effect democrats.
Democrats MUST get higher turnout than 2016 to beat Trump – and that is NOT likely to happen.
You made a “whataboutism” argument and I want to address that.
If something is today – it was wrong in the past.
The fact that Obama did it too does not make it right.
But noting that something was done by Obama, and Bush and …
DOES highly the incredible hypocracy of those doing the attacking.
I really like Glenn Greenwald – even though I sometimes disagree,
because his positions on issues do not change based on who is in office or power.
He has taken Bush, Obama, and Trump to task for exactly the same misconduct.
If you were not speaking out about some issue that you are flaying Trump over – 4 years ago when Obama was doing it. That means that:
Either you are unbelivably hypocritical,
or the issue is not truly as important to you as you pretend.
Most of the issues democrats current;y fixate on regarding immigration are NOT that important.
Family separation can be fixed 3 ways – not one of which involves Trump.
Do not bring your family to the US illegally.
When you do and you are caught – agree to leave on your own, and your family will be deported with you.
Congress can change the law. Currently the law requires those caught within 100 miles of the border to be detained until their initial disposition hearing. If that is done, 95% of the time they will be deported. Other law prohibits children from being detained in the facilities that hold adults for more than 14 days.
Yes, Obama “solved” the problem by exercising discretion and ignoring the law and releasing both parents and children.
This resulted in an increase of people bringing their families to the US illegally.
Incentives actually matter.
What Trump is doing may sound “mean” but I do not get bent out of shape over people having to face the KNOWN consequences of their own actions.
Particularly where these illegal immigrants can re-unite their families trivially by agreeing to return home.
I have far more problems with people comparing detention to “concentration camps”
These do not even compare to prisions.
If you are sent to prison you stay until your time is up.
You end up in a detention center BY CHOICE.
You did not have to enter the country illegally, and you are free to leave.
Not having the choice that you want is NOT interfering in your rights.
I want our immigration system to be differnet than it is.
But if I succeed in getting a system that is as I want it, I do not want the next president or the own after to ignore the law and do as they please.
If I succeed in changing the law to be as I think it should – I do not want to have that prove fruitless because some president or courts substitutes their whim for the law.
That is the rule of law. It is also why the courts are obligated to originalism.
They are neither allowed to give me the world I want – without requiring that I change the law to reflect my wishes, NOR to take from me law that I fought to get – because they think it should be different.
Lawmaking is supposed to be hard – but when we get it right it is also supposed to be durable. and hard to change.
Dave “Either you are unbelivably hypocritical,
or the issue is not truly as important to you as you pretend.”
Yes this is correct, but add one more.
3. The issue was not discussed nationally by the press that identified the issues as they are now being covered, leaving individuals uninformed.
So the hypocrits are those covering the subject since it was not important when Obama was president, but it is now. I had no idea as to the extent and lenght of time kids were separated. I still have no idea the extent of the problem, but there are way too many reports about these kids for it not to 7be disturbing.
And yes, the truth lies between AP/NPR/MSNBC/NY Times and For news/National Review/Breitbart and what these outlets report. But the complete truth is either not published or so limited in outlets one has to have investigative abilities to find it.
Trust of Trump is low.
Trust of the press, the left government, democrats, …
is all far lower still.
Voting is not unfortunately determined by informed voters.
At the same time – more so than ever before, people are enjoying the show on the news, but paying no attention when they vote.
Have the actions of the US government or the Whitehouse been more “racist” since Trump was president than before ?
You say we only have words – that is false.
Trump has probably pardoned more black and brown people than Obama.
Minorities are doing disproportionately better under Trump than Obama.
There is no evidence of ACTUAL as opposed to made up increases in discrimination under Trump.
Dave, you are totally missing the point.
I dont give a 💩 what the actions are. Trump is not communicating his actions. His administration is not communicating his actions. Not one media outlet the masses read or listen to is communcating his actions other than Fox Business and that is economics.
What that 1%-2% of voters see and hear that make the difference in 3-4 states he needs to win only see what he says or tweets. And too much leans toward a racist position. Maybe for you, it does not. You are in his 35% base. But its the 1%-2% that swing that hears what they were always told not to say by their parents and have told their kids to avoid saying. And it is not a slip, its constant, so he means to tweet what he tweets!
Ron, I agree that the Trump administration has had any number of disastrous roll-outs, beginning with the original travel ban on the 7 countries identified by Obama as “countries of concern”. I think that probably 40% of this has been Trump’s fault and 60% has been due to inaccurate, and sometimes flat-out false, reporting. How many people, for example, still believe AOC’s lie that people in migrant shelters have to drink toilet water?
I have real concerns about the 2020 election, because there is not a single Democrat that I could support, even if I wanted to. Biden is clearly not up to the job, and the rest of the serious contenders are only slightly to the right of the Communist Party.
A big problem, as I see it, is that Trump is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Even when everything goes perfectly, the Democrats and the media will create some bogus narrative that will distract from any positive result. An example today is the huge brouhaha over the hurricane map with the Sharpie markings, when real story should be the thorough and excellent preparation for a dangerous storm, and the fact that the governor of the Bahamas has publicly thanked the US for coming to its aid and saving many lives.
The other problem is one on which I often agree with you, which is that Trump has a tendency to step on his own successes. I attribute that to the fact that he knows that, if he doesn’t say something positive, no one in the press will. But he’s too often inarticulate and comes off like an oaf. He also seems incapable of just letting something go, even if pushing back may do more harm than good.
The fact that all of the Democrats are now talking about confiscating guns, instituting single payer healthcare, forgiving student loans, restricting and punishing private business in the name of climate change, packing the Supreme Court, eliminating the Electoral College, etc. just makes Trump’s mistakes that much more concerning, because so many people dread the potential of irreparable damage to our republic.
No I do not think Trump has had “disasterous rollouts”
I think and outraged left has found outrage in everything.
The initial travel ban was not a disaster – and but for wing nut judges it would have survived.
The revised Travel ban reflected ZERO changes in substance.
I would further note that the media has rapidly decreasing influence.
The war between Trump and the media has been a major net loss for the media.
They have trashed their credibility and influence.
We may find them entertaining – but we are more interested in the show then the issues.
The media could report that Trump murdered someone in central part in front of 10000 witnesses – everyone would listen fascinated,. More than half the country would not beleive it.
Further Trump has a significant number of potential vicrtories teed up between now and the election. He will not get all of them, but he will get some
He can survive 1000 sharpie gates. The left can not survive Trump suceeding .
Priscilla/Dave
I would not take this serious except I get tweets from Trump. I just ignore most of them, but after my feed was filled with crap about Alabama, I began wondering why Alabama was even being mentioned with Hurricane Dorian. This seems to answer one question. Why was that important for Trump to waste so much time on it.
Please read and respond with your thoughts. Mine is he may not be a mental case, but he is the epitome of that horrendous business leader that goes ballistic when business deals go bad, blames everyone else, even when the decisions made were their own.
How much smoke does there need to be before a fire is detected?
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-aides-worried-about-mental-state-alabama-hurricane-dorian-2019-9
Again, according to the Associated Press, it appears that the president was not wrong when he tweeted that the hurricane could impact Alabama:
“The latest defense came out Friday evening, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a statement from an unidentified spokesman stating that information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to the president had demonstrated that “tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama.” The advisories were dated from last Wednesday, Aug. 28, through Monday, the statement read.”
https://apnews.com/b77db47e44954ee4b4ab948c3d898d8d
This sort of thing happens all the time. Trump tweets something informative, based on briefings that he gets as POTUS. The news media hasn’t heard about it, checks with their “sources,” (who obviously don’t know much), and go right to their standard BS about Trump’s mental state: “He’s losing it!” “He’s a tyrant!” “He won’t admit he’s wrong!”
And then…whaddya know? It turns out that he was right all along. But the lies did their work, because only a fraction of the people who now believe that Trump is a raving nut, will read the report 2 days later, that the Weather Service WAS warnig of impacts to Alabama.
If he hadn’t repeated the warning, and Alabama suffered damage, we would have seen a Katrina-like response, no doubt.
The AP even slants its correction story, and continually repeats the lie that Trump made up the information about Alabama.
Until the end when we read:
“This story has been corrected to reflect that Alabama was included in charts mentioning wind speed probabilities from August 28 to August 31. The story previously said it was not.”
The entire story should be pulled and replaced with
“Once again we lied about Trump and got caught”
Except no one is paying attention – mostly.
But come Nov. 2020 voters will KNOW three things.
the past 4 years have been better than the prior 16.
The next 4 are likely to be better than the prior 16.
Lots and lots of things the Press and the left have claimed regarding Trump have been false.
dave “The entire story should be pulled and replaced with”
The entire story would never have been a story had Trump kept out of the lmelight trying to be important. Like I said, He could have said this is big, follow local emergency services instructions and been done with it.
but no, he had to stick his nose in and like the bully at school, when you can make the bully look bad, you goad them into making an ass out of themselves, just like the media has done here.
If Trump had said nothing – the story would be Trump does not care about the potential victims of Dorian. Or some other such nonsense.
This is very interesting exercise taking an article concerning Trump reactions and behaviors and asking for others to read and analyze.
i read the article and ask why would the leader of 300+M people and the most powerful country spend so much time on insignificant information that no one other than himself and a few others are paying attention to. I asked why demean yourself getting into a pissing contest while men and women are still dying in Afghanistan and I have seen nothing where Trump commented about Sgt Borreto Ortez death. Could be its because he is Puerto Rican and ” not really American”. I can find nothing about this while he was obcessed with Alabama.
You and Dave read the article from the issue of the information about Alabama being true or not. Ya’all looking at the “”nitty gritty” detail while I am looking at the reaction to many of the details as well as the importance of the details.
Kind of.like my career. While I had accountants working with the numbers and developing the detail, I was.looking at the financial reports and what the results meant for the future. I did not get into the “nitty gritty” unless it had a significant impact on the results.
To me, bitching about a meterological forecast days in advance that did not come to be is a totally insignificant occurance. When you get days out, the spaghetti models have little in common.
I think that your point is well taken , Ron, and in another administration, it would be bizarre for a POTUS to argue the veracity of such a minor detail.
But, in another administration, the story would have been how thorough and well coordinated the storm preparation was, not that the President “lied” about the hurricane possibly affecting Alabama.
If Trump did not push back, there would be an attempt to turn
“Sharpiegate” into a story of incompetence in the face of potential natural disaster. Since he did push back, the story is that he’s a mental case.
Trump canceled a foreign trip, stayed engaged with his DHS Secretary and the NWS, used his giant Twitter following to keep the public informed of the dangers of this storm…and he’s called out as a poor leader?
Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. As far as I’m concerned, he handled this just fine. “Turning the other cheek” would be interpreted as weakness, so might as well push back.
Well, In my view, in any other administration the president would not have stuck his nose into the minute details like they were experts in meteriology. They would have said this is a major storm, then documented all the preparation and said to stay informed by the weather updates by the weather service and local channels. They would.not place themsekves into a pissing contest, especially knowing the press was going to nit pick every word or action.p
This guy can not go a day without being the expert in everything from astrology to zoology and commenting on his expertise daily.
Any statement that begins in any other presidency is inherently wrong regarding Trump.
Obama got massive media attention – alot of it negative despite the press and the left fawning over him.
One a quiet news Day Trump is getting 3 times the coverage that Obama did on peak days.
And it is nearly all negative.
I do not understand why you pay much attention to the traditional press any more.
You can not make rational decisions based on the news. Probably you never could, but you certainly can not now.
Democrats hold a climate summit proposing to take $93T from us to fight something that has far less chance of proving correct than Dorian reversing course and heading to Alabama.
I can not help but beleive if Trump favored “Climate Change” the press and the left would feel bound to oppose.
Dave “You can not make rational decisions based on the news. Probably you never could, but you certainly can not now.”
Thanks for clearing this up. I was wondering why I was aimlessly wandering around mumbling to myself and now I know. Not everyone is as smart and informed as you to understand fake news.
Ron, you understand that the mdeia today is crap – as well as I do.
This is not about being informed.
This is just about that you keep getting suckered by them anyway.
That and the BIG thing I have gotten from the Trump presidency – is the 24hr news cycle is MEANINGLESS.
With few exceptions the only people paying attention to the news are those who want to beleive what reporters are saying.
Those people make up a small portion of us.
They are driving Democrats. They are driving much of the media.
They are driving our college students, and our colleges.
But that is pretty much it.
You are upset with Trump – because you think that he is going to flip the country democrat.
Yet, you have said – your not voting for any current democrat.
Your not voting for Trump either.
To win the election – democrats have to do more than get you to stay home or vote 3rd party, they have to get you to vote for a democrat.
2020 could go myriads of ways. But what I see – not at this instant – though almost inevitably, is that Trump’s core is going to VOTE. That core overlapps with the traditonal republican core but it is not quite the same – it is also LARGER than the traditional republican core and these people are LOYAL. And despite appearances it is LARGER than the current democrat base – which will also likely vote.
Trump lost some republicans from his CORE but gained blue collar democrats in critical states.
Democrats are merely shrinking their base – to only the most dedicated leftists.
I like people like Johnathan Goldberg and George Will. These are close to my people.
But they do not grasp that for all Trump’s problems – he is still much better than any democrat, and most republican candidates.
Jeffrey Tucker – an influential anarcho capitalist – a never trumper in 2016 has noted that While far from perfect, Trump has been the best president for libertarians since reagan – and possibly back into the 19th century.
Don’t pay attention to all the noise/news. focus on what happens, not what is said.
I think your fears of a democratic sweep are baseless.
Trump is winning in a landslide.
Whether Republicans hold the senate or flipp the house is not related.
And this is happening BECAUSE of all the things that have you bothered.
Because the left continues to pummel Trump over nonsense.
“This guy can not go a day without being the expert in everything from astrology to zoology and commenting on his expertise daily.”
Trump did not claim expertise in weather – he reported what he was told.
I do not beleive he should have done anything – it is not the governments business.
But you do – you think government should deal with national disasters.
Further if Trump did not speak about Dorian – the stories would be Trump does not care.
Trump not only knew who Ortez was, and honored him, but he changed his actions as president as a result of Ortez’s killing.
I am not trying to claim Trump does everything well. Only that the press deliberately chooses to report that he does everything badly – even if they have to lie or completely ignore things to do so.
I would further argue that While Trump is not “an expert on everything”,
that his past track record demonstrates that he is very good at processing information and drawing good conclusions.
Mattis just published a book critical of Trump.
Yet Trump’s “I know more than the generals” has proven correct.
Trump did NOT mean he knew more about guns and weapons.
He meant he knew more about what he and the american people want, and knew that it was possible to get that. I do not think he had a “plan” beyond – get out of the mideast without doing so with our tail between our legs. That and – do not beleive what “the generals” tell you when politics is involved. It has taken more time that it should have. He has defered to “the generals” too frequently. But more progress has been made than in the prior 16 years.
What Trump “knows” is how to get things done.
Dave “But you do – you think government should deal with national disasters.
Further if Trump did not speak about Dorian – the stories would be Trump does not care.”
Are you so tunnel visioned you can not understand what the hell others are trying to say? Are you unable to separate your views from those of others and not attack them for those views?
When did I say government should deal with national disasters? Right now we have both government and private agencies that predict weather. Those agencies share some info on issues like hurricanes. Government does not create 20+ models that create a spaghetti forecast of where hurricanes are going. So if someone does it, fine, someone does it. The weather services is just one agencies among many.
Now go back and read my comments about Dorian. You will find out I never said he should not have commented.
But to refresh your memory, please read this when you are awake and have not been drinking so you understand my point now and my original comment.
Trump should have commented. He should have said this has the potential to be big, it is powerful, it is heading toward Florida and to make sure you stay informed. He should have referenced the actions taken by officials to make sure people stayed safe and that there were people ready to react once the storm came through and help where help was needed. STOP. No reference to when , where, how strong, or speed of movement. Let the agencies do that. Had that happened he would not be fighting this idiotic pissing storm he is now embroiled in.
I am not trying to “attack” you Ron.
I completely get that you are frustrated.
I even get much of what you are bothered by.
But I am not expecting perfction for the president.
(Or you)
We are having a discussion. My views are not the same as yours.
Obviously I am more inclined to mine than yours.
Much of what we are discussing is “crystal ball” stuff.
I could easily be wrong. I should not have to say that.
My point about Dorian, or Ortez, is that you are expecting perfection in an instance we can not even define or agree on what that is.
I do not expect perfection generally – not from Trump, not from Obama.
I DO expect perfection – before you infringe on my rights.
Most of the comments of Trump that drive people apoplectic and nearly inconsequential.
Yes, he was not wrong about where dorian COULD go, but it went were it was likely to go as opposed to where it MIGHT go.
I think Trump should have stayed out – because the whole federal government should have stayed out.
But given that my pocket is getting picked regardless, Nothing Trump said or could have said about Dorian mattered at all. Right or wrong – Dorian was going to do what Dorian was going to do. The back and forth of the press cycle be damned. Nor was dorian going to listen to the president. Amy president.
Thus far Trump has NOT pulled something like “fast and furious”.
IRSGate, Benghazi. The Clinton email scandal, changing immigration law by presidential fiat, failing to enfore the laws we have., having the FBI/CIA investigate congressmen, the press, and opposing political candidates.
We KNOW Obama did those – and not just this Trump/Russia thing that is falling apart, but Obama actually pulled warrants to surveil journalists, and had CIA spying on Feinstein and the Senate intelligence committed staff, and we now learn that the political investigations of the 2016 election started in 2015 and involved all the leading republicans and some of the democrats.
Tell me Trump has done those – and I will be OUTRAGED.
But expect me to flip out over some flip charts about Dorian ?
Does the president have the actual power to do something about the path of a huricanne ?
If not – why are we even reporting this ?
I am guessing if Dorian causes Damage in NJ or NY – Trump is going to be called a racist.
Or maybe he already is – there must be some what to spin the flip charts as “racist”
Dave, “My point about Dorian, or Ortez, is that you are expecting perfection in an instance we can not even define or agree on what that is.”
I dont expect perfection. But I do expect intelligence. I do not and never will expect stupidity. Yes I am bothered by stupidity in a person elected as our president.
Its how you get involved that shows leadership v stupidity.
I am entirely with Jordan Peterson on this.
Trump is not stupid.
Trump has had some good luck (and some bad), but no one accomplishes all the things he has done purely through luck.
People who have succeeded in multiple domains are highly intelligent.
That is pretty much the signature mark of intelligence.
I think that Trump deliberately embraces chaos as a tool to getting what he wants – and I very much do not like that. Even calling him “reckless” is inaccurate. Actual recklessness would have resulted in catastrophic failure long before this.
Even where I disagree with Trump – he is actually very effective at getting what he wants.
“Let the agencies do that”.
To a large extent I would agree. Though I would get the government out of most of this.
But I will note two things:
Whatever the issue – if Trump speaks, the press will micro parse what he says and attack.
If he does not – he will get criticized for not caring AND most of our govenrment agencies are not especially trustworthy – and certainly Trump does not Trust them.
The FBI and the Intelligence community have been working against him since he was elected.
Left on the own NOAA would make reports about Dorian into a platform on Climate change – even though 2019 is starting as a record LOW year for huricanes.
Regardless, I have no problem with attacking Trump,
but if you want me to care the attack needs to be
Correct,
Substantive.
You can not trust what the media reports regarding Trump.
If Trump does not continually bring that to our attention, we will be lulled into beleiving the media.
Regardless, name almost anything that has been reported about Trump that is not either false or deliberately spun in a misleading fashion.
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Unbeknownst to almost everyone, the major Taliban leaders and, separately, the President of Afghanistan, were going to secretly meet with me at Camp David on Sunday. They were coming to the United States tonight. Unfortunately, in order to build false leverage, they admitted to.
….an attack in Kabul that killed one of our great great soldiers, and 11 other people. I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations. What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position? They didn’t, they….
…only made it worse! If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway. How many more decades are they willing to fight?
Nice that he said something more than 24 hours after it happened, between all the fake news crap and other retweets he did yesterday and today. And from my perspective, it does not give the soldier the recognition they deserve when you bury a comment about a soldier in a tweet declaring a peace meeting was cancelled.
But thats me and my perspective. If the concern is the soldier, its a official comment from the white house announcing the death (now that there are few and days between) and giving the soldier the respect he deserved from the Bush/Obama/Trump war. Not some crap on twitter that many people don’t read, either becasue twitter is a crappy site or people dont follow Doofus Donald.
Yes, I am totally burned out and turned off by his crap.
YOU are making my point about the Dorian coverage you think Trump should have stayed out of – BTW I agree, I do not think natural disasters are the business of the federal govenrment. But the press and most people DO.
Now you are ranting because Trump did not say enough about Ortez fast enough.
I do not know the details regarding Ortez.
My understanding is he was killed by an IED.
If so he is a hero for volunteering to go to afghanistan.
As are lots of live people.
But we usually do not piss on the dead.
Bush used to call the families of every soldier killed – the same day.
It was terribly hard on him, and he did not go public with it.
That is the appropriate handling.
Trump and Obama have done differently – and not so well.
Trump found himself being recorded on a call to a soldiers family by a democratic represenative from the district for the purpose of embarrasing Trump.
Separately more so that Bush or Obama, Trump is actively trying to get us Out of Afghanistan and the mideast.
Except that he has done more than all his predecessors – I would be critical of his handling of Afghanistan.
JUST LEAVE. The country belongs to the Afghani’s
They get to have the government they want.
We do not need “agreement”.
If they sponsor terrorism in the future – we can blow the govenrment away again.
It took less than a month last time.
Our millitary id very very very good at destroying enemies.
It sucks at nation building – and that is not our or their job,.
So yes, I think Trump is the best friend our soldiers have – he is getting them out of wars we do not belong in.
One of Trump big loud conflicts with “the generals” – Mattis and company, was over Afganistan more than a year ago.
He wanted a plan to get out – they gave him CRAP,.
He ranted and raved, but eventually he went with “the generals” – not Bannon or the american people. Bannon was out. But over time – so were all the generals.
And now we are leaving – something we should have done years ago.
Something Trump should have done 2 years ago.
Even many of the things I am pissed at Trump over – he is still head and shoulders above any democrat – and frankly a crap load of republicans.
No I am not pissed over Ortez.
But I am pissed at the press,
What I presume when the media reports on Trump is that they are lying.
I presume that based on their history over the past 3 years.
I presume that whatever they say the truth is something different.
It does not matter what the issue is.
I presume that they will ignore if possible any instance in which Trump does well or even just what is expected.
You said Trump ignored Ortez’s death. I do not think that cancelling secret peace negotiations and calling him a great great soldier is “ignoring him because he is puerto rican”
I would strongly suspect that Trump has done even more regarding Ortez,
But unless his wife or media calls the media claiming Trump said something stupid or evil to her, you will not hear any story about Trump doing anything good, or merely what he is supposed to.
That is fine – I do not have a problem with that.
But you are jumping the shark when you presume that the picture deliberately painted by the media is true.
You can not draw conclusions regarding Trump – or many many other things based solely and what is and is not reported in the media and how.
You should know by now that it is false, and you will have to find out truth a different way.
Alex Jones is more credible than NYT and Wapo – and that is pretty bad.
Regardless, you can not draw conclusions from what the press reports.
You can not draw conclusions from what the press does not report.
This whole thread started with a comment concerning Trump sticking his nose into the hurricane issue and then I shared an article that reported he goes ballistic when people disagree with him.
My point in all of this is leadership. Leaders don’t get into the cow paddies in the field. They lead. He is not doing this from my perspective. He steps out in the field and when something goes bad, he steps in the bull crap and keeps going further into the field until the shits all the way up to his waste.
The only way he has to remove himself from the dung he finds himself in is to belittle others to make them look smaller because he can not defend what he has done.
So lets close this discussion because my views on Trump today is the same they were when he ran in 2016 and I refused to vote for either of them. And I suspect thats what I will do in 2020, but since the Libertarian party may not have a viable choice, the top of my ballot will be blank.
My point is that no matter what Trump did – he was going to get criticised,
And now we find the criticism was wrong.
I am having a problem with your persepective – I can not see how it makes sense.
You do not want Trump to comment about Dorian – yet when he did not comment about Ortez fast enough – that was a problem too.
Whether Trump should have spoken on Dorian – is small potatoes – but we haf a whole news cycle about “stupid trump, or demented Trump” – only in the end – it was his detractors that were wrong.
So if you falsely accuse someone of incompetence – what is the price ?
From what I can tell, it is not possible for Trump to make you happy.
You are going to hold him accountable
When he speaks
When he does not
and even if he is right.
When you make false accusations of others – in my book YOU become the news – not your target.
To me the news is not “Is Trump competent”, but “why do we trust our press about anything”
and Who in the press should we trust ?
While I agree with your view of presidential leadership
That is NOT the expectation of the press or the majority of people.
We expect the president – any president to speak on all issues – large and small.
If we expect that – we can not criticize ANY president for doing so.
And certainly not for being RIGHT.
This Hurricane crap does not matter.
Of course when a hurricane is camped over the Bahama’s the probable path of future Travel includes Alabama and much of the US.
Of Course NOAA had to fess up – there is this thing called “the way back machine”.
And of Course the media is reporting it as Trump getting them to fall on their swords.
The whole thing is stupid, it is like The Russian nonsense.
What reason does Trump have for on his own projecting Dorian to Alabama ?
Why would he choose to say something that was wrong and that he was going to get caught at ?
The cognativ disonance you have to tolerate to be a lefty is amazing.
Trump has to be so brilliant as to have successfully conspired with Putin to steal the 2016 election – right under the noses of the Obama FBI/CIA/NSA who we now know where watching since 2015. But Still bumbles like Carter Page and George Papadopoulis managed spycraft that those in the US intelligence services have never managed, and left no finger prints, and under intense scrutiny never cracked.
And at the same time Trump must be so stupid as to project Dorian onto Alabama knowing that it was almost certainly not going to do that, and all this to no personal benefit.
How does Trump benefit from getting Dorian wrong ?
Dave “The whole thing is stupid, it is like The Russian nonsense.”
You got that right. Why is Trump making such a big deal? Why did he stick his fat nose into it in the first place?
“Why is Trump making such a big deal? Why did he stick his fat nose into it in the first place?”
Because when Trump does not stick his nose into things we get a whole news cycle about Trump is unprepared and does not care.
I think that, since Hurricane Katrina was successfully spun as a gigantic failure of the Bush administration to protect the black citizens of New Orleans, hurricanes have been big political stories. Obama made a big show of coming here to NJ after Hurricane Sandy, walking around the beaches and hugging the people whose homes had been destroyed. Many commentators claimed that it stopped the momentum that Mitt Romney had going into the last 2 weeks before the election, and made Obama look both caring and presidential.
If Trump had gone to Poland as planned, after being briefed by advisors that Dorian had the potential to hammer Florida, how do you suppose that would have gone for him politically? You don’t think that the media Outrage Machine would have gone into overdrive, claiming that Trump didn’t care about the people of Florida (or Georgia or Alabama, or the Carolinas)?
Of course that would have been the narrative. Sending Pence to Poland, staying at Camp David , and remaining engaged in the storm effort was the most prudent and logical choice, both from a leadership prospective and a political one.
It’s fair to say that he may not have needed to be involved as a hands-on manager, but he sure as hell needed to be involved for his political survival.
Democrats were rooting for the storm to devastate the southeast, so that it would reflect badly on Trump, as if any president could stop a hurricane.
The other thing is…in the ultra-dumb Sharpiegate dispute, Trump turned out to be right, and the media turned out to be the liars. So I’m not gonna fault him for being hands-on.
So again I will just write two short comments.
1. I must be one of the few that thinks Trump involvement in details opens himself for criticism if the details dont pan out.
2. I understand I dont communicate well since I try to point out the issue from the 5000 ft level and the responses come from the 6ft level.
“So again I will just write two short comments.
1. I must be one of the few that thinks Trump involvement in details opens himself for criticism if the details dont pan out.”
It does, and not getting involved opens him up for criticism for not getting involved.
“2. I understand I dont communicate well since I try to point out the issue from the 5000 ft level and the responses come from the 6ft leve;”
I do not think that is our difference.
If I have understood your posts – you think that Democrats swooping in in 2020 would be a disaster for the country, and you think Trump is making that more likely.
You see every exchange between Trump and the press as a potential gaffe and an potential oportunity to sour voters.
Is that approximately your position ?
My reaction is:
Nothing is more damaging to the left than success.
If what you fear happens – we will get a Trump II in 4 more years and having a D behind your name will be a blue badge of shame.
Nothing could destroy the democratic party faster than actually honoring their promises.
Obama came in like a tidal wave sweeping republicans away following a disaster.
And he failed very nearly as quickly. Not so bad as to lose in 2012, but so bad that he lost the house and the senate AND so bad that no democrat was winning in 2016.
I think most of them are smart enough to know that.
You seem to like more of what Trump actually does than I do. And what it to continue – but “quietly”.
Quietly is not going to happen.
Things were not quiet with Obama – but they are an order of magnitude less quiet with Trump.
This is not going to change until the left and the media actually learns this crap does not work.
It is ALWAYS possible to spin what happened in a damaging way.
Sarah Sanders was Trashed from day one.
She was trashed as a liar for BEING RIGHT.
Do you see an apology in the NYT ?
The only way Sanders was not going to be attacked and trashed was to be exactly the opposite of who they said they were. And I am not sure that would be enough.
Trump and Co would be savaged from the left and the media do matter what they did or did not do.
Trump interrupted the left narrative that the future was theirs.
Trump is going to be hated by the left and trashed by the media – no matter what.
Part of that I have no problem with.
I WANT a hostile press.
The problem is I also want an HONEST press, and we do not have that.
I know you hate it when I discuss ideas – but the dishonesty of the left today is inextricably linked to the philosophy of the modern left.
When all viewpoints become valid – truth loses value.
Modern Journalists do not care about the truth.
It is not the hostility of the press that is the fundimental problem
it is that they are disconnected from the truth.
And that is important – take the Sanders example – she was Smeared for statements that were and are absolutely correct.
That has now been established by the IG.
But the harm to her is done.
She is more hated than ever,
She is hated for everything she said.
She is hated for what she said.
And those who hate her DO NOT CARE whether it was true or not.
When truth goes out the window – you can be hated for things you DID NOT SAY or DO.
One of the things I loath about most of these “Trump is a racist” stories,
is we get 20 paragraphs of Trump’s remarks are racist.
But we do not get two sentences of what Trump actually said.
That is not accidental.
Ron, this does not end well – that is a legitimate fear.
But it is my view that the collapse will be on the left.
You can not lie this long, this big and this often without destroying your credibility.
Dave , “Is that approximately your position ?”
Yes and jo.
Yes, Trump is leading us to a Democrat sweep. ( My view only)
No, not everything he says ( treets) is used agaisnt him. ,i.e., China economic policy leading to a downturn in economic growth in China OK. Press can attack policy only. But then he tweets some crap about Mark Sanford disappearing to Argentina with his girl friend after announcing a run against Trump. So now the lame stream media focuses on the stupidy of the Sznford tweet and not China.
When my son would get in trouble at school because he kept reacting in an unacceptible manner to circumstances that had no importance, I tolf him to keep his damn mouth shut! That is also my thoughts about Trump.
I do not think Trump wants the attention focused on his policies toward china.
The less the media is paying attention to the Trump part of the china issue – the less Trump can accomplish.
Even the current hong kong protests are a distraction for him.
One the one hand they put the screws to Xi, but on the other there is little Trump can do about Hong Kong and all of that comes at the expense of the negotiations he is actually interested in.
I have not followed Trump’s Sanford tweets – but your claims about what Trump said – accurately reflect what happened.
Sanford was a rising republican – one with lots of positions I liked who dropped everything – an election, his family everthing to chase the “love of his life” in brazil, only aparently he was alone in that love.
Dave, i put political issues in different categories
Critical…Demands immediate and.uninterrupted attention
Very important.. Requires many hours of attention, but some can be handled while other task attended to.
Important… Needs attention, but career staffers can handle providing recommendations.
WTF difference does it make… Sanford and where the hell Dorian was projected to go days before it bogged down in Bahamas fall into that category.
“what difference does it make ?”
If the issue is so unimportant that Trump should not tweet about it.
then the media should not cover his tweets either.
I share your questions as to why Trump says some of what he says.
But most of it is not important. And people say unimportant things all the time.
Ultimately Sanford will/was judged by voters.
I had a great deal fo respect for Sanford at one point. He was a political rising star.
One with very libertarian political values.
But he F’d up, big time. He made some very stupid personal choices that harmed those arround him.
I am happy mostly to forgive and forget.
But I can not see myself ever voting for someone who could act as he did.
We worry that Trump is highly erratic. I do not think that is actually the case.
But the chaos he actively sows makes that seem true.
But Sanford ACTED eratically. We do not want a president, governor or anyone else in power who would act as impetuosly as he did, without warning.
Forgive and forget does not mean vote for.
Dave “If the issue is so unimportant that Trump should not tweet about it.
then the media should not cover his tweets either? ”
Their is two distinctly different agendas in this comment.
1. Trump is the Antonio Brown/ Odell Beckham,jr. of politics. ” Look at me, I’m the greatest! No one knows about everything like me. I say something and its true! ” So he gets involved with the most.insignificant issues that make no f#-%-in difference and the press jumps all over it.
2. The primary focus of the press is to defeat Trump. It is not to report significant information. It is not to report the truth. It is to find anything to make Trump look bad, to rub a rash and spread salt in the wound and generate a reactionary response. Then once that response is received, continue commenting, getting further under his skin.
So Trump inserts himself into details he should.leave to detail people because he knows everything, the details dont pan out, the press, hell bent to defeat Trump knows if they make him look wrong, he will react, they can comment more, he will get aggrevated, comment more, and they make him look small in many peoples mind because he is fighting over insignificant issues.
But to the press, it is not insignificant. They accomplished their objective. To make Trump look like a member of the Kardasians instead of presidential.
1). True to some extent – so what ? True of most if not all politicians.
Separately I beleive most of Trump’s tweets are DELIBERATELY provocative – or the left.
I beleive he is actively seeking to drive the left and the left media appoplectic.
That he is trying to make them into “the boy who cried wolf” – and he is suceeding.
And AGAIN – that is THEIR failure.
If everything trump tweets is important then NOTHING trump tweets is important.
2). Too a large extent true. But they have substnatially burned their credibility doing so, and will not easily get it back.
RCP just noted that the primary source for all “fact checks” is media reporting.
Why is it so hard for those in the media to get “we say so” is not proof of truth.
Something is not a “fact” because it is reported on.
I do not think Trump gets into what you call details for the reasons you assert.
I think he does so because he is the one person he can trust to do things as he wants them.
One of the significant differences between Trump and prior presidents is the small number of people with real power in his administration.
Those in govenrment and big business measure their power and worth by the number of direct reports they have.
But SMB’s and successful businesses like Trump’s succeed by being LEAN. By confinining decision making to small very capable cores,
Delegation is tricky – there is not a “perfect balance”.
BTW we saw this in the whole Trump/Russia thing.
There is little difference in Trump’s contacts with Russia and Clinton’s.
The differences is that Trump was not seven layers removed from everything.
Papadoulis and Carter Page were inconsequential participants int he Trump campaign, they had no authority. BUT they were at most separated by three levels from Trump.
The Clinton russia thing goes Clinton, HFA, Perkins Coi, Fusion GPS, Steele, Russian informants, The Russian govenrment
A giant Matryoshka doll
There is not a “right way” to deal with things.
Dave, ” True to some extent – so what ? True of most if not all politicians.”
OK, let me try some facts since you have not been considered words.
….2016 was the lowest turnout of voters since 1996, a second term vote for Clinton and an uninspiring GOP candidate.
….26.3% of eligible voters voted for Trump.
….120M people voted.
….3 states made the difference..
….Total vote difference in those states was 107,000 votes. This is .09% of the total vote.
….Clinton was disliked by many well before 2016, some going back to 1992.
….Clinton was a bad campaigner, invigorating many with her “basket of deplorables” comment
Now you can defend your position that Trumps know-it-all , get-into-everyones-business, obnoxious bully attitude will not turn off any voter and everyone that voted for Trump will vote for him again. That the democrat turnout will be as low as it was in 2016.
You can continue to believe the low turnout in 2016 will continue into 2020.
You can continue to believe that Sanders/Warren/Biden would be as disliked going into the election as Clinton and be a horrendious in campaigning as Clinton.
And I will continue to believe Trumps asshole demeanor will impact enough votes to swing the election in favor of the left. I think indications were seen in NC’s 9th congressional district where Trump won by over 10% and the margin in this election was 2%. This, the results from 2018 and the changing demographics with firms moving to NC bringing their tax and spend liberals with them are predictors that NC will swing blue since Trump only carried NC by 3.7% in 2016. Swing NC and WS, MI, and PA will not even be close.
“….2016 was the lowest turnout of voters since 1996”
????
2008, 2012 and 2016 were years of record breaking turnout.
Even midterms have had record breaking turnout.
High turnout almost always favors D’s It is unlikely that Obama would have won – either in 2008 or 2012 without very high turnout.
Did Clinton “suck” as a candidate – certainly. For many reasons – including being too arrogant to grasp that she could lose the rust belt.
Yes, the margin in those states was small. But that margin was NOT the story.
Trump had to shift more than 2M votes in the rust belt just to get close.
That shift may not be permanent, but it is stable for now, Democrats are NOT doing anything to speak to the voters that won the election for Trump.
If anything they are pissing on them even more.
What hurt Clinton most was not the specific words she said – such as deplorables.
But that she really meant the things that harmed her. Democrats really meant the crap that was in the Wikipedia emails. Clinton really did think Trump voters were racist scum.
Since 2016 Clinton may be gone – but MOST or the reasons she lost remain.
Democrats have doubled down on the “racist scum”message.
There are some disadvantages that were unique to Clinton.
As well as some advantages unique to Clinton.
Almost every democratic candidate with benefit from being NOT Clinton.
Every democratic candidate at the same time will start weaker than Clinton.
The likelyhood of Democratic turnout reaching 2016 levels is actually very LOW
In fact Trump would have won with his 2016 numbers against Obama’s 2012 numbers.
With few exceptions republican voters tend to be more reliable than democrats.
If they were not democrats really would have their permanent majorities.
Regardless, like 2012, 2016 and 2018 2020 is going to be very much about exactly who votes.
We get all kinds of polling and all kinds of stories all over.
It is not hard to find a “republicans are in a panic over 2020” story.
Though I am not personally seeing evidence of that.
Though there are a FEW specific races that look troubling for Republicans.
There are also plenty of Trump is expanding on the 2016 map stories, or Trump is making huge inroads with minorities stories.
Alot was made of the whiteness of 2016 Trump voters – but Trump did pretty well for a republican among hispanics.
All indications are that he is going to do several points – up to 10 points better with minorities in 2020. 10pts is optomistic and not happening.
But even a 3pt change among blacks who have voted overwhelmingly democratic for decades is a serious threat to democrats.
Democrats are seeing defections among asians, bispanics, jews and blacks.
Again even small defections are a huge problem.
Democrats can not – either on a state by state basis or on a race by race basis,
afford ANY erosian in their base.
You say Trump is in trouble in states he won.
A few days before the election the polls had Trump down in PA by 6pts – is he down 6pts in PA now ?
Right this moment everywhere and in pretty much every catagory Trump’s poll numbers are the same or better than the last polls before the 2016 election.
We know how that ended.
It is entirely possible I am smoking whackey weed and the drum beat of doom for republicans is loud and true.
But the odds do not favor it.
As I have noted repeatedly – the 2018 election was really weird.
Historically it should have been a bad year for the incumbent.
Trump’s house losses were very close to historical norms.
But the GOP performance in the senate was MUCH better than historical norms.
In fact accross the entire election if 50% of the razor thin elections had broken for the GOP which is statistically what should have happened, It would have been a great year for Republicans.
Absent a recession 2020 is going to be better for the GOP than 2018.
It is a presidential election year with a strong economy.
Further democrats are falling all over themselves to follow a strategy that is resulted in landslides against them EVERY TIME.
Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern.
None of us know what is going to happen in 2020. Not you, not I.
Certainly not the pundits.
Reading polls is a massive excercise in self delusion and cognative bias.
You, I, D’s R’s can almost always find a poll to support whatever they want to beleive.
Further as myriads of recent elections should tell us – the polls are off.
They are misreading some things in an unpredictable way.
2016 was way off, Brexit was nearly 10pts off.
These are good people who know what they are doing.
Except clearly they don’t.
That is not meant as an insult.
From the time Trump won the GOP nomination through to election day, my intellect told me he was toast. But something intuitive told me that we were misreading the tea leaves.
I was not alone in that.
Today my intellect and my instincts are more aligned.
I do not think 2016 was an aberation.
Clinton was not actually a “bad” candidate – she had lots of positives and lots of negatives – just like Trump, or Romney/Obama or McCain/Obama or … before.
Yes, if just one little thoing more had goner her way she could have won.
And if one little thing more had gone Trump’s way it would have been a route.
You can not assume that in the next election – one party/candidate is going to repeat every mistake they made the prior election, while the other is going to fix every mistake.
Or that every lucky break is going to fall one way.
When Trump won Florida early on – I knew the election was over – even though I did not think he was going to win in the fashion he did. I expected he would win Nevada and New Hampshire
Since you like that Clinton won Nevada and NH by less than 30K total votes,
Trump can lose PA WI, MI and still win with NV and NH.
Republicans are “technically” defending more states. But have more reliable routes to victory, and the overwhelming majority of those states are solid.
Trump is planning on putting 6-10 MORE states in play in 2020 than in 2016.
He has the money to do so. If Trump tries to pick off a blue state – that is in his reach – D’s MUST spend alot to defend, and that makes their efforts to flip pink states harder.
Further there is not a democrat except Biden who stands a chance of actually flipping the states gave Trump victory.
Every democratic candidate is speaking to NYC and SF voters. Not to the flyover voters that cost them the election.
D’s MIGHT have “energized” their base – but that is voters in NYC and CA – and what does it matter if they drive up numbers in those states ?
You say Trump is in trouble in the states he flipped.
I think not. I think his own votes are dependable – in those states.
And democrats and moderates in those states are NOT going to be rushing out to vote for Warren or Sanders or …
Moderate dems appear highly likey to sit out the election.
Lost of moderates are likely to sit out the election.
That will produce a better result for Trump than 2016.
Regardless, 2020 is NOT going to be a high turnout election.
It will likely be higher than the 80’s 90’s and through 2008.
But not matching 2008, 2012, or 2016.
And that favors republlicans
I am not trying to “defend Trump”
I am trying to make an accurate assessment of him clouded the least by both personal biases and the media.
I think that when people have a track record of success – you should let go of the beleif they are morons who got lucky lightning does not strike the same place over and over.
Here is turnout for presidential elections since 1972
2016 was NOT a low turnout election. Only 2 elections in the past 50 years had higher turnout. The odds STRONGLY favor that 2020 will have lower turnout than 2012.
If so Trump highly likely wins.
Is that a “beleif” – certainly – any conclusion about 2020 turnout today is a “beleif”.
But it has stronger probability that the opposite.
NC9 Bishop won a district that has been gerrymandered left since 2016 by 4000 votes in not just an off year, but a special election, for a seat that in 2018 R’s won by a couple of hundred votes in an election that was thrown out.
That is an improving trend not a declining one.
What we can count on is that no matter what Trump does – the press will attack.
You are correct – no one is listening.
Not to Trump, not to the medAia.
Most americans have not followed this to sufficient extent to grasp that nearly every media outlet called Sarah Huckaby Sanders a shill and a liar – for stating as a mere possibility with the IG report has just stated as a fact regarding Comey.
But they have noticed that they were promised EVIDENCE of Trump Russia Collusion,
and we are no longer even looking for evidence – because we know that it did not happen.
Trump has jumped up and down frothing and shouting “fake news, witch hunt”, and after 2 1/2 years – most of us grasp that was correct.
The claim now is not that there was misconduct, but that wasting 2 1/2 years investigating an allegation that made ZERO sense in the first place was still a good thing – because we had to know, and because well “argh Trump”!
You are right Ron – the only ones paying much attention to the left wing media are the left fringe of the country and increasingly even they are disheartened.
Every day the press goes more and more banal to “prove” that Trump is
evil, incompetent, diabolitcal, racist, …
Failing to note such things as devious and bumbling do not go together.
The latest is “SharpieGate” – no one cares.
No one cares who drew the lines on the whitehouse Dorian track.
No one cares that some Lt. Col. has confessed that he briefed Trump on all possible storm tracks – including the unlikely one through Alabama.
No one cares about Trump’s oval office storm report,
and no one cares about the media frothing about it.
Some of us consciously understand that we judge a tree by its fruits. Most of us do so subconsciously.
Trump’s 2019/2020 campaign is going to be a mirror of Reagan’s “Its morning in america” campaign. And absent some massive disaster THAT is what people are likely to care about.
Most of us are learning to pay no attention to what Trump says and less to what the media says and to wait patiently to see what happens.
And at the same time – without much help from Trump -democrats are falling all overthemselves trying to self destruct.
Rep. Ilbran appears to have a mess that involves fraudualent immigration and messy relationships that makes Stormy Daniels took tame.
And one of the squad managed to ask people on twitter to support a group that is the major funder of Al Queda in Somalia.
Democrats Climate Summit was a total disaster – apparently they think nothing of asking for $93T of our spare change.
Each democratic candidate is fighting with the next over which of them is farthest to the left.
Trump is not going to have to call whoever he opposes a “socialist” they will have embraced the label themselves.
For the past 2 1/2 years we have been told constantly by the media that highly placed whitehouse or govenrment sources on condition of anonimity tell us that
Some form of Trump’s world is going to end tomorow,
He will be impeached, he will be indicted, the smoking gun will be found, ….
NONE of that has proven true.
So why are you buying more “anonymous sources”.
As best as I can tell “anonymous sources” are sock puppets that reporters get to tell them what they want.
What part of the media has ZERO credibility are you having problems with ?
Trump is younger than half the supreme court,
He is younger than a significant portion of the senate.
He might be having mental dificulties – some older people do.
Some people develop alzheimers as early as their 50’s.
But having had a father with vascular dimensia – this is not easy to hide over the long run.
As to some of the specifics?
NOAA produced tracks that ran through Alabama.
If you have been on twitter – you can find them.
Yes, by the time the storm got to NC that was unlikely.
But that is not the case when Trump spoke.
Trump takes pleasure in needling, railing, etc. the tribulations of his opponents.
He beleives – and I think that he is right that politically he benefits from spitball battles with people Like Comey and other celebrities who go after him.
You look for signs of incompetence in CHANGES in behavior, not people doing the same things they always have.
Dave “NOAA produced tracks that ran through Alabama.
If you have been on twitter – you can find them.”
Like I said, your in the details and I am viewing from a much broader perspective. You design and build the bridges, while I view how the bridges can be used to transport goods and services and where the community will be in 10 years after the bridge is finished.
Trump is buried in details and gets caught in the details when they dont pan put. Then he goes ballistic when someone said he was wrong. And he cant stand being wrong.
All of the “details” are only important – because the press made them important – by LYING.
No one would be looking at week old NOAA huricane tracks if the press had not insisted that Trump was bat shit crazy.
The entire Trump/Dorian thing – not what the press reported, but what actually happened was solely about presenting Trump as caring about the huricane and being on top of things.
Precisely what Trump said was only important because the press made it important.
The story Trump wanted was “I am paying attention to Dorian, and that means the federal government is paying attention to Dorian”
The press as always tried to turn that into “Trump is an idiot.”
No one – not Trump, nor the press cared precisely where Dorian was headed.
There is not a reason for Trump to misstate where Dorian was headed.
When the press reports that someone is significantly misrepresenting the facts, and there is no reason for them to be doing so, their report has very long odds of being correct.
When people consistently bet against the odds – they are the ones we should be suspicious of.
Trump is absolutely a gambler – and that is one of the things that scares me about him.
He has gambled big in the past and lost. But he has also won far more times than he has lost. I do not beleive you should manage a country based on gambles with high odds of success – the price for failure is too high and shared by all of us.
You only get to gamble with what is yours.
Beyond that – Trump is a gamble – and a very very good one. What that means is that he is exceptionally good at evaluating risks. That he does not bet against 10:1 odds – unless he knows something the rest of us don’t.
It means he would not “collude” with Russia – when there is no upside and huge downside. ‘
It means he would not state Dorian was headed to Alabama, when 10:1 it was not.
In addition to the possibility that Journalists just lie and do not actually have the “anonymous sources”, there is also the possibility that there is a source and that the source has an agenda other than the truth.
We know that Comey and McCabe were “leaking”. We know their leaks were self serving, and agenda rather than fact driven. We know that Comey briefed president elect Trump solely for the purpose of creating a news story.
We know that Comey leaked memo’s whose most damning attribute was NOT what happened, but Comey’s speculation regarding Trump.
And we know that Comey leaked for the purpose of getting a special prosecutor.
We also had a recent incident where a ranking Whitehouse staffer was fired because she spoke “off the record” about the Trump family to an ethically challenged WaPo reporter who then ignored WaPo ethical guidelines that say reporters should not even bother to listen to “off the record” material.
Regardless there are myriads of reasons that people might actually provide false information to reporters, that is one of the reasons that the media used to require multiple sources before they would report almost anything – especially things that were not for attribution.
So, I’m ready to move on from Sharpiegate. 😉
I’m interested in some of the issues that came out of the 7 hour CNN townhall on climate change.
1. This one, for example: Bernie Sanders said that we should be promoting worldwide abortion, for the purpose of addressing climate change. He specifically said that the US should be funding abortion in 3rd world countries. I suppose he believes that black and brown people are the most expendable?
Isn’t this what pagan cultures do, when they sacrifice children to the weather gods? We’re not talking about a woman’s choice here And what is to stop a socialist government under President Sanders from instituting a one child (or no child) limit, such as the Chinese did, along with forced abortions for those who do not comply?
2. Or this one: Joe Biden says he “guarantees” that “we” will end fossil fuels, “god-willing, by 2050.”
Who is “we”? Certainly not “we, the people.” Is he implying that the government will force private companies out of business? Take over the energy sector and shut down petroleum production? Sounds that way.
3. Or, my favorite: Mayor Pete says that anyone who uses plastic straws, or eats hamburgers, is “part of the problem.”
I’m starting to think that these people are really dangerous ~ they must understand that they are talking about the government being all-powerful, and controlling what we eat, how many children we can have, how we can heat and cool our homes, what kinds of vehicles we can own, etc. They are talking like true leftists.
If the Democrats end up running the country, single-payer health care may be the least of our problems….
so I am glad to move on since we were making no headway into that issue anyway.
1. Bernie and abortion. I did not hear much of the CNN broadcast. In fact I am not paying much attention to anything political on TV these days. But i did hear him say if the woman already had children and did not want any more that the ability to abort should be available. From my perspective (even though I personally do not approve of abortion), that is a choice those women should be able to make themselves. And as for funding, we waste so much money on things much worse than this program that I would not pay much attention to that. For instance, the number of people we have killed in wars since 2000 would take some time to match with abortions. Getting OBL was one thing, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc is something else.
2.Biden and fossil fuel. No one can say what the hell will happen in 2050. Most of the world is moving to electric cars and trucks. GM, Chrysler and ford are not going to continue producing cars in Mexico, China and other foreign countries, as well as the USA that are part of exports that will no longer be legal in those countries. States have the right to enforce whatever rules they see fit for their highways, so California will continue to issue directives that the car companies will have to achieve, meaning they are not going to produce one car for export, one for CA and another for all other states. Finally, electric will be much more efficient with much lower 0-60 speed once the recharging time has been diminished to minutes instead of hours. That technology will come as the demand grows. Our government will not have to do anything to have most cars “green” by 2035, let alone 2050.
The problem with the reduction to fossil fuels will rest with the loss of jobs, but the loss of manufacturing has been weathered, and so to will the loss of energy jobs. West Va, Texas and Alaska, along with a few more will have a difficult time for a period, but will recover. And besides, the Dems will ignore them much the same as Trump ignores CA, OR and WA.
Biden is not saying he will have government take over energy or close it down, but I believe his views of the future see market driven changes that will minimize the energy sector as it is today.
Driving through the southwest on interstate 40, there are miles of wind turbines generating electricity. Driving from Winston Salem N.C. to our coast, there are huge solar farms generating electricity where tobacco farms once grew tobacco.. Most of this has been private enterprise expenditures. The companies might be getting tax credits, but no force has created this change. The only force I see in many areas now are NIMBY’s, especially in places like Marta Vineyard with all the NE greenies vacation homes refusing to allow turbines in the bay because home values will fall or the greenies living in Ashville N.C. that fought and won against turbines being erected at the ridge line of the mountains because it would mess up their views.
As for Pete and AOC, they can bitch about straws and meat all they want. If they really were interested in the environment they would begin promoting the end of plastic bottles and plastic containers world wide. But here again, drinking water from a bottle is what the greenies want to do instead of from a faucet, so the ton of garbage creating plastic islands in the Pacific is not important to them. We are already seeing a cosmic shift in eating habits when fast food restaurants begin selling hamburgers with fake meat. And that is market driven, not force.
But I am of the age I will not see 2050. Based on my family history, 85 is about it, so I will see 2030-2035. The issues that will create the problems between now and then is the national debt and with presidents like Trump who promote a $1T deficit, it wont take long to reach a limit. Not sure what it is, and anyone who says they know are either full of crap or Donald Trump. One thing though, I can find many comments he made prior to being elected concerning Obama’s deficits, but now that he is in office, all is good!
Interesting Ron, a sane assessment of many things. How you keep your sanity here in this reactionary environment I do not know. I like the view from 5000 feet. Viewing politics from the 6 foot level just warps the brain.
You may remember trump saying on campaign that he loves debt.
As to me, I continue to think that Bernie is a crackpot, a demagogue, and a disaster for the moderate parts of the dem party. By the way, they certainly exist, the field continues to prefer an old white guy, a moderate. As to Bernie or one of his disciples, he is unlikely to get elected, if elected he could not get his bills through, his party (well, its not really his party is it?) would be wiped out in the 2022 mid terms. Which would be the end of progressives, a good thing. The best way to rid the country of progressives once and for all as a force would be to elect one president. There is no way that he would ride a wave of Dem senate victories so he would have no power to do anything. In fact with a Bernie as the Dem candidate the dems in the Senate would lose ground, they can only take the senate by winning swing states, that is by having a platform that sells in Missouri.
You are certainly correct about trump from your view from 5000 ft, but you will never make any converts from the reactionary regulars here.
A majority of the country is in deep trump burnout/disgust now, no matter what his propagandists and true believers may claim. Can you imagine the level of trump burnout in 2021 if he is reelected? He himself would be fried out facing four more years of his bullshit.
I rate the election as a 50/50 thing, if Biden is the candidate I will rate the dem chances higher, Bernie or Warren, lower. Neither of the latter two would be successful as POTUS, to put it mildly.
Roby, good to see you back. Please stick around. Would be nice to “argue” with someone to my left. Hard thinking of oneself as a Libertarian leaning conservative and being the one on the left!
You say “Interesting Ron, a sane assessment of many things. How you keep your sanity here in this reactionary environment I do not know”. So for a historical personal perspective , after working 35 or so years in healthcare finance, the training for a reactionary environment made it become normal to me since nothing in healthcare finance stayed constant with continuing government regulatory changes.
To keep this short, I see Biden flaming out with blunders. Warren has some support, but Bernies the one I see coming through. And of all three, I do not see Trump making him the little kid that peed his pants. Bernie is the little kid that beat the shit out of the bully at school and the bully ran off crying.
What he does after election is anyone’s guess, but who thought government would come up with a plan where people were forced to buy a private companies product to get health insurance passed when Obama was elected.
i can say if he goes through with his Medicare for all and it eliminates private health coverage for 100M people, he is going to piss off about 90 million of them. One only needs to look at medicare to see where over 35% are now opting for the private insurance over traditional Medicare to see that the government program is not acceptable for many,
To the extent that the issues you and I disagree on have a left right axis – I am to the left of you.
The fact that I more frequently attack those on the far left – does not make me to the right or you.
The fact that Roby thinks I am to the right of you raises questions about his perception and judgement
I can tell you in great detail – using lots of facts all the problems with the modern left.
What is the evidence you have that some “reactionary” environment exists ?
What even does “reactionary” mean – beyond “I disagree with you and your wrong, but I am not going to bother to explain what I disagree with” ?
We can not have much of a discussion – because YOU are not interested in discussion.
You say you like the view at 5000′. I think you like the view from anywhere you can pretend that no dissent from your views exists.
But addressing your remarks ?
What “moderate” part of the democratic party ?
Even the purportedly “moderate” Biden is falling all over himself to disown his own past and adopt ever more radical left wing nut policies.
If “moderate” democrats still exist – they have completely lost control of the party.
In fact they are actively being shooed out.
You are correct – Bernie can not get elected,
But there is very little air between Bernie, Biden, Harris and Warren.
Yes they have small points of disgreement, they differ between offering really bad left wing nonsense and really really bad left wing nonsense.
Trump is way too big of a spender – but not a single democratic candidate is going to spend less. They are not even talking about spending less.
Once in a while Trump talks about cutting govenrment and “feels guilty”” about the burden govenrment is on us all.
But no one in the democratic party ever talks about cutting spending.
We need to do more than talk – but the likelyhood of acting by those unwilling to even talk is near zero.
Regardless, why is what you think will happen to Sanders in 2020, not going to happen to ANY democrat ?
Republicans are going to paint every democratic candidate as a radical socialist left wing nut.
That is always what republicans tend to do.
But the democrats have given them the brush and bought the paint for them.
When the democratic party goes left in a presidential election – they get obliterated.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting differetn results.
If you want to change peoples minds – you need to persuade them – not insult them.
I am not looking to persuade you to do anything – except that which you have no right to do in the first place – impose your will on the rest of us using government buy force.
You are the one who thinks government is a tool to make people better, to do great things to go beyond the rule of law. Everything you wish to do has a cost – both in freedom and in treasure, and you are not paying that cost – others are.
You do not have the right to do so.
You are free to “persuade” us “reactionaries”.
Though I find the accusation hillarious.
Next you will be calling us all racists, mysoginysts, homophobes, xenophobes, ….
If I need to persuade you not to steal – whether it is freedom, or treasure – then something has gone horribly wrong. Up is down and left is right and wrong is right.
Much of what you want – I would like to see – as out individual free choices, not as something forced on us.
Persuade me – do not steal from me to get your way, Do not force me. Do not call me names.
Make an argument for what you want.
Roby, I think that Ron keeps his sanity because he doesn’t take it personally when we “reactionaries” disagree with his opinion.
Part of what is tearing this country apart these days, is the inability of people to accept that they are not always right, that their opinions may be as flawed as they believe their political opponents to be, or that they can’t learn something from civil debate, and discussion.
I’ve said before that, over the years, I have found your opinions to be very influencial on my own thinking. That doesn’t mean that I have been necessarily swayed to your opinion, but it has given me pause to reconsider, and possibly revise, my own.
Anyway, in the case of your assessment of the current political climate, we are not as far apart as we typically are, except that I think that the Democrats stand a much better chance of winning with Elizabeth Warren. Biden is so obviously past his physical and mental prime, and, despite the Trump fatigue that you correctly describe, there are many voters who would not be able to pull the lever for a guy who seems to lack the energy to perform in the role of chief executive. Say what you will about Trump, he is clearly not doddering or feeble.
Also, I think that Trump would outperform Biden in the debates, where Warren would trounce him. As far as Bernie? He can’t win, but Warren has pretty much coopted his platform, so his supporters could easily switch to her.
The presidential election is probably a 50/50 thing, but I think that the Democrats have a better than 50/50 chance of winning Congress.
All of that said, we’re too far out for any of our predictions (or anyone else’s for that matter) to be even remotely accurate. So much can happen over the next 14 months, that I would say that there is even a chance that the candidates may include someone not even on the radar right now…
Priscilla very interesting take on Warren. Interesting how we see Bernie and Elizabeth. yes she has co opted Bernies platform, but I just cant see her going toe to toe with Trump. I can see Bernie destroying Trump in a debate because he has the ability to goad Trump unitl Trump explodes, where Trump will just keep demeaning warren with the Pocahontas label.
Actually, if you remember the Trump v. Clinton debates, Trump was not at all explosive. Hillary was as insulting as she could be, refused to shake his hand and couldn’t get him to lose his cool. I think you underestimate his ability to be in control of a situation. Losing one’s cool never helps, and I think he’s well aware of that. He may tweet insulting things, but he’s not like that in person, at least not that I have seen.
The reason I think that Warren would better him in a debate is that she is smarter and cooler than Hillary, and she would goad him, not to explode, but to make inarticulate mistakes, and say something that would make him look clueless (I know, I know…)
In my opinion, Warren is a total fraud, but a smart fraud. Trump would be afraid to go after her too hard, for fear that he would look like he was bullying a woman, and she would be smart enough to use that to hammer him.
Bernie is as inarticulate and bombastic as Trump, but not as smart. Trump would not be afraid to make a fool of him, and would likely succeed.
Even insulting people and losing it are not the same thing.
Trump has spewed insults, but I have never seem him actually “lose it”
He provokes others to “lose it”
I do not think Trump is a “great debater” but presidential elections are not harvard debates.
I think he is far better than any democrat at the skills necescary to win an election.
What he did in 2016 should have been impossible.
It was not luck or an accident.
Warren might better Trump in a Harvard style debate.
She has improved in campaigning.
But she is still not going to handle Trump.
Further the democrats are not doing the things they need to test their candidates.
They are not going to be ready for Trump.
Trump can make an enormous number of mistakes – he is the president.
The world has not ended.
Not one of the democrats can say that – they are NOT a know quantity.
There is a difference between being chaotic and unpredictable and being out of control or prone to “explode”.
There is an excellent video of one of the Clinton Trump debates from 2016.
They reversed the genders – and taped the debate with proxies.
What was interesting is that when you remove your preconceptions about Trump and Clinton,
The person arguing Trump’ position – clearly won the debate.
There was a debate in 2018 between Steve Bannon and David Frum.
I respect Frum, and I do not like Bannon – but Bannon wiped the floor with Frum.
Trump is not going to “explode” no matter who he faces.
Warren is sharp, But I think Trump will destroy her – I think he will be able to take her out much easier than Clinton, and of the top tier she is the only one that is formidable.
Trump does nto have to debate Bernie to win.
He can just let Bernie talk.
Ron actually engages in debate, discussion, argument,
Using facts, logic, reason, not slurs.
There is a world of difference between being passionate about and argument and just emoting a fact free flood.
Ron, after trump, flaming out with blunders is an idea of the past. That standard has been lost. I think you are far overrating the progressives take over scenario.
No way Sanders gets elected. But if he did somehow there is no way the swing states elect a Dem majority to support him. They might elect a dem majority if the dem party takes a moderate, that is, Biden, tack.
If it isn’t Biden it would seem to be Warren, barring some candidate such as Beto suddenly taking off.
The last thing I ever want to see again is the election of 2008 where a party sweeps the table with strong majorities in congress. The dems will never do that again, at least not in my lifetime.
Any hysteria on the right about the election of 2020 regarding the dems winning and putting the progressive agenda into law is very very overdone. The progressive ideas are fantasies that cannot become law. Now, if someone looks at any kind of liberal legislation as being the road to progressive hell then they can worry, liberals may yet get enough power to enact something, buts its not going to be free college for all, forgiveness of all student loans, (which implies then free collage for all) a national $15 minimum wage, or medicare for all. Or a 93 trillion green new deal. That’s all fantasy. I understand its a scary fantasy to conservatives (or even moderates like myself).
The dems could very well attempt some patches on Obamacare and a return to sanity on addressing global warming and some meaningful gun control legislation, background checks, magazines etc. That is the traditional liberal platform, along some increase on taxes of the upper level earners but that is Not the full on progressive agenda, which is what economists call in scandinavia the “advanced welfare state” (they don’t call it socialism and it ain’t). There is not nearly enough money in the world to institute that model in the US. That ain’t gonna fly.
I appreciate the invite to stick around and argue, but arguing solves nothing. I just periodically fail to resist the temptation to vent, that’s all. I’m waiting for a flight today and lost my discipline and posted.
“Ron, after trump, flaming out with blunders is an idea of the past. That standard has been lost.”
A bear jumps out of a bush and starts chasing two hikes. They both start running for their lives, but then one of them stops to put on his running shoes. His friends says, “What are you doing? You can’t outrun a bear!” His friend replies, “I don’t have to outrun the bear; I only have to outrun you …
Trump has not “flamed out” because no matter how bad he makes himself – his opponents, make themselves worse.
Further he is really really good at provoking them to do just that.
“I think you are far overrating the progressives take over scenario.”
Something we agree on.
“The dems will never do that again, at least not in my lifetime.”
Never is a long time, but I agree. Frankly democrats are in trouble until they sit back and figure out why they lost in 2016. Clue – it was not Russia, nor James Comey, nor “racism”.
“The fault is not in our stars, But in ourselves,”
When democrats look to fix their own problems – then some sanity will return.
In the event those on the left gain the power to pass ANYTHING – that will be the end of their power. Obamacare cost democrats the house, the senate and ultimately the presidency.
Republicans may not have repealed it, but very little is left.
I would further note – that democrats had the oportunity to get it right in the first place.
and failed.
Regarless Obamacare can not be fixed by patches – it can not be fixed.
Before Trump Obama was stripping it down – because it did not work.
Trump has been doing so more agressively.
Do you have the slightest doubt that there are more losers than winners from obamacare ?
BTW, neither Trump nor republicans have “forced” democrats to spew all this socialist nonsense. They are doing it freely on their own. The democratic party WANTS to be insanely left wing nut.
“Return to sanity on addressing global warming and some meaningful gun control legislation, background checks, magazines etc. ”
We have been over all of this again and again.
Not one of these things WORKS.
Gun control legislation that has no net positive effect is NOT meaningful.
I do not care what you propose – it is not effective – merely by asserting that you like it, or it is meaningful or it is common sense.
While I am not at core a utilitarian – the bare minimum you need to use force – aka to act in government is a very compelling case that what you are doing will produce a net benefit.
I have offered this before – and I will do it again.
I will LET YOU do pretty much anything you want – pass any legislation you want – whatever your wet dream of “meaningful” is – whether the issue is gun control or global warming, or healthcare or ….
Conditioned on the following:
That legislation will be conditioned on “meaningful” measures of success.
It MUST demonstrate over a short period of time an actual positive deviation from prior trends.
We can debate the measures later, but the first thing you MUST accept in return from my aquiesence, is that we are not going to pass another bit of “feel good” nonsense that makes things slightly worse and then later congradulate ourselves on success.
We are going to define and measure success and failure – and merely sustaining existing trends is NOT success. Things MUST get better – NET better, Measurably NET better.
And now the stick – when your “meaningful” legislation fails, written right into the law will be provisions not merely repealing the law – but going an equal distance in the OPPOSITE direction.
Are you prepared to bet that your “meaningful” gun laws will work – if failure means something like relaxation on the sales of machine guns, or federal open carry legislation ?
One of the most important criteria for making good decisions – and we absolutely know this is “having skin in the game” – the left NEVER has “skin in the game” there is little price they have to pay for failure.
When you KNOW that failure will have a cost – it forces you to think much more clearly about what you do. It drives this “feelings” nonsense out the window.
So tell me Robby – are you willing to “put some skin in the game” ?
I am. I am even willing to let you go first. I am fully prepared to bet that your “socialist” garbage will fail, and risk the impossibility of it succeeding if what I get in return is similar scale steps to greater individual liberty.
And like I said – I will let you go first.
So what laws would you be willing to pass – if the cost, when they fail is equal sized steps towards a more liberty oriented future ?
If you are not willing to “put skin in the game” – then you are just spewing emotions.
I do not think you are willing to do this. I do nto think that you or most on the left would pass any legislation if the cost of measurable failure would be equal sized steps towards greater liberty.
“along some increase on taxes of the upper level earners”
It is called stealing Robby.
If you take other peoples money – by force and you can not compellingly justify doing so,
it is immoral
Whether you take from the rich or the poor,
Whether it is done by government or others.
Was it acceptable for the Germans to confiscate the property of the jews ?
What you call the “advanced welfare state” IS socialism.
It does not work – not even in scandanavia.
There is not a country in the world that actually has what the left is selling.
Free college in those european nations that have it has destroyed a great european system of advanced education. Now nearly all the worlds greatest colleges are in the US.
Europeans ALWAYS expected much more from benefits recipients than US equivalents.
Switzerland as an example has a mandate – one with teeth – you MUST buy private health insurance. But you also MUST by law pay 30% of the cost of most routing medical care as well as seriosu care – until you reach an out of pocket cap.
This is to preclude moral hazard. Something european politicians were never so stupid to create and americans do all the time.
Regardless, Scandanavia does nto have what you are talking about. different countries in europe each have their own stupid twists on “the advanced social safety net”.
But none goes whole hog in.
I would further note that Europe’s economy runs almost a full point behind the US jn growth,
And that is why.
“Arguing solves nothing” – because you do not honestly argue.
Your objective is to get your way – without succeeding at persuading those who disagree.
It is NOT supposed to be easy to change the world.
It is far easier to break things than to fix them.
You do not seem to grasp that.
You are completely uninterested in even trying to persuade people who disagree with you.
You want to accomplish your will through force, without having to persuade.
You do not deign to offer facts or logic,
And when confronted with reasoned argument – you respond with slurs.
If you can not have your way – those who oppose you are “reactionaries” or worse.
Argument solves nothing – because you think you have some god given right to impose your will on others without ever bothering to explain, persuade, justify what you seek to do.
Don’t blame the rest of us for your failures.
While you are silent – TNM has been peaceful.
There has been no acrimony.
Ron and I and Priscilla have argued and debated various issues.
Not one of us fully agrees with the other.
We sometimes argue strongly and passionately.
Once in a while we step on each others toes.
But the level of bitterness and acrimony is near zero.
Nor is this particularly unique to TNM.
Introduce the left into any discussion and it always become bitter and degenerates into slurs.
Outside of TNM – YOU are getting your wish. The left is using whatever power it has to silence or control what others say.
Google shutdown Tulsi Gabbard’s adds when she started to make headway.
They have demonetized Dave Rubin – there are actually people calling Dave Rubin a Nazi.
If Dave Rubin is past the level of acceptable discourse on the right – everyone to the right of Joe Biden is a Nazi.
Regardless, elsewhere we see exactly what you think “meaningful” is.
“Meaningful” means shutting down those who disagree with you
by whatever means are necescary.
Not by argument, persuasion.
One of the things I found most ludicrous about the whole Russia cost Clinton the election narrative – was that if true they did so through “persuasion”.
The the same techniques that radio free europe or radio liberty did.
You are so afraid of ideas besides your own, that you will not even allow russians who are clueless about persuading americans to attempt to peruade.
And then you beleive that ordinary americans are so gulible than the russians snookered them into voting for trump.
Well, Priscilla, my opinion is an opinion based on the conventional wisdom that ruled politics all my life. That fact that I do not understand this crazy country anymore is proven by my inability to comprehend how people could elect trump. So, my compass is broken. Perhaps I am all wet. Be that as it may I see no sign from the elections I have seen in my life, including the last one, and from polls that the progressives speak for more than 25% of the country and its probably less than that. If two completely defective candidates are chosen to represent their parties then one completely defective candidate has to win. Every serious candidate in the 2020 POTUS race has huge defects and minuses. Biden certainly is not an inspiring or dynamic figure, simply he is the electable moderate, which may be enough in this climate. I have no idea whether Biden or trump wins if they face off, they are not the caliber of candidate that we used to expect. Who knows perhaps a progressive woman can beat the GOP candidate if the GOP candidate is trump, even though the country as a whole does not want a progressive or, most likely, a woman.
But what ever weirdness occurs in the POTUS raceI see no sign that Americans are about to elect a progressive Congress. Dems are lucky if they can hold on by the skin of their teeth in the Senate with a mixture of moderates and traditional liberals in the sense of, say, Kaine.
Perhaps I am an old fart who is missing the pulse of the revolution but I say that America is not going to veer left in terms of actual successful implementation of almost any part of the progressive agenda.
We can all look at AOC in horror but she and her small group are, well, a small group that has no significant legislative victories as yet. I say she and her pals will be washed away long before they succeed at anything but frightening the dem moderates and are not the future of the dem party.
What bullshit politics are (is?)
Roby, “That fact that I do not understand this crazy country anymore is proven by my inability to comprehend how people could elect trump.”
The first result is the general election of 2016. There were many people that had a negative view of Clinton from the time she was FLOTUS. Then during her S.o. S. period, there were many things that occurred that turned off some more. Add those two things to her alienating another group with her deplorable comment and her being a terrible candidate when she all but ignored the states Trump won the election with and we ended up with the other awful candidate as president.
But some disagree when I give my views on Trump getting the nomination. Trump started off not winning Iowa. He only received 24% of the vote, less than 1/4. The other 76% of the voters voted against him, but split their vote between multiple candidates.Then he goes to new Hampshire and only gets 35% of the vote. The other 65% of voters voted against him, but split that between multiple voters. He goes to South Carolina and gets 32%, with 68% split with the others. And then Super Tuesday, most states he averaged 35%, except for Mass. and Alabama where he got just over 40%. Still 60%-65% voted against him. But all during this period because he was gaining the most votes, the press was covering him as the winner.
After Super Tuesday, money began drying up for others and rumors about who was dropping out kept creeping up, but there were still enough traditional GOP candidates to split the vote, leaving Trump the presumed winner, even with just 35-38% of the vote.
Had he gone up against any one or two traditional GOP candidates, most likely the results would have been close to even, with Trump coming in second or third in a couple and then one of the GOP candidates leaving would have given the other enough votes to capture the nomination, with Trump coming is second.
And today we see the same with the Democrats, but in reverse. One traditional democrat with a host of progressives splitting the vote. If Biden can capture 30-35% through super Tuesday in most states, he wins because the progressives can not rally behind one person.
The country was not crazy in the sense the country voted for Trump. It is the 35% of voters that gave us the choice of Trump v Clinton and that was a choice many voters did not want to make. In my thinking, had Kasich run against Clinton, he would have done better than Trump against her and captured the same working class male because I don’t think they voted for Trump, I think they voted against the “Bitch”. And I think there were many women that thought the same about her, but did not voice that position.
Just my thoughts.
I hope you’re right about progressives, Roby.
I don’t necessarily share your confidence in the American public, though. Personality, phony empathy, and a willingness to blame our problems on racism and climate change (not arguing whether climate change exists, merely noting that most of the big government proposals from Democrat socialists are tied to a narrative that we face an existential crisis that requires ordinary Americans make massive sacrifices in the way they live, while ignoring the role of China, India, and other nations in creating
the problem) seem to be the criteria that is now used to elect our leaders.
Look at the economic indicators that have improved, across every demographic, since Trump has been elected. Look at the renegotiated trade agreement that replaced NAFTA. Look at the cooperation that we have been getting from Mexico in addressing the migrant asylum issue. Look at the fact that we are now energy independent, and a net oil exporting nation. Those were once the kinds of issues that Americans considered when they went to the polls.
But, we’ve got half the country ready to vote for confiscatory taxes for government run health care, regulations on everything, trillions in loan forgiveness, free college for all, reparations for people who were never slaves, etc. But, the other guy is a big meanie, with bad manners.
I beleive Roby is right and he is more rational in his fear that 2020 might be much better for republicans than Ron is in his fear that wing nut democrats will take over.
Every time the democratic party has gone hard left they have been obliterated.
In fact even if republicans can successfully paint democrats as too far left, they lose.
AOC and the squad have had a MASSIVE victory – they have taken control of the party. Everything is about them. And Trump and republicans are loving it.
No AOC has no accomplishments – but neither has Pelosi – and that is because Trump has been able to use AOC to make Pelosi impotent.
And this is not going to improve.
For some reason there was a theme within many of the articles I have read within the past couple of days.
One was a conservative attack on SCOTUS decisions regarding “ViewPoint Neutrality”
While I would VIGOROUSLY defend “viewpoint neutrality” as the correct standard for government, that article otherwise correctly noted that all viewpoints are NOT morally equal.
The exponent in the article just failed to grasp that while the foundations of government and society are inherently moral, The scope of law and government with regard to morality is limited to that regarding: The use of force, the enforcement of voluntary agreements, and compelling those who have done harm to make whole those they have harmed.
Morality beyond that narrow scope is absolutely important. Moral perspectives outside that scope are NOT all equal. But they are all EQUALLY protected from infringement by the law.
We can by right, loath the ideas of others, we can strive to prove one set of ideas true and another false. We may even succeed. All viewpoints are NOT equal. But the domain in which disputes are resolved is NOT within government.
And in fact that is central to the concept of viewpoint neutrality.
If Government can not censor one viewpoint – it certainly can not favor it either.
Government must be neutral – not just in what is permitted to be expressed, but also in how government acts. If something is outside the scope of the legitimate roles of government, but inside the much broader scope of morality, government must not merely allow the expression of all points of view, but it can not take up one or the other.
But I tripped over this in one article.
“Those who fear religion claim they want to protect individual autonomy — to free each of us from the confines of binding structures and beliefs. But if we will not have the relatively soft structures of traditional religious communities…we will have ersatz community, rooted in ersatz religion of the state, with all its potentially lethal power. This is the true inhumanity religion helps us prevent.”
I grew up in a community of religious fundimentalists,
What I have been seeing in the left for a long time – and getting much much worse,
is the same religious zeal. the same open desire to control the lives of others that was present – albeit to a much lessor extent in christian fundimentalists in the 70’s.
There is an innate drive to religion in humans. It is part of both the best and the worst of who we are.
Regardless, all humans – even the most atheistic of us are inherently religious creatures.
Myriads of aspects of modern leftism are powerfully theocratic.
There is little difference between the lefts efforts to purge society of heretics, and that of Torquemada.
I have seen no polls that make me believe that half the country wants the progressive wishlist. Certainly not if they have to pay for it.
The “other guy” has a bad character, bad manners is a nice way to try to spin it, buts much worse than merely manners. He is bringing out the worst in the gop genome and a majority disapprove, which is good. He brings his problems on himself, the gop and the country. Hopefully, he and the gop suffer the consequences, unfortunately, we all do as well.
All of us want most everything on the progressive wish list
If it is free.
Nearly all of us want none of it – even if the cost is small.
Well, I guess that I simply don’t accept the idea that we should vote for the big government policies supported by almost every single Democrat candidate, because we don’t like (I’ll use your word) the “character” of the current president, despite his undeniable accomplishments.
Do we like the “character” of Joe Biden, who secured for his son a billion dollar business deal with China? Do we like the “character” of Bernie Sanders, who owns 3 homes and is a multimillionaire who condemns millionaires? Do we like Elizabeth Warren, who consistently lied about her heritage, and used identity politics to get ahead in her career?
I’m sorry. It’s all BS. It’s tribalism, pure and simple. We forgive the politicians in “our tribe” for the same transgressions that we condemn on the other side.
Claiming that everyone should suffer, so that Donald Trump and his supporters will suffer, is the insanity that results from hate,
No one said voters were smart. That is why we ended up with Trump v Clinton. Thats why NYC ended up electing AOC. Smart voters would have given the nation a general election something like Kasich v Webb.
So the issue lies with the fact that we have about 130M active general election voters voting for candidates provided by about 47M active primary voters. And until this year, one could say 25M provided the candidates since most everyone knew by the end of March that Trump and Clinton would be the candidates. This schedule gave Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina way too much influence, either directly or indirectly. With manyvstates, including CA, moving to super Tuesday, this gives us more of a national primary, reducing the media coverage of winners influence somewhat.
But the issue still lies with the lazy voter not interested in a primary and then getting stuck with inferior candidates. How many more moderate democrats than progressives will stay home on March 3, 2020 that might vote for Michael Bennett and not give him the needed support to remain a candidate, allowing a progressive to capture the nomination.
And then people like me who refuse to vote against another candidate because both are crappy get called out when we end up with Trump or Clinton president because we “wasted” a vote.
There are three of us commenting right now. You, Roby and I. Each of us with distinctly different political views. But I really believe if any one of us picked the candidates in 2016, I dont think it would have been Clinton, Sanders or Trump. But we dont pick them, we just have to vote for the one provided.
As always, we live in different universes. The line about forgiving our own tribe is ironic. The things you have forgiven the heroic Trump for boggle the mind. The dirt you have on Biden compared to the mountain of Trump’s words and deeds? Give me a break. A good economy is not everything. Ask George Will. Some small part of conservatives have stood up for their standards but most have chucked them. Bleh.
James Mattis writes in his book that our internal division and tribal hatred is more dangerous than any foreign threat that we face, and I agree with him.
I am willing to criticize Trump when I think he’s wrong ~ I was absolutely horrified at the idea that he had planned a meeting with the Taliban at Camp David. The only good thing about that was that it never happened. It was a horrendous idea, and although I know how much he wants us out of Afghanistan, there is no way we should be negotiating with terrorists. Period.
I criticized Obama for the same thing…the difference was that Obama actually went through with it, held secret negotiations, lifted sanctions, and paid billions to an enemy nation. He also traded 5 key Al Qaeda leaders for a deserter. He was praised by his tribe. Praised to the hilt, actually.
I do not know of a single president who has been perfect, and very few have been without obvious character flaws from their past. Clinton was a sexual predator, Bush 43 used cocaine and was arrested for DUI…and possibly went AWOL during his National Guard service. Obama also used cocaine, and marijuana, when it was illegal. Going back, we know that Washington and Jefferson were slaveholders, and that both likely conducted extramarital affairs ~ Jefferson with one of his slaves. (How’s that for a “MeToo” moment?) Both FDR and Eisenhower also had longstanding extramarital affairs, FDR’s continuing throughout his presidency.
We do not elect saints. Actually, we seem pretty good at electing sinners…
I am not as upset about negotiating a settlement with the Taliban as you. Afghanistan is not worth one more American life! We helped create them, now we have to do whatever to exist with them. If the cowards in Afghanistan will not fight for their own countrys freedoms, including women, then we get out!
https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/afghanistan-how-us-put-taliban-power
I have said for years that kids should be required to spend 2 years in the military. No exemptions for any reason, except medical, and not bone spurs! That would solve all these never ending foreign wars when Trumps son, Obamas daughters, Bush’s daughters, etc might end up packing a M4 or M16 in combat. It is way too easy to ship some others son or daughter, wife or husband to a 💩 hole county and die for people that refuse to defend their own rights.
And yes, I have three kids, one son, two daughters and four grand kids. I have held these views for years and will continue to until death. I view the Isrealis as a country that deserves support because they rely on themselves first.
We should not negotiate – we should leave.
It is their country, not ours.
All that is necescary is to remind them – f$%k with us again and
“well be back”
It is my understanding that Though Mattis was critical of Trump his worst criticism was leveled at Obama.
Regardless, What Mattis might have to say is interesting, it is not biblical.
I also respect Bolton who was just fired. BUT I do not agree with him.
I think Bolton is a pit bill every president should have on a leash.
But that does not mean we should constantly unleash him.
Even if we exclude the moral failures of different presidents.
We are never going to elect a president that more than a tiny portion of us agree with on absolutely everything.
Because no two people agree on everything, and the more people the less that comon ground is.
The US is the most pluralistic country in the world.
That REQUIRES that govenrment severely constrain itself otherwise it MUST step on the toes of a substantial portion of people.
Ron, I agree that we should get out. I don’t think that negotiating with terrorists is the way to do it. And, hosting the terrorists who sponsored the 9/11 attack at Camp David was a really horrible idea.
The Taliban have shown zero inclination to abide by any peace agreement. Apparently, they KNEW that Trump was willing to meet with them, and still they blew up an American soldier in Kabul, the week before the scheduled meeting.
Trump clearly wants out, but doing it the Obama way, by agreeing to whatever the enemy wants, just to get a meaningless agreement, is not going to work.
Just leave, no negotiation.
No we should not negotiate with terrorists.
The Taliban must be defeated by the Afghan people or not at all.
When you start talking about a world population crisis – you have left the debate over a womens right to choose.
Abortions was/is incredibly common in China – it was not much of a choice for women.
Have an abortion or the government will punish you.
We can discuss whether and what is the limits to a woman right to an abortion.
But population control is NOT about providing women with the RIGHT to an abortion.
It is about coercing women into abortions.
This is the insantity of leftism.
The same people who would defend to the death a womans right to choose not to give birth,
would be happy to completely regulate or eliminate her right to NOT have an abortion.
I am sorry if I upset anyone when I say this, but its not our right or responsibility to regulate what other countries do. The people of Venezuela voted in the government they got and its their responsibility to change it. The Iranians rebelled and now they need to live with it or change it. How many billions of peoplevare in China. Can 4 million military repell 1.5 billion people if they want things changed and are willing to die for it?
So if people in Africa dont like what they have, let them change it. One American life is jot worth the cost.
We need to keep the “f” out of others business. Thats what gave us the Talliban, our supporting someone against Russia. Hows that working out?
George Washington beleive what you said.
This country was bitterly divided over vietnam on precisely this issue.
There was once a very large and united anti-war movement in the US on exactly this issue.
There are circumstances in which war is justified. WWII is generally considered a “just war” even if everything that was done was not proper.
I beleive removing the Taliban from power in Afghainstan was a legitimate and just act.
But that is where our justification ended. We can not impose the government of our choice on others. The people of a country must want change.
We can however legitimately use force against a nation in defense of self or others – when that nation acts violently towards us or other nations.
I find the cognative disonance on the left incredible.
Please read
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
It is long, and long winded, and crammed full of facts from start to finish.
It is the cure for “the population bomb”.
Only despite being wrong about absolutely everything and thoroughly discredited almost 70 years later we are STILL selling and buying Paul Ehrlich malthusian garbage.
The world has MORE than doubled in population since 1965.
And each individual is TWICE as well off as in 1965.
Simon thoroughly analyzed the effects of growing populations historically and found several patterns – those patterns are different, and the results are not exactly the same.
But the universal constant is that all nations of all kinds are better off historically with MORE people.
One of the reasons I support open borders is that the US will be BETTER off with more people than with less.
Even if we massively immigrate from the bottom of the barrel we will STILL be BETTER off with more people.
The ONLY thing we have to avoid is creating a moral hazard – of creating a scenarion we are too close too where you can come to the US for a free ride.
That is it. Manage that and the net result is heavily positive.
To clarify for Ron – THERE WILL BE LOSERS,. Almost certainly the losers will be those at the BOTTOM in the US. Those who can not keep jobs flipping burgers at McD’s.
But nearly everyone else will be a winner.
As Simon proves – more people is MORE BRAINS.
Ron worries about China stealing our magic sauce.
I am not at all.
There is no limit to ideas.
There are 5 times as many people in china as the US.
Even if they are 1/2 as smart – as a whole there are going to come up with as many new ideas as we do. The more affluent they become the more ideas they will produce.
Nor is who came up with an idea first all that important.
More people means more ideas.
There will be some overlap – but the net will be MORE ideas from China and the US that if we try to be this closed silo.
In truth “the secret sauce” is not all that important. The real threat china (and much of Asia) poses, is that they are incredibly entrepenurial.
They are not going to “defeat” us – this is not war, their success benefits us, our success benefits them. But the US will have to get used to seeing more and more of the world changing ideas come from somewhere else.
I actually doubt that China or asian countries will ever overshaddow the US – atleast so long as we avoid this socialist garbage. The IDEA of america is such that we will always outperform other countries. And that is a big part of what I think Trump was selling with MAGA.
Now the left is begging that we all quit wearing red baseball caps as people are being “triggered”.
I do not have a MAGA cap – but I am absolutely 200% behind MAGA.
Lets quit appologizing – to the world, to anyone.
That is not who we are.
Lets go back to who we are – lets CHANGE THE WORLD.
Lets quit drowning in malaise.
Lets quit worrying about China – and invite them along for the journey.
The US will take on any challenger in anything – we will beat you AND everyone will be better off.
Let massive numbers of immigrants come – no free rides, no minimum wage no welfare state.
Thrive or starve. We will be better for it. Growth in the 19th century was 7.5%.
Immigration was not the only factor, but it was a major one.
My daughter is from China – my family just went to see one child nation. I missed it – long story, long day. Regardless I am told it is good – and disturbing.
So we have the left that favors population control – that would make China the good guys in their view ? I am pretty sure that no one is China’s friend and particularly regarding the one child policy.
So how does this leftist garbage work ? We are supposed to stop the growth of the population – of course we KNOW that is going to happen soon no matter what.
The earth will peak at about 11B people I beleive before 2050.
Regardless how is the left going to magically reduce population without taking steps MORE draconian than China ?
Persuasion ? Great ! I absolutely agree – leftists can try to persuade people to follow any policies they wish – population reduction, Green Energy – do not care GO FOR IT.
SO LONG AS you are not going to use FORCE – aka government.
But Biden and the 9 dwarfs are not running for leadership of the Kiwanas club. They are running for President of the united States.
They are explicitly running to impose their policies BY FORCE.
BTW that is “self-evident” – there is no need to be president if you are going to accomplish what you want by persuasion.
So if your looking to reduce the earth’s population as something that requires you to be President, you are ultimately talking about doing what China FAILED at.
Is that what all these leftists want ?
BTW that is UNIVERSALLY true of leftist policies – and governent generally.
THEY DO NOT WORK.
So after we impose whatever “good idea” we have had – one of several things happens.
1) It is imposed through massive amounts of force.
This has not thus far happened in the US, but it has happened in many many countries run by the left, and it ALWAYS ends badly.
2). The law will be applied randomly – so we all get our own version of Checkovs “the lottery”. and get to find out if today is the day we end up victimized by government for violating laws that nearly everyone is violating.
3). The laws is MOSTLY ignored. Brushed up ONCE in a while for leftists to do some high profile prosecution because … feelings. But most of us, most of the time have nothing to fear. We have a law, but we do not really mean it.
That BTW is lawlessness – that is pretty close to the definiation of anarchy or the absence of the rule of law. The rule of law does NOT mean lots of laws that are ignored.
4). The law is repealed. HAH! HAH! when has that EVER happened.
I find it interesting the bed fellows those on the left have.
On the one hand – their in bed with Authoritians in china over population control
How can we take anyone’s claim that Trump is a tyrant seriously when they are swooning over Xi ?
Then we are supposed to welcome women and gays and trans people and ….
And Muslims – just about the most anti-women, anti-gay – and have you EVER seen a trans muslim ? group in the world.
I am tolerant of all kinds of people and beleifs. But I am not SELLING as an oppressed people one of the greatest oppressors of the past millenia ?
I mean get real. Fundimentalist christians are rank amateurs at persecuting gays and women in comparison to muslims.
I have been wondering for some time if what is wrong today is that the vast improvements of the past century leave nothing of consequence left to fix.
I just listened to Melania Safka’s “Lay Down” on youtube – what music do we have today like that ?
The Civil rights act passed, the Voting rights act passed, the vietnam war was ended, myriads of societal changes – some good and some less so took place during my youth.
This is not a nostalgia thing – there are lots of wonderful things happening today – even some good music – but there there was something different then.
In the 60’s we had the Berkley Free Speech movement.
Today the left is demanding that campuses shut people they do not like up.
We have this left political ideology that is all about diefying victimhood – but increasingly we have no consequential victims.
Arguably racism was much less significant in the 60’s than 50 years before.
But inarguably racism is a shadow of that of the 60’s.
Each generation has its cause – but the youth of today have nothing great to do,
While they have been given a world less than perfect – there are still no sweeping causes to advance today
Growing up in the 60’s I had no idea what “gay” was. Reading articles on homosexuality in readers digest I thought maybe I was gay – that was how obtuse they were.
How deep in the closet everything was.
Stonewall was dramatic – people could have been killed, jailed or lost their jobs just for being there. Today gays protest christian bakers who will not custom design wedding cakes for them and wonder why no one cares. Purportedly 11% of the country at most is gay, and possibly as little as 5%, the number of Trans people is much less than 1% – yet most of the people I know are some unusual sexual orientation – and so long as they are not sharing restrooms and showers with teenagers – almost no one cares.
The current generation of youth has nothing great to accomplish – we have left them a world that is pretty damn good.
So they need to find racism, sexism, hate, intolerance rampant in a world where there is little or none – or they have nothing great to do.
They current generation of youth has found no meaningful effort to change the world – so they are manufacturing problems.
At a time where most of us are doing a pretty damn good job of getting along – young lefties are finding hatred and assorted ism’s everywhere.
We have a generation lost in madness.
I don’t know that I can be optimistic about immigration, China, or the leftward movement of American politics.
Just to address a few of my concerns:
China. I don’t believe that China is “going along for” any ride with the US. Right now, Trump exerting maximum trade pressure on China, in hopes of getting Xi to make a deal. But, even if that deal happens, the Chinese will violate its terms when it suits them. “Free trade” which has not been free or beneficial to us in any long term sense (yes, we’ve gotten used to some cheap goods from China, but it’s come at a very expensive price) China has essentially been harvesting our economic prosperity, and hollowing out our middle class. They are using that wealth to become the world’s dominant military superpower. And, unlike the US, its purpose is not to make the world “safe for democracy.”
Immigration. How does open borders help this country thrive? It helps big government thrive, and undermines our liberties, because the immigrants coming in do not understand,and do not want our form of constitutional self-rule. The idea that we would or could eliminate the welfare state is completely pie-in-the-sky. When government grows bigger and more powerful, it stays that way, it doesn’t return power to the people ~ not without a struggle. There is a reason that leftwing politicians want to confiscate guns, and it’s not to stop mass murders. Hell, there are “mass murders” in cities like Chicago and Baltimore every damn weekend, often equal to or greater in deaths and injuries than the well publicized random shooting sprees by deranged white boys, and no one in either party gives a damn or does a damned thing about it.
Abortion. While I have always believed that abortion should be a safe, legal option for women, I do not think it should be a de facto method of birth control. The idea that a fully formed baby can be slaughtered in the womb, even a day before its birth, based on a woman’s “preference” to not have a child, shows a callous disregard for the human rights of that living child. If the US were to begin funding abortions in third world countries, for the purpose of population control, it would be tantamount to an endorsement of eugenics.
I am in a particularly pessimistic mood about the future of the country and the world these days. To use Ron’s frequent analogy, I fear we may already be cooked in that slowly boiling pot.
I am not that pessimistic about the future – lots of things ARE going to go wrong.
But more will go right than wrong.
Further it is my sense that the current period of total chaos and craziness is mostly the last insane gasp of the left.
Ron, I don’t know if you watch Tucker Carlson, but he had a monologue about the 2 NC special elections, the other night.
He basically says that the discussion over whether Trump’s rally changed the predicted outcomes of those elections is fine, but that it’s really the Democrat debates and other rallies held by the Democrat candidates that are drivning people back to Trump and the Republicans. I think it is a really good point, and one that is often obscured by the constant focus on Trump.
It’s almost as if the Dem candidates believe that the desire to get rid of Trump will outweigh any consideration of their own extreme policy positions.
Priscilla, first, the third district is overwhelmingly conservative, so one would suspect a huge GOP turnout. Mostly rural and agricultural, except for East Carolina university in Greenville. But Tuckers comment about a substantial victory in the 9th is not really accurate. In a district that Trump carriec by over 10%, a 2% margin is not substantial.
So yes, Trump probably helped, but where did the 8% that supported Trump in 2016 go? Did they switch or did they stay home? Does that support my thoughts that the handful of voters in the few swing state districts that voted for Trump may sit out the next one? Who knows.
But Trump is his own worst enermy! Now there is a congressional investigation into Trump ordering NOAA to issue a statement that Trump was right about Dorian and Alabama.
Dave will say this does not matter.He might even say it will hurt the democrats, but the left and the MSM will keep goading Trump intobactions like those claimed here because to Trump, ” Trump cant be wrong” And as long as he keeps getting involved in insignificant issues, Trump fatigue will cintinue to grow.
Will that create a national 8%:decline in support like NC 9th decline? Will see, Nov. 2020.
It is not the make up of a district that matters it is the change in voter behavior. Voting was NOT the same as in 2018.
Unless you beleive that the changes were unique to that district, that bodes poorly for democrats.
With respect to NOAA – what matters is NOT what is being investigated. It is what the NOAA’s actual projections were that Trump was briefed based on.
Congress can (and should) investigate the executive.
But the NOAA graphics with projected Dorian paths that include Alabama are ALREADY out there.
I do not know what Trump purpotedly “ordered”
But that is NOT what matters.
What matters is whether he directed them to Lie or to tell the truth.
And democrats have already lost that.
Democrats have been selling something that is FALSE.
They have been heavily pushing the “independence” or – the fed, the FBI, the DOJ, the NOAA.
That is crap. All executive power in the US is constitutionally vested in the president.
The problem is that the executive is too large and powerful.
The 9th race was supposed to be a democratic win.
They have a top flight candidate – possibly better than Conner Lamb running against a significantly less popular republican.
Completely forgetting Trump – NC democrats were doing most everything they could right to win the seat, and they should get Kudos for that.
Preceisely why McCready still lost is speculation.
Tucker could be right and Democrats are so far left voters will not come out for a reasonable moderate.
Maybe The Trump rally did the trick.
Maybe the DNC sacking its white staff a few weeks early pissed off voters.
Maybe the AOC adds did it.
Maybe the low turnout hurt McCready more.
Regardless McCready lost. He lost by a larger margin than in 2018.
To the extent this election is a harbringer, it would be of what is likely for Democrats who won seats narrowly in 2018.
Which is what polling is suggesting in many areas – Republicans who lost by 1-2% are currently in the lead against democratic incumbents.
And these incumbents are moderate democrats who are being successfully tarred and feathered because they are in the same party as democratic presidential candidates, or AOC or Pelosi.
Most of the press on McCready suggests that he is a good guy, a good candidate, someone that republicans would have been proud to put into congress. He did not lose because his opponent was a better man.
He did not lose because he was too far left.
If Democrats were going to flip the seat McCready was the candidate to do it for them.
Candidates like McCready are likely the major reason that democrats did well in 2018 in the house.
Doing worse than he did in 2018 is NOT a good sign for Democrats.
A strong moderate democrat losing is not a good sign for Democrats.
OK I looked at the district map in 2016 and it is basically the same as 2019. So if you have something different please provide it because Ballotpedia shows 2016 the same countries as in 2019 for the most part,.
To start, the demographics of this district indicate an 8% margin for GOP registrations compared to Democrats.
Robert Pittenger won the election in 2016 with 58.2% of the vote to dems 41.8%
Dan Bishop won with 50.7% to dems 48.7%
Bishop lost 8% of the 2016 voters and the democrat won 8% more.
Bishop got 49% of the GOP vote total that turned out in 2016 to turn out and vote for him
The democrat got 66% of the democrat 2016 vote total to show up and vote for him.
In total, 57% of the total vote in 2016 voted in 2019, 332,000 to 188,000
So how Tucker Carlson can say this is a good outcome for Trump, it goes right over my head.
The GOP got fewer percent of the vote.
The GOP got fewer voters to show up to vote in 2019 than 2016 than the democrat fall off
There is no significant difference in voter demographics in 2016 than 2019.
With respect to the District map – I do not live in NC. All I know of this is what is reported.
Ballotopedia has a long article on NC redisticting – the case went to SCOTUS.
I have not compared before and after. The whole state was redistricted.
Some districts may not have changed much. Many may only have changed at the edges.
It does not take much to shift a district that abuts a major city a few percent one way or the other.
Next, Bishop did atleast 2% BETTER in 2019 than the Republican running against McCready in 2018.
If things have changed from 2016, they have also changed from 2018.
We are getting insanely picayune trying to project meaning from the differences between off year, off off year, and presidential elections on a district that has changed – in ways we apparently do not have information on to a national scale.
That is true of Carlson, That is true of me, and of you.
But we are all desparate to see in every election the clues to the next,
and we are all subject to confirmation bias that drives us to see what we want.
We do not know what really determined the difference between 2016, 2018 and 2019 in this district.
We do know the district was +8 in 2016. I do not think we know what it is now.
I can not get information on the demographic changes to the 9th as a result of the redistricting.
We know that Harris eeked out a razor thin victory against McCready in 2018 that was pitched by the courts.
We know that Bishop managed a 2% victory a year later.
We know that McCready should be a stellar Democrat contender.
We know that turnout was way way way down – but it is an off off year election that is to be expected.
We also know that there was almost no mail in voting in 2019.
Mail in voting is an enormous vector for fraud whether democrats are doing it or republicans.
We know that 2019 was projected to be closer.
We do not know if the Trump rally tipped the balance. or the numerous DNC debates are negatively effecting D’s or if AOC adds are working.
It is also very hard to gauge the effect of Trump – without Trump actually on the ballot.
It is entirely possible that pro trump voters do not come out to vote for other republicans,
But anti-trump voters come out to vote against republicans because of Trump.
Trump won by getting blue collar democrats to vote for HIM.
He did not convert people who have been life long democrats to republicans.
It is probable that they will shift republican over time, but in 2016 they voted for Trump, not the GOP.
Republicans have a similar issues with NeoCons. Trump’s gambit to bring NeoCons beack into the GOP appears to have failed with Bolton’s departure. We do not know if NeoCons are going to remain republican never trumpers or move back to democrats.
Here I am going to have to agree with you Priscilla. Now Warren is moving up and has a very good chance to be the nominee. What does she do?
“Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Thursday unveiled a proposal to overhaul and expand Social Security, beefing up benefits with a hike in payroll and investment incomes taxes on some of the country’s wealthiest households.”
God help us. The rich will just pay for everything. Except, they won’t. What a *&^%$%$ loon this godamned woman is.
Now, I know that there is no chance that she could get that done if elected. And I know that candidates run to the left (right) during the primary season and then try to move back to the center during the general election and have been doing that forever, all my life at least.
The parties, as I say over and over, are not monoliths, they are not some single sentient entity who knows how to play chess. They are instead a chaotic process moved by tens of millions of cats that someone tries to herd.
%$#@^&* Democrats! Idiots! But, if I were in a swing state voter whose vote counted Yes I would hold my nose and vote for the democrat and all their wild bullshit, knowing that they could accomplish none of it and in the 2020 midterm the pendulum would swing back and remove the dems in congress. At least voting for Warren or whatever lunatic the dems nominate would remove the trump cancer.
So, again in 2020 its a matter of a wretched choice between two ridiculous parties driven by their loony bases and we will ricochet back and forth between dumb and dumber forever it seems and we call that government.
The biggest impediment to Warren getting elected is … her face.
There’s something creepily unappealing about it…
If she does win the Dem nomination (shudder), my advice to her would be to dress for facial distraction.
For that, I suggest splashy clothing & eye-catching hats like those worn by Hedda Hopper:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hedda%20hopper%20hats&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m#imgrc=0U8iS893cPlNiM:
The biggest impediment to Warren is her policies.
She may not be Melania or Michelle, but she is more attracive than Hillary.
Regardless, should we be electing candidates based on appearance ?
And if we are – how did most of Washington get elected ?
Right, Roby, and I totally agree that there are millions of people who hate or fear Trump enough to take a calculated risk on someone like Liz Warren.
But those are probably people who didn’t vote for Trump in the first place. The danger of nominating someone like Warren, is that people who voted for Trump in 2016, but may be disillusioned or turned off to him by his behavior in office, are people that might likely vote for Joe Biden, or another Democratic candidate that appeared somewhat moderate, but they’re never going to switch from Trump 2016 to Warren 2020. More likely, they just won’t vote, or they’ll hold their noses once more and vote Trump again, based on his policies and accomplishments in office , figuring that they can tolerate him through 4 more years (the “devil you know” rationale). And in that scenario, Trump likely wins a 2nd term.
And I also agree with you that this is the direction in which we’ll continue to go, ping-ponging between the “lesser of 2 evils,” until….well, I don’t know if and when it will end. But, I think that we have all been punked by both sides, which have sought to divide us into warring identity groups that literally hate each other, and have lost any sense of shared culture and purpose. So far, it’s been a largely successful effort, and I’m at a loss to see how we turn it around.,,
Ok, Jay, that legit made me laugh out loud.
Roby, isn’t there a good chance that if Warren wins, the turnout would have to be large enough in purple states voting for her that the coat tails would also bring about a senate win for the left. i.e. North Carolina where Thom Tillis most likely would lose with a good “D” turnout and the “Trump fatigued” staying home.
If that happens, why would they not be able to pass tax increases, benefit increases and regulatory legislation on energy and financial companies like Warren has proposed. And whatever they dont pass, the Executive Orders are still available, such as reinstating all the socialist ingredients of the healthcare bill.
Now I dont think Medicare for All will ever work. 1, there are over 100M people with private insurance and many of them like what they have. You cant piss off 70M+ taking away private insurance. 2, over 35% of Medicare covered individuals have olted for private insurance, Medicare Advantage, that offers more than tradiational medicare. Who wants to piss them off. 3, there are way too many billions invested in companies like UHC, Humana, Cigna, etc that would send waves through the stock market when those companies are forced out of business. That also does not account for the thousands put out of work in those companies. 4, finally countries that have government run health care have “Government Run Healthcare”. From the doctors, nurses to the facilities to the payments, they are run by the government. When you control everything you can control cost, unlike here where doctors make 50%-75% more than UK docs, nurses make about 60% more and pharmacist almost 100% more.
But it scares me that someone from the left winning because who fould have dreamed a country based on freedoms would pass legislation forcing private citizens to buy private companies products.
Ron, the only reason Warren could possibly be elected is Trump’s unpopularity. If she or another progressive is the nominee the swing voters in swing States are not going to split for the Democrats with their left wing platform. The country is no more left than it used to be, simply a lot of people do not want the jackass Trump.
I agree with the Jack-ass label, but how do you think those poor donkeys feel being compared to Trump?
But I disagree concerning the country not being further left. I dont think Reagan would get nominated today because he was not as far right as the GOP today and Bill Clinton would certainly never get nominated because he was way to moderate for todays democrats. Just look at Biden. He was left of Clinton in 1992 and is now considered the moderate.
What I find so hypocritical is all these bornagain christians that makes all these comments about others actions and how much people are sinners, but say anything critical of Trump and they rheme you a new one about how great Trump is.
Reagan was substantially to the right of the GOP today.
On myriads of issues the left has won.
Aside from the fact that we have gotten alot of bad law as a result most of those victories are a good thing
We are as a whole FAR more tolerant today than in 1980, PARTICULARLY the right.
How can we expect to make accurate judgements about facts, when we can not even accurately undestand that the modern right has moved from homosexuality, is a sin, a disease, a crime, to “do I have to make them a wedding cake” ?
Please tell me a single issue that the RNC or Trump or the bulk of Republicans are not to the left of their positions in 1980 ?
You commented about the views of “born again christians” evangelicals.
While I have no problem critiquing the hypocracy of the religious right, it is pretentious fallacy to presume evangelicals are a powerful force in republican politics.
The religious right has almost no clout within the GOP anymore.
As to hypocracy – were they voting for Hillary ?
We get the choices we get on election day.
An awful lot of people held their bnoses and voted for the lessor evil in 2016
and Trump won. Democrats are doing their damndest to assure that in 2020 Trump will STILL be the lessor evil – even though their candidate will not likely have the Albatrosses of Benghazi or 18cfr703(f)
Trump’s approval rating is currently 3-5pts above Obama’s at the same point in his presidency. If you overlay Trump’s polling and Obama’s for the same period in their presidency – the only difference is that Obama started higher. But 18months in Obama and Trumps numbers were indistinguishable – and have remained so right to the moment.
Obama defeated Romney in 2012. Trump will defeat whatever democrat he faces.
Favorability numbers are relative not absolute. What matters is yours compared to your opponents, not your absolute numbers.
What should give you pause is that despite relentlessly bad press – 3-5 times more total press coverage of Trump than Obama, with it running 95-98% negative – Trump still has slightly higher favorables than Obama.
While Warren is campaigning as a progressive – there is a very good article by Ben Shapiro on Warren – she was one of his professors at Harvard Law. He notes that while she was always on the Left, when she was a professor her positions were intellectually articulate, that as a politition she is advocating for things she rejected as impossible and stupid 20 years ago.
Warren’s biggest problem – and that of the entire democratic field is that she is inauthentic – fake. Trump has never been someone different than he is today.
Warren (and the rest of the democratic field) are well practiced fakers.
Warren is not going to go forward with “medicare for all”. Because:
She is not that stupid.
She is not going to win.
Democrats as a whole are not that stupid – though after PPACA I am less sure.
Most people KNOW this. Warren and most dems should be fearfull that voters take them seriously.
Regardless “Fauxcahantas” predates Trump and is prefectly apt – not just for Warren but the whole democratic field.
Did Trump run to the right during the primary and shift to the middle during the general ?
Nope. One of the reasons that Trump is president is that voters can gauge what he says and know what he will do.
As Selena Zito noted in 2016 – the media and the left take Trump litterally, but not seriously, while his voters take him seriously but not litterally.
Trump made immigration, Trade, the economy, ending the Obama apology tour, and ending foreign entanglements the major bullets of his campaign – and to a lessor extent the courts.
I do not think any president has ever delivered on their promises to the extent Trump has.
I do not think Trump will promise much new in 2020. But he will be CONSTANTLY telling people to expect him to finish those things he has only been able to partly accomplish.
For those who loath every single one of his promises – that is a huge red flag and they are never voting for him. What is new ?
For the rest of us – who may agree on many but not all, Trump is a KNOWN quantity, and trustworthy – in a way that the media and the left just do not get.
There is no democrat that can run in the General with that credibility and trust.
Credibility and Trust are NOT about the latest tweet, or microparsing.
They are about whether you can trust that when a candidate says – “vote for me and I will do this” that they will.
You say the saving grace with warren is that she will not do what she promises – and that is true.
But it is also why democrats have already lost this election.
We can not take any democrats either litterally or even seriously.
And increasingly that goes straight down to house and even local elections.
There is alot wrong with Trump and Republicans.
As has been noted – Trump and the GOP lost interest in deficits once elected.
But they are wise enough to understand that no one is going to pick a democrat over a republican over the issue of government spending. No democrat even talks about reducing deficits.
So Robby
What is “the Trump cancer” that you seek to remove ?
Are you still selling that Trump is a “russian agent” ?
Is your outrage all about tweets and decorum ?
Are your appoplectic over the fact that Trump did what every single presidential candidate for 50 years has promised and moved the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem ?
Or is it because he is engaged in super human efforts to build the wall that – nearly every politician of both parties has promised for 50 years ?
There are many things I do not agree with Trump. I am never going to get my libertopian dream candidate. But however far Trump is from that – every single democrat is farther.
They are also all farther from most peoples “moderate dream candidate”.
You call Trump a Cancer – fine. But WHY ?
Something is not true because you assert it. You are expected to back up assertions – with facts, logic, reason.
Whether it is Trump or CAGW, or Healthcare or …..
You have asserted myriads of positions,
But you do not back any of them up.
To change our minds, to get our agreement you are obligated to persuade us.
Fact free emotional appeals have FAILED.
And that is the growing message of our bitterly divided nation,
If you want us to come back together you must persuade and appeals to emotion are no longer enough. People no longer trust your appeals to emotion. That is the consequence of overuse, of crying wolf too often, of calling everything that moves a racist, hateful, hating hater.
If you want people to accept that Trump is somehow a worse “cancer” than Obama or progressivism, you will have to make that argument – using FACTS, not just emotional assertions.
If you did not expect government to compel your neighbor to do as you wish, you would be much less disappointed in it.
A major part fo what is wrong today is that government has attained a prominence(and cost) in our society that greatly exceeds its value.
You can find stories telling you whatever you want to beleive.
NC is important because it gives us a basis to judge the relative credibility of the stories.
There are stories saying Republicans are in a panic accross the country.
There are also stories strongly suggesting that Republicans appear likely to retake all the seats they lost in 2018. That certainly what is coming out of CA and NM right now.
We get to find out what is true in 2020. In the meantime – NC suggests that Tucker is correct.
Republicans appear to be doing better than expected because Democrats are alienating votes.
Democrats are responsible for that.
But Trump has been bending over backward to help.
He has actively sought every opportunity to get Democrats to go as far left as possible on everything.
The democratic debates are pandering to a tiny portion of the extreme left of the country.
Even if the leading candidates are not spouting insane nonsense – and to an extrodinary extent they are. Their challengers – purportedly credible challengers are shouting on top of the whacky Bus.
Beto ran a campaign that seriously challenged Cruz in TX – now he is talking about Confiscating all AR-15’s.
Democrats are destroying themselves.
They learned nothing from 2016.
my crystal ball says Trump landslide in 2020, increasingly I think that the GOP will retake or come close to retaking the house.
I do not think they will lose the Senate, but the senate is harder to predict.
Republicans did much better than expected in 2018 in the Senate and came very close to routing Democrats in a year where democrats did very well in the house.
That is another thing to think about – voting patterns are strange.
While it is clear that House and Senate and Presidential elections all are influenced by the same issues and perceptions. Despite that each can shift independently of the other.
That appears to be a new development.
But the important lesson from NC – and what is emerging from CA and NM is that entire democratic party public persona is driving voters AWAY from the very moderate democrats they elected in 2018.
Voters perceive the Democrats as too far left. But they are not punishing the lunatics like AOC essentially in “safe seats”, but the moderates who are getting tarred and feathered by association with AOC.
I would further note that while democrats are responsible for that. At the same time Trump is actively throwing gasoline on the fire that democrats and eagerly starting.
Trump would be ecstatic if every news cycle is about some tit between him and AOC.
And to counter Ron regarding “details” – it must be TRUMP that is driving the media to cover AOC – other republicans are not going to succeed at that.
Dave “We get to find out what is true in 2020. In the meantime – NC suggests that Tucker is correct.”
Please help me out here. I must ge a bumbling moron thinking like I am.
NC 3rd. Very rural, highly southern Baptist, evangilical population except for Greenville NC home of East Carolina University. GOP carried by 61%. Same as usual.
NC 9th. Charlotte NC and surrounding counties. Trump carried by 10%. GOP usually carries 58%-61%. 2016 was just over 58%. This election, GOP received 51%.
How is Tucker right when the GOP stronghold did not change, but the swing district lost a substantial amount of GOP support?
These are actual numbers no one can manipulate!
NC9 was gerry mandered by the courts since 2016.
You can claim the courts did the right thing – but even if they did they still skewed the 9th left alot.
What we do KNOW is that the GOP has gain 2pts there since 2018 – that is the SAME district,
There are complications – this is a n off-off year election – and that favors R’s.
But we do not have an accurate gauge of how to compare it from 2016 to 2020 as it is not the same district.
Ron, you are a person who processes facts, both those that support the things you hope for and those that are negative. Why even bother with the opinion of a person who is the king of wishful thinking who discounts the facts that are inconvenient to his hopes?
2020 is too far away to make predictions in any case. Anything can happen in a year. Let anyone who clearly sees the outcome now mortgage their house and place a big bet.
You and I wouldn’t do that I am sure!
I should be winning by 50pts – that was “the king of wishful thinking”
I think that Ron is suffering from a form of confirmation bias.
He does not like Trump but he is very very scared that one of the democrats will win.
There fore he sees everything through the lens of his fears.
You are correct that 2020 is a long way away. ‘
It is not that alot CAN change – it is absolutely certain that alot WILL change.
The question is HOW ?
MY assessent is that 2018 is the democrats “gettysburg” – the high water mark of rage against the Trump. And frankly it was not very high.
That is my own read of the tea leaves – I can cite LOTS of stories and polls and what have you to support that. But I am very aware that there are also lots of sources saying the opposite.
In 2018 I was arguing that historic tends might be in the past. With respect to the house I was wrong. But the results in the Senate were not consistent with those in the house in a way that sends a popular message about the shifts in “the will of the people”
Regardless, from 2018 through 2020 if you list all the factors likely to influence the election,
There are substantially more that will increasingly favor Trump and fewer than will benefit democrats.
Trump/Russia is dead. We are going to spend the next 2 years arguing over whether there was a coup attempt. even if no one is prosecuted, the stories will be relentlessly bad for D’s and good for Trump.
The economy is a question mark. Staying the same or rising nearly locks the election for Trump. Falling hurts Trump, but to be certain to defeat Trump you need to pray for a recession and that is not likely.
Trump could start a war. But indications accross the board favor Trump.
Iran may be on the ropes. Regardless both NK and Iran if things go badly will be blameed on Obama – he did nothing for a decade and if they go well Trump will get credit.
China is a Question Mark – but again one where the odds favor Trump.
A deal with China favors Trump.
No deal, but no large hit to the US favors Trump,
Capital flight from China to other asian countries favors Trump.
China meddling in the US election favors Trump.
It is possible that Trump will get caught burglarizing DNC headquarters, but short of some low odds event why is the time between now and nov 2020 not more likely to favor trump than harm him ?
What of all that is “wishful thinking” ?
The dance with wishful thinking is on those who confuse fear with reality or actually want something bad to happen so Trump will lose.
I’ve witnessed some landslides, Johnson Goldwater, Nixon McGovern, Reagan Mondale. Popular vote margins of 18-22 percent. Trump trailed Biden by 10 to 15 points in recent poll. Trump trailed every Dem Challenger in quite a few. The economy is good now and is not about to get better by 2020. A trump landslide? That’s wishful thinking, a margin of no more than 5 percent on either side is by far the most likely outcome. A trump landslide is about as reasonable as your saying that all major problems have been solved or the left is on its last gasp. Your wishful thinking.
If you have witnessed “landslides” you have not been paying any attention.
First – Trump’s approval numbers at the moment are BETTER than election day 2016.
Any claim that he is going to get less votes than in 2016 absent getting caught in the oval with a 13yr or having the economy tank is nonsense.
Next, He is the incumbent. Like it or not incumbents have an incredibly high re-election rate.
I think this is particularly important for Trump.
In 2016 he was a “wild card”, I mean Donald Trump President ? Really ?
In 2020 he will have been president 4 years. So long as he has not nuked anyone or anything like that he is the “safe bet”
Sure his tweets will piss us off – but he will be a known quantity.
Incumbent losses are rare – ask Truman.
But speaking of losing incumbents at this time in 1975 Carter was a shoe in.
Even When Reagan won the nomination – there was no expectation he would win.
It was not clear he could beat Carter until fall of 1980.
Yet that was a “landslide”
Carter had a flagging economy and the iranian hostage crisis.
Bush I lost because of a flagging economy.
Regardless name a single instance where democrats have gone hard left where they have not been decimated ?
Democrats have been decimated even when the GOP merely painted them successfully as too far left.
Next, name a single election where the polls almost a year before were close to correct ?
In fact I can not think of any election in my lifetime where the republican was ahead a year before the election – whether an incumbent or not.
I am not sure I can name an election where a year out the republican was not 10pts behind.
No matter who won.
As too the polls. Put people into the voting booth.
The polls are inaccurate this far out.
If we had a UK style snap election TODAY – Trump vs. ANY current democrat.
I would bet money Trump wins handily – despite polls.
Polls are almost meaningless until crunch time – and even then it is debateable.
Trump was behind Clinton by 2.5pts on Election day, and Brexit was supposed to lose by 4 points instead it won by 6.
In July of 2015 Clinton lead Trump by 20.
Further we know from 2016 That Trump can lose the popular vote by several percent and still win.
I beleive it was the atlantic interviewed every Republican campaign manager who lost to Trump, they asked them about the democrats. They could not agree on who would win among democrats, only that it would be an interesting race, but universally they said Trump beats any democrat handily.
Regardless, we shall see who is engaged in “wishful thinking” in a bit over a year.
BTW I have not said all major problems have been solved – I do not even know what that means.
I have said that we do not have an issue like slavery or even real racism that faces us today.
There are still plenty of bad things in the world and in the US. But there is no major cause that can consequentially unite us.
Do you really think that Anti-fa is as meaningful as the Anti-war movement in the 60’s ?
Where are the Dylan’s and Baez’s of Anti-fa ?
The left is dangerous at the moment BECAUSE they are in danger of irrelevance.
Cornered animals are dangerous – they foam and spew spittle – and that is what we are seeing.
You saw the hissy fit that was thrown for the past 2 years when Trump won in 2016.
What do you think the results will be when he wins in 2020 ?
What do you think they will be if he wins in a landslide.
And just to be clear – I am talking about a large electoral college win.
Despite the closeness of the vote in 2016, Trump came very close to a small landslide in 2016.
The left fixates on the fact that 70,000 votes gave Trump the rust belt (forgetting that he had to pick up 2.5M votes in the rust belt just to break even), But 30,000 votes would have flipped nevada and New Hampshire, and Minesota and Maine were not much farther out.
2020 is NOT going to be fought in CA or NY or MA – depsite the fact that the Polls currently say the GOP retakes all their losses in Orange County.
The question is whether it is fought in MN, NV, NH. ME or TX, FL, NC,
I would also note that Warren in the last debate anounced that on day one she would stop Fracking Everywhere.
One of HRC’s great 2016 blunders was attacking coal – despite the fact that everyone know Coal is dying. Fracking is not. Millions of people in this country take their livelyhood directly indirectly from Fracking. And all of us are benefiting from low energy prices – and we know it.
We also know that we do not have to give a fig about the mideast so long as we have an abundance of fracked oil and gas.
I do not think Warren is serious. I think she is doing what all the democratic candidates are doing right now – which is moving farther and farther left to win the democratic nomination – because the democratic base has fallen off the left edge of the planet.
But how do you think the Trump adds targetting Fauxcahantas – or whatever democrat wins are going to play in Nevada, TX, PA, OH, MI, ….. ?
Democrats are writing the attack adds for republicans on stage right now infront of the entire country.
What is likely for 2020 is moderate and center left turnout will be low. Democrats having already burnt out as well as run past most of the country on all this the wolf is coming nonsense. They will get heavy turnout from the far left. But that will not win the election.
Trump’s 2016 core remains, lots of people – left and right will vote over things like replacing Ginsberg. But there are more republicans that will drag to the polls than democrats.
And almost no moderates.
Lots of people slightly right of center or near center will vote for Trump – because democrats have terrified them – or they will stay home.
Worse still for the left is that this election will NOT be about Clinton Vs. Trump.
It will be about the idiotic wing nut policies Democrats have spent 2 years campaigning on and terrified alot of the country – and yes Trump and republicans are going to do everything possible to make them even scarrier than they are. Though democrats seem hell bent on doing that by themselves.
So what is the great crusade that needs to be fought today ?
Trans Rights ?
What is the equivalent of the abolition movement or civil rights or the free speech movement, or the anti-war movement ?
I read something about civil disobediance recently.
Protestors today are shocked and offended if they get arrested.
When Ghandi, or King engaged in civil disobediance the POINT was to get arrested.
To provoke the government to doing its darndest to enforce evil and unjust laws.
The way you get rid of bad law is to make government enforce it, so that people see how ugly and dissonant the consequences are.
What is the great thing that youth today – or aging hippies can valiantly fight to accomplish ?
“If you have witnessed “landslides” you have not been paying any attention.”
Ah, I knew the problem was me somehow.
Funny man.
Why doesn’t your response surprise me.
You want to personalize everything.
My response was about facts – and patterns of facts.
You skip over that entirely and jump right to blame.
You do not care whether facts are right or wrong.
Just who is topping who. Whose ox is gored.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. ”
JS Mill.
Do you have any comments to make on anything, that are not ad hominem, or slurs ?
Dave please do not compare aging hippies to todays youth. There is very little that those two have in common.
1. Todays youth are dependent on parents until ?. Hippies left parents and went off on their own at a young age.
2. Hippies wanted government out of their lives. Todays youth want government running their lives today for the most part,
3. Hippies were anti war. Todays youth could care less if we are at war or not.
4. Hippies were very concerned about free speech, along with many other freedoms. Todays youth want speech controlled so it does not offend anyone.
I could go on, but you can do your own comparison to find other things that hippies and the young today have little in comment other than age when they had their movement
Not Hippies – aging hippies.
Those people today – not part of todays youth who missed out on the 60’s and are trying to get their chance to “change the world” – by fighting to save lab rats, or protect us all from plastic straws, or ….
My point is that in the 60’s there were young people who were really and truly seeking to change the world in consequential ways. They were fighting against real systemic problems.
Today’s youth goaded by older 60’s wannabe’s is fighting the scourge of plastic soda straws.
The world will never be perfect, but barring the large scale collapse of society we are never going to have problems of the importance of those in the past to solve.
We are better than we were – much better.
Trying to make this moment in time into some existential crisis is wrong.
I agree that the Hippie movement was different and motivated by very different fears and concerns than today’s Social Justice movement.
What is the same is that both movements relied on anger and mistrust of the establishment. A key difference, as Ron points out, is that Social Justice warriors want that very establishment to mandate and enforce solutions to their concerns. The hippies wanted to go away, live on their own, smoke weed and do what they wanted.
Nevertheless, I do think that there are “aging hippies,” people now in their 50’s, 60’s and 70’s who want to relive their glory days by protesting stuff. They turn climate change from a legitimate concern, which we should be addressing through research and adaptation, into World War III, with the climate in place of Hitler, and government regulatiion in the place of the military.
Rights are individual, Justice is individual. There is no such thing as “social justice’.
Just as there is no such thing as a social penis or social vagina.
Regardless, the extreme left today is not about justice in any form.
Further the 60’s were about non-conformism and individuality. Their were some elements of suspicion of power and authority.
The left today is not anti-establishment, they are seeking total control of the establishment.
They do not have fear of power and authority – they want power and authority.
The left today is not seeking revolution. They are seeking power. They want to take what already exists and expand it. They do not want to tear down anything.
Their Enemies are those who seek autonomy, freedom, self determination.
My use of the term “aging hippies” was NOT intended to imply any consequential ideological connection to the 60’s. It was merely meant to note the some portion of the lunatic left today are people old enough to know better.
We expect 20 somethings to seek to change the world. By the time you are 50 you are supposed to be skeptical of tossing what is mostly working to do something untried.
But my primary point is that there are no great causes to lead today. As a result the left fixates more and more on less and less significant issues trying to make them much more consequential than they are.
Oh, take a pill. There was no ad hominem in my little post. I responded to your totally silly point rather calmly. I know, I know, why do I bother, that is a good question. I shall withdraw after we finish this silly business.
Simply, “If you have witnessed “landslides” you have not been paying any attention.” was your typical absurd denialism, in this case completely nonsensical, which I found funny. Yes, I have witnessed landslides. Your denials define your universe but they have no magical power to change reality. There have been landslides in my lifetime, period.
Dave, Like the Bernies you live in your own delusional world of denial and nearly every word you write here has denial of reality behind it. Your trump landslide prediction is one such case, an amusing one. He may well win in 2020, but a landslide with all its implications is highly unlikely.
The Bernies also ain’t gonna get what they want, a Scandinavian America. They are making a big noise on the national stage and in the end they will get extremely little, if any, of their agenda. I doubt you will sway anyone here to your latest set of theories, not on the election, not on the final death of the left, and certainly not that all the major problems have been solved. I will say again rather calmly that you are a silly man, if that is too much for you to take, well, Cry Me a River.
The people with the greatest delusions seem to be the ones who make the most noise. Everywhere one finds them they take over the conversation with their manic delusional energy. Its a good part of the reason that its hard to have a reasonable national conversation about what is actually possible.
Carry on.
Whether you call your response ad hominem or not – it was personal. It was not argument, it was not fact, taken litterally it was self deprecating, but you did not intend it litterally, sarcastically it is ad hominem.
Regardless, it was personal, it was also bitter, and it was at the core of why we are all constantly fighting.
Because you can not help yourself. You are unable to actually address an issue.
You must make everything personal.
Why you do that you ensure conflict.
You are not interested in facts, you are not interested in reality or evidence.
Everything must be about moral judgement – worse, moral judgement without any connection to reality.
You can try to claim I am reading too much into your remark.
If so – then what exactly is the point of your remark ?
Your remark might have multiple meanings but every single one boils down to “someone is morally wrong”. Not correct or incorrect – there is not a fact in sight in your remarks – not even your occasional naked assertions. There is not an argument. There is just a sarcastic moral claim – unless you were speaking litterally – in which case there is a self deprecating claim of moral failure.
No matter what, the comment – like most of the content of all your comments was PERSONAL. While less extreme than lobbing racism hand grenades, it was of the same genre.
You get constantly offended because I make assertions about factual error.
Why do you think everyone else will be less offended by your constant claims of moral error ?
To be clear – I do occaisonally come after you on moral grounds.
Primarily because as I have said repeatedly, It you climb onto a moral soapbox, you had damn well better be sure you have a strong foundation or I am going to knock you off.
I spent a great deal of time around christian fundamentalists as a teen and young adult – and I see very little difference between them and the modern left – including you.
Except that they atleast know they have bought into a religion.
Your current rebutal regarding landslides – is atleast an argument – though once again you must personalize rather than address facts.
Regardless, what is it that you observed about landslides ?
I have repeatedly made the argument here that when democrats go hard left – or when republicans can successfully portray democrats as having gone hard left – ESPECIALLY when you have a republican incumbant you get a landslide.
To some extent the reverse was true with Goldwater – while Goldwater was NOT particularly hard right, he is more libertarian than anything. he was successfully painted by Johnson as a dangerous reactionary and he was murdered in the election.
But Nixon McGovern, Reagan Mondale, Bush Dukakis are all examples that are fairly similar to the moment.
Why do you beleive that Trump Sanders or Trump Warren are going to go differently than Reagan Mondale ? Reagan might have been a less offensive communicator than Trump but in terms of policies he was FARTHER to the right than Trump.
You are correct I have no magical power to change reality – but I can observe reality as it is.
Trump won in 2016. He did so despite starting almost 30pts behind Clinton, He did so despite negatives that were higher than his current numbers. He did so despite a strong Republican Never Trump movement that is much weaker today. He did so despite no experience in government. He did so facing one of the most formidable politicians and political machines of our time. I can go on and on and on.
I see one and only one change between 2020 and 2016 that benefits Democrats rather than Trump – and that is Clinton will not be the Democratic candidate. Even that is a mixed bag – because despite her negatives she was still a top tier candidate – and none of the dwarves the Democrats are running is close to her stature.
In every single other way Trump is better positioned than in 2016. He is already effectively the Republican nominee. He has already raised more cash than all democratic presidential contenders combined. And last time he beat Clinton spending 1/2 what she did.
Further Clinton did not for the most part veer hard to the left – all the democrats have.
Total disaster would have to strike for Trump to have a weaker economy than Obama had in 2012, in all likelyhood he will have an economy sufficient that no incumbent has ever lost.
You fixate on all the negative press Trump has gotten. None of it has driven his core away.
He can likely count on nearly every vote he got in 2016, as well as many he did not get – he is now the president and he is president of a country that despite all that media circus is doing better than it has in almost 20 years.
While he has not entirely extricated us from the mideast – he has come closer to doing so than either of the past two presidents.
Whether that is a good thing or not – Trump has stood up to China – and the voters democrats need care about that.
He actually did incredibly well his first two years DESPITE massive opposition.
He has just won with SCOTUS on the Wall, and he won with SCOTUS on revised asylum rules – which is a huge deal. It means he will be able to send almost everyone crossing the border back to their country of origin nearly immediately.
Those republicans that would otherwise be disturbed by him are very happy with his judicial appointments – and these people vote.
2008 and 2016 were very high turnout elections. Those favor Democrats. To beat Trump democrats will have to have turnout matching 2008 – that is not repeatable.
Whatif’s are bizarre but if it had been Trump/Obama in 2016 – and Trump got every vote that he got in 2016 and Obama got every vote he got in 2012 – Trump would have defeated Obama.
What democrat is going to draw more voters than Obama ?
Trump received more minority votes than Romney – and his standing with minorities has improved. He will still lose among minority voters – but he will lose less badly than any republican except maybe Bush, and he probably will do better than Bush.
For every minority voter Trump picks up – Democrats have to pick up a white voter.
While every single thing I have noted above is true – there are other factors and analysis.
There are also facts we are not sure of – there are conflicting stories of Trump’s standing in suburbs, and among women.
I am aware that there are plausible arguments that Trump will be defeated.
You are totally blind to the fact that there are plausible arguments that he will win.
Just like the overwhelming majority of democrats in 2016.
On election night 2020 – you are likely to find yourself asking once again – how did this happen ?
The problem is that democrats did NOT ask that after 2016. They are Still moving forward as if they did nothing wrong in 2020. As if spending 4 years pummeling Trump will defeat him and they can pretend that the last 4 years did not happen.
Grow Up! Engage in some introspection. Figure out why democrats lost in 2016 and DO NOT DOUBLE DOWN on the same mistakes. Because that is exactly what Democrats are doing.
The soft coup failed, The investigation of the investigation is now moving forward.
The Trump/Russia narative was a lie – as Trump said “a witch hunt” – if you are not a delusional left wing nut you should now realize that:
The entire mess was manufactured. That the entire mess was politically corrupt. That it really was a witch hunt – and you did not catch any witches. That the campaign actually colluding with Russia and other foriegn powers was the Clinton campaign.
Speaking of which we already know the Chinese are trying HARD to influence the 2020 election – and may have tried to do so in the 2018 election.
I personally do not care. But you can pretty much guarantee that it will be a big story over the next year. A story that will be bad for Democrats and one you can do nothing about.
When you foam and froth and engage in witch hunts – you should expect that turnabout is fair play.
And Trump has something big going for him in this. The IC bought the Russia nonsense hook line and sinker – because finding that Russia was a threat gave them power.
The same is true of finding that China is a threat. Trump can count on the very people who pissed him off with false claims regarding Russia will be 200% behind false claims regarding China. Even social media will be caught in a bind.
So why is it that you think that Democrats are going to have a good year in 2020 ?
Again personalizing everything.
Cut the crap with accusations of “delusions”.
I have presented a long list of FACTS. And not even all the facts.
We are dealing with forecasting – so anything is possible.
But my view is FAR from delusional. There is plenty of EVIDENCE of its plausibility.
How about you ? Aside from naked assertions and calling those who disagree with you delusional – what FACTS have you got ?
I will bet I can make a better argument for a Democratic victory in 2020 than you can.
Why – because I am familiar with the FACTS – both sides.
You can’t even support your own claims.
My claim regarding you – is that you are unobservant. That is pretty well established.
Your claims about me are just lists of ad hominem.
And you wonder why our public life, and this blog are bitterly contentious ?
Because people like you accuse everyone who disagrees with them of being delusional, or racist, or some other moral failure – rather than making arguments to support their position.
When you make moral accusations – you have lost any hope of persuasion.
Further you not only alienate those you directly attack – Trump or myself, but every single silent person who can say – he is talking about ME.
You have not grasped this yet.
I keep telling you all that ideas, philosophy are important.
The ideas and philosophy underpining the left is morally bankrupt.
It is guaranteed to produce the conflict we have today – and it quite often leads to violence
What happens in 2020 if Trump wins in a landslide ?
What then ? Where to do you go next ?
Are you capable of understanding that the seeds of your own destruction come within you ?
Trump – though his flaws are many is not the cause of our bitter conflict today.
That conflict OBVIOUSLY predates Trump.
You are the cause. Your choice to attack people rather than to make arguments.
Make an actual argument.
You have made a number of posts. All of them are just escalating personal attacks.
You have not asserted any facts to support your argument or to contradict mine.
Nor have you provided any to support your personal slurs.
You do not even grasp how personally self destructive your response are.
You have accused me of being delusional.
I have provided a long list of indisputable facts that support my argument..
There is a possibility I am wrong. But delusion is disconnection from reality – you know FACTS. I have a firm grasp of the facts – even the few that support counter arguments,
Your slanderous assertion of delusion, is both wrong and immoral.
When your idea of argument is defaming the person you are arguing with – going beyond claiming they are wrong to claiming they are delusional, evil, racist, …..
YOU are the problem.
You are also the best reason that Trump will likely win handily in 2020.
When you channel all your energy into defaming people rather than making arguments, you disconnect yourself from reality.
Ron and Priscilla, I am amused by your romantic backward look at hippies. They were mostly stoners, hedonists, brought together by fear of vietnam. They were a silly and disorganized lot. I know this pretty well because I was a first generation hippy wannabe for a few years in the early 70s. They had no organized platform other than being mostly mentally incapacitated most of the time. They had by a stroke of fortune great music to dance naked to. The hard work of the civil rights and earth day movements, etc. that was done by more focused people. It coincided in time with the hippies and the hippies may have done some marching if it seemed like a fun thing to do but it was not hippies getting murdered marching in the deep south, etc. Hippies were lucky if they could get it together to roll a joint.
George Harrison went to San Francisco to see what was happening expecting high creativity and energy, talent, instead he found to his disappointment pathetic pimply stoners.
“We were expecting Haight-Ashbury to be special, a creative and artistic place, filled with Beautiful People, but it was horrible – full of ghastly drop-outs, bums and spotty youths, all out of their brains. Everybody looked stoned – even mothers and babies – and they were so close behind us they were treading on the backs of our heels…” That was Patty actually but George said much the same.
OK Roby, your right, You are coming from the perspective of the stoner hippie. I am coming from the perspective of the anti-government individual like Mario Savio who led the free speech movement to the students killed at Kent State by the national guard during a 1970’s anti-war demonstration. Maybe they were not “hippies”, but they were all “LIBERTARIANS”😁😁😁
Except the binary nature of your argument – I would otherwise agree.
I apparently triggered the Hippy digression. I was not litterally talking about hippies from the 70’s as a significant part of the left today.
My “aging hippie” reference was more a reference to older people who felt they missed their oportunity to change the world when they were younger who are joining today today’s young people to save the world from nearly non-existant racism, etc.
Your own description of your self seems to fit.
Regardless, to clarify AGAIN – my “aging hippie” reference was NOT a litteral reference to actual hippies from the 60’s. It was shorthand for 50+ somethings who think they missed their first oportunity to change the world who are looking to do so now.
Here is Cook with some analysis that discusses NC9 and broader issues.
Essentially there is alot more going on than Trump.
https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/suburban-vote-isnt-blue-it-looks
The solution to speech you do not like is MORE Speech not less.
In response to Social Media censorchip of conservatives – we now have conservatives succeeding in getting FB to censor others.
That is WRONG – but it is quite often been the outcome of censorship. Those advocating for censorship often become the ones censored.
What is it going to take before Zuckerburg and Google and … grasp that this is a losing game for them. That at best they are going to spend infinite hours trying to resolve the competing claims of the left and the right over what to censor.
Let people decide for themselves what they wish to read.
https://www.salon.com/2019/09/14/facebook-removed-doctors-fact-check-of-false-anti-abortion-video-because-ted-cruz-complained/
Ninth was +8 in 2018 according to internet info. I doubt it changed much in less than 12 months.
So Priscilla shared a Tucker video where he basically said this was wonderful news, how great the GOP did, blah, blah, blah.
I pointed out that I questioned his analysis based on current demographics. I pointed out the figures I had did not support Tucker’s far right assessment.
You commented that Tucker was right and offerred info supporting that.
I countered with info that refuted your information and contniued questioning the right wings “exagerated news”.
Now you say “But we are all desparate to see in every election the clues to the next,
and we are all subject to confirmation bias that drives us to see what we want.”
Isn’t that what I tried pointing out in the first place when I questioned Tuckers assessment?
By the way, your data does not even support what Tucker said for the most part!
I have not watched the Tucker Video. I am not saying Tucker was right or wrong – I do not know what he said. Though I can guess.
Absolutely there are myriads of ways to analyse these results.
Contra Robby, it is not “delusional” to analyse the upcoming election as I have – or possible as Tucker has – assuming my guesses regarding his views are correct.
We also may be incorrect.
You have made arguments using facts and evidence – as opposed to defamation and character assassination.
You might be right. I might be right.
Forecasting is difficult – this is a huge problem in economics too.
And we are facing that guessing the economy in 2020 also – another HUGE factor int he election. Figuring out which of a long list of self contradictory facts and analysis best informs us of the future is difficult.
I think absolutely everyone would agree that Trump will lose to ANY democrat if there is a recession in 2020.
Trump will also lose if Rachel Maddow produces a 2015 tape of Trump meeting with Putin to rig the 2016 election. but that is about as likely as pigs flying.
I do not trust polls that much on election day. They are meaningless this far out.
I am still trying to make sense of the Cook +8 – that is the same rank they gave in 2016 – and inarguably the 9th was a little more democratic in 2018 than 2016.
Cook was either wrong in 2016 or in 2018. And I do not know how much.
Regardless, you are correct that if true that is one fact that runs counter to my argument.
And this is an off off year election.
While I think that Trump would win handily if the election was held today – regardless of poll claims. My primary expectation is that MOSTLY the wind is now behind Trump.
The Trump/Russia nonsense is over – if house democrats want to continue – it is their heads.
The direct effect of that has not been felt.
The left and the media will continue to relentlessly attack Trump.
But their credibility has been very severely damaged.
People do not have to know that consciously.
We are seeing ratings of left media tank – that will effect the election – everyone who turns off CNN will be less likely to vote against Trump in 2020, or more likely to stay at home.
2016 was NOT a low turnout election. To beat Trump democrats MUST exceed 2016 turnout. I think it is likely Trump’s vote count will be about the same. He will lose a few from 2016, but he will gain a few – never Trump has mostly fizzled.
Trump will also gain – because he is president and has not actually F’d up. Every Democrat will have the same credibility problem Trump had in 2016. Trump won’t.
I think whether the press likes it or not the news from now until 2020 is likely to favor Trump and hurt democrats.
“isn;t that what I said ?”
We see many of the same things and come to different conclusions.
I want something in 2020 that I am not going to get.
But I am not afraid that Sanders or Warren or .. is going to win.
I have given my reasons I think 2020 is going to be a Trump rout of democrats,
Though I am not sure what will happen in the house and senate.
You do not agree – that is OK.
Facebook is a private company, free to do what it wants, block what it wants, publish what it wsnts. No different than MSNBC refusing to cover smething favorable to the GOP or Fox not covering reporting on abortion favorable to womens medical needs.
Your.local paper makes decisions daily on what is published and what is not, even letters to editor.
Government should never censor, but there is no law where government officials can not request certain information not to be published as long as force is not used in getting it blocked.
Last, Facebook can not be expected to monitor the accuracy of billions of articles, advertisements, etc. But they should be held liable for incorrect information they create and publish or others information shown to be injurious to others that they refuse to remove once that has been shown and requested. Much like retractions published by newspapers.
Others are free to start social media companies that posts what Facebbok and Twitter block.
“Facebook is a private company, free to do what it wants, block what it wants, publish what it wsnts. No different than MSNBC refusing to cover smething favorable to the GOP or Fox not covering reporting on abortion favorable to womens medical needs.”
Actually no, MSNBC and Fox can (and are regularly) sued for defamation. FB can not.
Either FB must play by the same content neutral rules that government must follow, or it is subject to defamation claims for what it publishes.
I would prefer the latter.
Otherwise you are correct.
“There is no law…” actually there is – it is called the constitution.
While this was not absolutely decided – it was very nearly decided 50 years ago with the “h-bomb case”. The federal courts told the litigants to “work it out” – because if they did not – probably he would have to decide on first amendment grounds and he really did not like saying that documentation on how to make an H-Bomb should be published.
Regardless there is lots of constitutional law that suggests there are very few acceptable reasons that government can ask a published not to publish.
Govenrment can not accomplish through the back door what it is prohibited from doing through the front.
Yes, conservative should boycott the social media that is discriminating against them.
But my point was that Zeckerburg ultimately did what conservatives wanted and censored the left. Censorship – is a double edged sword and most likely the advocates of censorship will be the ones censored.
Well someone agrees with my thoughts about NC’s special elections.
If banners come up, just close them to get to article.
John Hood is chairman of the zjohn locke fkundation, member of the media and apoears on NC Spins, a UNC-TV PBS political TV show.
https://www.journalnow.com/opinion/columnists/john-hood-special-election-offers-three-lessons/article_e3be673f-6f1e-5df0-ae1c-fa92cf15a272.htm
Pretty good.
I would also note that: It was an off, off year election, turnout was very low.
That is actually something that should concern republicans – they tend to do better in low turnout elections.
Hood noted that lots of republicans in 2016 voted for “not clinton”.
It is highly unlikely that trump will face a democrat in 2020 who has as bad a character as Clinton. But he is near certain to face a democrat whose politics are openly and radically more extreme and unacceptable. Further Democrats seem intend to continue to make pretty much all the same mistakes they made in 2016.
If you beleive that Clinton was a uniquely bad candidate – and though she was bad, she does not have cloven hooves, then you can feel confident that Democrats will do much better in 2020. No democrat is going to have character as bad as Clinton’s.
But if you beleive that many factors effect voting, and there are many many reasons to say no to a candidate – Democrats have replaced Clinton’s bad character problem with a rush to run like lemmings off the left cliff.
So is that going to alienate more voters than Clinton’s character ?
In every single past election where Republicans have faced a democrat they could paint as far left – Republicans have won in a landslide.
Unless something has changed in our national psyche, the far left tilt of democratic candidates will have atleast as strong an effect on voting as Clinton’s character flaws.
“McCready and Thomas tried to work the same magic this year. It didn’t materialize. Polarization reasserted its pull.”
Ron, I wonder if another factor may have helped polarization reassert its pull. That is, for all of the moderate-sounding Democrats who won in red or purple districts in 2018, there has not been a single piece of legislation to show for it. Nothing. Now, granted, the GOP holds the Senate and the WH, but these “moderate” candidates all claimed that they could and would work with Republicans, and so far, they have done nothing but take impeachment votes and various partisan “show” bills, which they knew would go nowhere in the Senate. No infrastructure talks, no serious attempts to fix healthcare, nothing. Just endless hearings on Trump, and calls for multi-billion dollar plans like the Green New Deal and Medicare for all. It’s ironic that it’s now the Democrats want to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, but with a more socialist single-payer plan.
They have also allowed radicals and anti-Semites like AOC and Ilhan Omar to become the “face” of their party.
So, by doing nothing , they have given voters no reason to vote for them again, moderate or not. Trump fatigue may well be a factor, but I don’t think it’s the only factor, and maybe not even the main one.
Priscilla, they can run as moderates, they may really believe in moderate positions, they may want to cross over and work with the GOP, but there is no way Pelosi will allow that to happen. They may sit on some influencial committees, but if they dont toe the Pelosi line, the best they could expect would be chair of the cammode cleaning committee. And then she would arrange primary opponents to make sure they were not arroubd next term. She can live with the AOC’s because they wont do anything to help Trump.
To hell with anything good for the country, whats important is whats good for the party.
When voters in swing districts elected democrats in 2018 – they did not elect AOC’s.
They elected Connor Lamb’s – have you heard anything of him since the election ?
They specifically elected moderates who promised to work together, who actively distanced themselves from Pelosi much less from AOC.
What we just saw in NC 9 is that is not enough in 2019.
There are many districts where D’s won narrow victories that the freshman incumbents are behind – often behind the republican they beat in 2019. Including CA and NM.
Pelosi has dictated that she will allow no bi-partisan legislation, as long as Trump is president. And not one so-called moderate house member has had the courage to stand up to her, because they know that it would cause them to lose their cushy, do-nothing jobs.
Meanwhile, the Dem presidential candidates are trying to outdo each other in terms of extreme positions that they hope every one will forget by the time of the general election. Massive tax hikes, mandatory gun confiscation, elimination of private health insurance, student loan forgiveness, free college and free healthcare for illegal immigrants, and all other manner of leftwing wish list stuff.
And, yet, many voters believe that, once in power, these people will abide by the Constitution and govern responsibly.
There is no way that they will.
Priscilla, and to add to your list of issues concerning presidential candidates that most of them jumped all over the news from the NY “Slimes” about Kavanaugh and demand his impeachment. Now the Slimes has basically retracted that story, but I have heard nothing from the candidates.a
But millions have heard their position and few will see the retraction.
The N.Y. Times needs to be sold at super market checkout cash registers along with the National Inquirer.
The story that NYT ran – if true is nuts.
It requires that you beleive that Yale regularly had non-sexual clothing free parties.
Further the act described is NOT an assault by K – and an assualt on K and the other party by a 3rd party.
That we are even discussing such nonsensical garbage is disturbing.
In other K related news Ford’s lawyer has now publicly stated that Ford’s motive was to defame K.
I am going to try to pretend that Ford’s lawyer is merely committing malpractice, and does not know Ford’s motivations. Regardless, Her statement is rife with moral and ethical problems – whether it is true or not.
Brain Steven’s says that no person is the worst thing they have ever done.
Today our media, democrats and the left seem to think that you can judge an entire person by the worst allegation that someone is willing to make.
Please explain to me why any of these Kavanaugh stories should ever have been printed, much less featured in a Senate hearing ?
Sen. McCarthy became a pariah over idiotic and defamatory accusations.
Why is “McCarthyism” a staple of the media, the left, democrats – senators and house members ?
Dave “The story that NYT ran – if true is nuts.”
you need to do some research. The N.Y. Spikes news department would not run the story. The opinion department decided to run the story written by one of their reporters who wrote a book about Kavanaugh, “The Education of Kavanaugh” that covered this situation and stated in the book that the woman could not remember this issue of could not substantiate it
(something to that effect since I won’t waste money on liberal media crap). Anyway, the opinion department ran with the story that left out the part she had no recollection and now some reports are indicating problems internally at the Spikes between the two departments.
There is still an impeachment movement regardless and I have heard no retraction from any of the Democrat candidates. And defamation of character charges would be counted productive as this would just can the fires of the liberal press against K.
The NYT Oppinion staff will allow you to assert any oppinion you want in an op-ed, but they absolutely require that any facts you cite must be proveably true.
BTW this came up in an entirely different matter recently as the NYT incorrectly fact checked an Op Ed – the author claimed that americans below the poverty line had higher standards of living than europeans below the median. NYT claimed Bunk.
Turns out NYT was right. Americans at the poverty line have a higher standard of living than the average european. NYT was just right in the wrong way.
I am not attacking moderate democrats.
Their future is their own business.
Ultimately THEY have to take back their party from the AOC’s or Pelosi’s or Nadler’s or Schiff’s or …..
Or at best they will be powerless and at worst they will be defeated.
The Republican party has been in civil war since 2000. But it has not faced an existential threat, just a struggle for power and control as old groups weakened.
Democrats face an existential threat from within.
Robby seems to think I am somehow “gloating” that Trump is going to win in a landslide.
I am not. That will be a disaster. We need two parties. But democrats are bat shit crazy and intent on self destruction.
I noted the prior landslides when democrats went left.
There is something fundimentally different this time – I do not see the much of the sane future voices in the democratic party that will bring them back after defeat.
Democrats should have tried to figure out the lessons of 2016. Instead they have doubled down on their mistakes. I am not sure what they will do if Trump wins in 2020, but I am completely sure it will be bad.
“Robby seems to think I am somehow “gloating” that Trump is going to win in a landslide.”
Where did I say that?
“I am not. That will be a disaster. We need two parties.”
Hallelujah! We agree on something!
“But democrats are bat shit crazy and intent on self destruction.”
I half agree. Progressives are bat shit crazy. “The democrats” is not some monolithic thing. The Democrats are tens of millions of individuals and the illusion that they have just one idea or purpose is just that, an illusion. So far, Biden leads. They are having a civil war, for sure,
Roby” The Democrats are tens of millions of individuals and the illusion that they have just one idea or purpose is just that, an illusion.”
And just to be fair, the democrats are facing the same dilemma as the G.O.P in 2016, but just in reverse. One moderate against a host of non-traditional progressives. One populist against a host of traditional Republicans.
Remember, Republicans, are also ” tens of millions of individuals and the illusion that they have just one idea or purpose is just that, an illusion. ” Trump never got much more than 35% in primaries except for a couple at the beginning. Once the nomination was sewed up, he then began getting in the mid 40’s.
2016 republicans reflected a political spectrum. Not a very narrow viewpoint.
Further ideologically any one of them could have appealed to the center.
Political differences in the GOP are NOT ideologically extreme. The most extreme GOP policiy positions are tolerable by moderates.
The 2018 republican primary was a clash of personalities not positions – I do not know how Trump won.
“Seems to think” is pretty clear to me.
BTW you constantly paint me as a Trump supporter,
you constantly engage in binary thinking and arguments.
We are forecasting what WILL happen, not what SHOULD happen.
What Should happen is someone like Gary Johnson should win the election.
Regardless there is a gigantic gulf between
“I Love Trump” and “Trump is not Hitler”, or even President Trump is thus far a better president than Obama.
Does the fact that I will fight for the free speach and free assembly rights of ACTUAL Nazi’s mean I am a Nazi ?
The left today does not understand that at all – though once upon a time they used to.
You claim to understand – but then act as if you do not.
Sometimes – often PARTS of your remarks are moderate left,
But when push comes to shove you are all in supporting the far left.
I suspect we agree on alot.
I strive in my actions and my words and my arguments to be consistent.
You don’t – and that results in conflict – often you are not only in conflict with me, but your own values – presuming I can trust what you have said.
Just to be clear – “two parties” does not mean this democratic house that is absolutely awful.
We need to hear the voices of the “connor lambs” – the democrats who were elected in 2018 BECAUSE they were “moderate”
Where are they ? They are mostly good people. They are far better than the safe seat democrats and republicans, and they are going to be gone in 2020 likely replaced by moderate republicans – who will too be gone shortly after.
This is the reason that Democrats are in trouble – the chart is from 2017. I would expect the left shift is worse, while the right shift has diminished since then.
Regardless the point is that the center of the GOP is closer to the center of the country.
That means that republicans do not have to shift too far right to win a nomination and have less risk of losing their base when they shift back.
This is also the a major part of the advantage of an incumbent.
Trump does not have to address a consequential primary. Trump and all republicans have an entire year plus to paint democrats as extreme left – and democrats are falling over themsleves helping.
Another Democrat problem not evident on the chart is that democrats as a whole – and the far left of democrats in particular are much YOUNGER than republicans as a whole.
While younger people are voting more reliably today than 50 years ago – it is not ALOT more reliably. But more important – younger voters are much less predictable.
If as an example Bernie supporters do not get Bernie – they will not vote or even vote for Trump.
The core of the democratic party is NOT YOU. Maybe it was in the past, but it is not today.
The policies that democratic candidates are offering are a deliberate appeal to YOUTH.
That is an extremely volatile base.
Democrats are NOT having a civil war.
The 2/3 of the part that is not on the extreme left has ceded the field.
Again why Trump will win in a landslide.
The only thing needed for Trump to win in a landslide is for disaffected moderate democrats to stay home. Or if any democrat tacks right – for those on the extreme left to stay home.
I do not agree with all of Trump’s policies – I do not think that VDH does either.
But his assessment is correct.
The left has engaged in total war against the core values of this country.
Andrew Sullivan wrote an excellent op ed on 1619,
noting that while it brings to the fore alot of important past history that americans tend to hide from and that is good.
At the same time the thesis – that the american idea is corrupt at its core is complete bunkum.
I would nit pick Sullivan a little – I DID receive a HS education in the US. And though it did NOT have the unrelenting dark theme of 1619, it did not hide from the evils of slavery, or our treatment of minorities.
It is not sufficient to note that for all of its flaws America has been and remains on every issue in 1619 BETTER than the rest of the world. Slavery still exists in africa and some muslim nations. The US was unfortunately not the first country to end it, but was one of the early countries to end it. Our treatment of minorities has historically been poor – but remains to this day better than most anywhere else in the world.
We are far from perfect. But we are still the worlds leader – not just by virtue of power or standard of living, but its MORAL leader. We do not so much lecture other counties, as provide them an example. The very european nations that lecture the US on race – are themselves in the midst or much worse racial problems than the US.
The american idea – that is what the left is committed to destroy.
I do not think Trump is the best representative of that idea.
But Oddly – as he has sort of said, He is the one who was “chosen” to fight for it.
As VDH notes – the left excoritated the Bushes, Romney, McCain. and they presided over or offered a slow retreat from the american idea.
Trump has unabashedly GONE TO WAR with those seeking to trash the american idea.
His reward – the left – as well as myriads of posters here treat him worse than a rabid animal.
Honestly – it is not Trump that I am defending when I am purportedly defending Trump.
It is the millions of americans who are tired of being called racist, because they are proud to be americans. I do not agree with all of their ideas – or all of Trumps.
But their errors on an assortment of issues are far less dangerous than the lefts war against the very idea of america, and the lefts tactic of avoiding all issues and fixating on personal destruction.
Back to the trump landslide question.
I strongly believe that if the dem candidate is a progressive then the 1972 McGovern landslide nightmare is worth mentioning, and the 1964 Mondale landslide loss is also worth mentioning as context for 2020. The Dems should not nominate a progressive or they are putting themselves and the country in serious trouble. If they were not running against trump they could even face a landslide loss in this case.
But, the last democrat to lose by a landslide was Mondale in 84. The country has changed since 1984.
53, 37, 47, 48*, 51, 46, 47, 46*
These are the percentages of the popular vote that the GOP candidate has won from 1988. They last won California in 1988. Asterisks mark they years they won while losing the popular vote.
This is Not a left wing country or electorate, but its not such a strongly GOP or right of center country either anymore. Its very definitely Not a trump GOP country. I am a little lost to understand the country at the moment, but I at least understand these things to be true.
In the last election the dems won the House vote by I believe 7 points (Where was Rasmussen’s pink wave?). They lost a net of 2 Senate seats, but those were weakly held seats they were unlikely to have held and the Senate contests involved mostly Dem seats, 24 to 9. The won the Senate popular vote by 58% to 38%. The GOP lost in Arizona running a veteran combat pilot against a woman who described herself as a witch. The dems took a seat in Nevada. A Bernie progressive lost by a whisker in Florida. The Montana democrat held his seat. Prior to that the GOP lost a Senate seat in Alabama in a special election. 2018 was not a great year for the GOP and it was mostly due to how the country feels about trump, his character, his priorities.
trump has been stably 10-13 points underwater with a good economy and without starting any major wars. He still loses to every potential democrat in some polls and by 16 points to Biden. Anyone who thinks that voters do not care about and are not following trump’s actions and character is fooling themself. Wishful thinking. I love it, they should continue like that.
If the dems F up completely and nominate sanders, the economy holds up till election day, trump handles the crises and situations that come up between now and election day well, and trump manages to curtail his idiotic tweeting and act presidential, Then he could conceivably win the popular vote by more than 5 points. The Dems will win the West coast and the Northeast no matter what.
If the Dems nominate Biden, the economy falters, trump continues to tweet and act like a jackass, and fails to handle crises well, then the Dems will win conclusively, and probably take the Senate as well, although I do not see them getting more than 53 seats in any case. If they run a progressive for POTUS they will not likely win the Senate.
My takeaway message: This is not inherently a Bernie progressive country and its not inherently a trump country, contrary to the delusions that lefties and trumpies hold. The country is being forced out of its natural ideological habitat by a series of weird circumstances, which started from 9/11 and include the 2007 financial crisis and the situation with ISIS and Islamic terrorism and the “Arab spring”. It makes for a very weird and unpredictable election and future beyond the election.
A majority of Americans will strongly reject either a trump or a progressive victory. A Biden win would likely be acceptable to the majority of Americans, it would be by far the least divisive result.
If I were Biden I would run on that idea: I can bring some degree of peace and unity that others cannot, not to mention some stability and normalcy. The other alternatives, re elect trump or elect a progressive, lead to even more division and the winning side trying to force things on Americans that the majority do not want.
“and by 16 points to Biden” Typo. 10 to 15 points.
“1964 Mondale landslide loss” 1984 that is.
Roby, I don’t think Biden can withstand the Warren/Sanders onslaught. Once Iowa happens, money begins drying up for the mid level candidates. That leaves Warren/Sanders with 70% of the vote to divide. Adding the small percentage from the ones withdrawing results in 3 with about 30%-35%. Biden will continue to make blunders, as he has all his career, but this will be used against him, all while the press deftly avoids that Sanders and Warren are also over-the-hill senators that should have retired years ago.
We can get into the specifics as to why Warren and Sanders scare me more than a “jackass” Trump later when the candidates are known. I will just say now its policy v persona.
We do have good news/bad news on the Senate front. Tommy Tuberville, former Auburn football coach is leading all G.O.P. candidates. If the university of Alabama’s fans can find themselves voting for an Auburn football coach, this will likely turn one seat to the G.O.P. Just the fact most people in Alabama trust football coaches far more than politicians, this looks good so far.
That math makes sense, but I also see that Biden polls better against trump than Warren and sanders and this cycle democrats are Very hungry for electability. That will also affect how people vote. So I don’t know how it works out, but I would call it 50-50. I think the chances that it will be sanders are low, it a Biden Warren race in my eyes as of today and barring any earthquake in the dems.
If its sanders, then his aging campus ISO activist nonsense will not play well. I see him getting beaten badly. He has one note: Its the cawperations, we have to stop the cawperations. That can only go so far outside Vermont or the dem primaries.
You can tell me why Warren scares you more than trump if you like, buts its un-necessary, I already 100% understand what you believe about that!
If I thought that the Dems would carry the Senate while running Warren I would also be highly afraid of her. But I don’t think they will carry the swing states in the Senate races with a Warren platform. If she becomes POTUS she will have very little power to bring about her progressive domestic agenda. Still, I understand why she is scary, believe me.
Roby, “That math makes sense, but I also see that Biden polls better against trump than Warren and sanders and this cycle democrats are Very hungry for electability.”
I thought that too of the G.O.P. in 2016 after putting up with Obama for 8 years, but the primary voters still had a brain fart and gave the Republicans Trump. Where Rubio, Bush, Kasich or even Cruz would have done much better against Clinton (IMO), Trump squeezed by in 3 states with 107,000 votes making the difference. (remember I voted for Johnson)
Don’t expect voters to be smart in their decisions.That has not happened since 1992.(and 96). About the time the internet became a source of “true info”. Remember, if its on the internet, its has to be true.
Biden can not get much above 30 – no matter what he does.
If he wins the nomination, he is going to have a heard time getting Bernie and Warren Supporters on board.
That was part of what killed Hillary. Bernie Bros sat the election out or even voted for Trump.
If you could force everyone to vote – Biden would beat Trump.
But you can not force people to vote.
Biden has the greatest appeal to moderates, but he is not going to get anyone out to vote in the way Trump supporters are going to.
I do not know what is going to happen in the Senate.
Republicans had the deck stacked in their favor in 2019 – but everything else was running against them – and they did well and very nearly pulled of an upset.
Further it appears the Senate election was heavily effected by the Kavanaugh hearings and by Trump.
Trump was also a major factor in the house – but while he was somehow a positive in senate elections he was negative in house ones.
I think that Democrats are going to have big losses in the house – but probably narrowly retain control.
But anything could happen in the Senate.
In the long run Republicans control the senate – they control 2/3 of states.
I am pinning my hopes on the idea that GOP and dem voters have different farting habits.
Yes-
👍👍👍
So I am nuts for raising the possibility of a Trump landslide,
Yet, even the most virulent Trump is an evil nazi crowd here grasps that when D’s go heard left they get obliterated and that there is a real danger of a Trump landslide.
If you are afraid of it – then my assertion is not fantasy.
So after claiming that a Trump landslide is just a fantasy – you respond by admitting that you have a credible fear of it. While your fears are not evidence of the probability of a Trump landslide. They ARE evidence that even you do not really beleive your own attacks on me regarding it.
The country has changed over time – but that is a naked assertion an actual argument would provide substance of what changes have occured and how those support your argument.
The constitutional criteria for the election of a president is winning the majority of votes in the electoral college, That has been the criteria since the ratification of the constitution. Every candidate for president has run their campaign with the sole goal of getting the most votes in the electoral college.
Unless you change the constitution other measures are not relevant.
Is the objective of contenders in the superbowl to gain the most rushing yards ? Passing yards ? Or to score the most points. If a team had a choice between increasing their score or adding to their total offensive yards or any other statistic of the game – which would they choose ?
Put simply the percent of the popular vote does not mean anything – unless it is the criteria for electing a president. It does not mean anything – because candidates will forgo running up the popular vote for winning in states needed to get elected.
That is precisely what Trump OBVIOUSLY did in 2016, and precisely what Clinton did not do.
Further to win in the rust belt – by these 70,000 votes Democrats fixate on Trump had to shift those states by a total of 2.5M votes from Romney/Obama – do you think that if Trump was capable shifting 2.5 M votes in 4 states, that if the rules were different he might just as easily have been able to win the popular vote ?
That is pure speculation – but it is speculation driven by your specious claim that those numbers mean something.
As to CA – the entire state has become the new Cook county. In 2018 one Republican won their Seat by 8% on election night – only to see that evaporate as mail in votes were counted.
Across the country historically mail in votes have ALWAYS fallen slightly to the right of in person voting – every district everywhere for decades. Except in CA in 2018.
LA has 10% more registered voters than people. We were just talking about NC9.
Bishop in NC9 essentially lost the 2018 election – because the tactics he used were illegal in NC – they are not only legal in CA but are at the core of democrats sweep in CA in 2018.
Regardless, CA is a perfect demonstration of why we have an electoral college. God forbid the entire country was run like CA.
Though CA is a reflection of other things. Democrats fixate on issues like income inequality – yet the US actually has low income inequality – and it has been declining over decades.
The middle class has been “destroyed” – by making it wealthier – by spreading it over a much larger income range – by significantly increasing the top income for those in the middle class.
But California has the worst IE in the country – and that will only grow. CA has a hollowing out of the middle class. Increasingly it is made of only the poor and the rich.
That is your idea of the direction the country should take ?
“this is not a left wing country” – do you know what an oxymoron is ?
The country can not be “right” or “left” – right and left are defined – as the 50% right of center, and the 50% left of center.
What has happened – and the Pew data supports it is that the center of the country has shifted slightly left – republicans have shifted slightly left.
We are not fighting over homosexuality, or gay marraige, we are fighting over whether govenrment can force someone to make cakes that violate their religion.
While “republicans” have shifted slightly left – with most republicans just slightly to the right of center – democrats have shifted radically left – with the center of mass of the democratic party now 4-5 times farther from the center as the republicans are.
That should be self evident just looking at Trump – and every 2016 GOP candidate.
What “extreme” policies are republicans advocating ?
Trump’s most extreme positions – Trade and immigration until very recently did not divide on party lines. There are papers written by Senator Warren that rightly call her own current position on those issues idiocy.
There are many issues I do not agree with Trump on. There are none that he is extreme.
There are no current democratic candidates that are not flogging extreme positions,
But Fred Phelps was always fringe – and he is dead – as is Jesse Helms, and Oral Roberts.
Social conservatism is “DEAD”. There is almost no “hard right” left.
By the lefts definition of “extreme right” people like George Will are on the radical right.
McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis were all moderates – compared to ANY current candidate.
Despite republican criticism of him – I have repeatedly praised Carter. He actually went to war with his own party as president. No president ever has been as deregulatory as Carter.
Much of what Reagan took credit for – the policies that ended inflation, and produced the “great moderation” were Carter Polices.
Ignoring his “national healthcare” initiative Clinton was likewise a slightly right of center democrat – fiscally conservative, even somewhat socially conservative.
I think he was a repugnant person, and his foreign policy was disasterous.
But for the financial crisis Obama would have lost to McCain. But even Obama is a weird amalgam of right and left.
Just as Carter formed the core of Reagan’s revolution, Trump’s immigration policies were born in the Obama administration.
Even Eric Holder is accusing democrats of being complete wingnuts on immigration.
“Borders mean something”, And Jeh Johnson – obama’s head of DHS has quietly defended Trump’s policies.
Hillary went to a great deal to trouble to alteast appear to be moderate in 2016.
Regardless, you are absolutely right – moderate democrats do extremely well in elections.
What current democrats is moderate ?
Every single current democratic candidate is running significantly to the left of Obama.
They are running left of McGovern, Dukakis, and Mondale.
They are running way left of the country today.
“It is not a Trump Country”
What does that mean ?
I will absolutley give you that significant portions of the country are offended by Trump’s style.
There are lots and lots of areas to criticisze Trump – none of those are actually political.
They have nothing to do with right or left.
Trump’s treatment of women is tame compared to Clinton’s and indistinguishable from Biden’s. #metoo made it pretty clear that mysogyny does not have ideological borders.
What is it about Trump that you find offensive that has anything to do with left/right ?
What policy of Trump’s is “hard right” ?
What policy of Trump’s does not have broad public support ?
Trump is NOT the ideological balance to Sanders.
I disagree with him on many issues – but he is not “hard right” on those issues.
Most of where I disagree with him – are issues that BOTH parties shared and were wrong about not that long ago.
In fact lets go beyond Trump – please name a single significant republican that is “hard” or “extreme” right – and explain why on the basis of ISSUES – not personality ?
There are few if any. Yet, every significant democrat not only leans left but is shifting further left constantly.
If 2020 becomes a choice of ideology – democrats will lose almost the entire country.
Not because the country is “hard right” – that is tautologically false nonsense.
But because there is almost no “extreme right” left, in the country at all. While the entire democratic slate is “extreme left”.
Your blindness, the things you deny the existence of, is your own problem. I will not beat my head against the wall of your denial.
As to your trump landslide, we can discuss that further in about 14 months on Nov 4. If you were correct I will admit it. If you were full of crap, I will not expect you to man up to it. Instead I will expect an impressive (in quantity) wall of nonsense.
“Your blindness, the things you deny the existence of, is your own problem. I will not beat my head against the wall of your denial.”
Back to fact free rantings and slurs.
Please tell me where is the substance of your remark ?
How do I rebut a being slurred for denying things you refuse to specify ?
But that is the point – lobb moral claims without any facts to support them.
You are not obligated to beat your head regarding anything.
But if you want respect and credibility – not just from me, but from anyone in the world, if you make a moral claim – you MUST back it up with FACTS.
This garbage of “I am right, and you are immoral, and I will not even deign to tell you what it is that I am right and you are immoral about” is itself IMMORAL.
If you are going to call someone a liar, then you are obligated to make it clear what the actual lie is.
When you make a moral claim against someone else – only one of you will emerge with their reputation intact.
With respect to a Trump landslide.
There are lots of tea leaves and you can find ones to support whatever claim you wish to make.
My peering into the crystal ball leeds to the conclusion that absent some unexpected change between now and nov 2020 trump will win EASILY,
That is a prediction. I will be clearer.
Absent:
1). The stock market tanking
2). Growth dropping below 2.5%
3). Unemployment rising.
4). An unnecescary war,
5). Video being uncovered with Trump and Putin plotting the takeover of the US.
or Trump getting caught in the oval with a naked teen
none of which are likely, Trump will get atleast 380 in the electoral college.
Regardless Trump will be re-elected as long as growth remains above 2% – though there will be no landslide.
You need not agree with that. assessment.
Further it is a forecast. It is not a lie, it has no moral value, it might prove true, it also may prove false. Regardless, its success of failure will impact my credibility as a FORECASTER,
which is not something that I greatly value.
I do not think I am especially good at it.
But I do not think that most of those who ARE purportedly good at it have actually been .
But I will go further and note – BOTH you and Jay have made responses that make CLEAR that you beleive a trump landslide in 2020 is a real possibility.
So all we are debating is the odds – probability.
The probability is high enough to worry you.
That alone proves the forecast is not “a fantasy” as you have claimed.
Regardless, Trump winning in a landslide is NOT my fantasy.
That would be someone like Gary Johnson winning – or even hitting 5%.
If I am going to fantasize, it will be about something I would actually like to see.
Trump winning landslide or otherwise is not a nightmare for me.
It is just 4 more years the left will not have the easy opportunity to destroy the country.
There is nothing wrong with your advice to Biden or democrats – but for one thing.
It should be self evident at the moment that democrats are NOT going to elect a “moderate” or even a “left moderate”.
Despite what I have said – I do not beleive that Biden or Warren, or Beto, or Buttigieg or …. are “extreme left”.
These are intelligent people – atleast some of them.
But they are falling overthemselves to take “extreme left” positions.
They are doing so, because that is the only way they can win the democratic nomination.
If Biden took your advise – he will be massacred.
This is also a part of why you are likely to see a trump landslide.
Democrats can not win national primaries without taking extreme left positions on issues.
That should be “self evident” to you – what you see in the DNC debates – is candidates appealing to the voters they need to win the nomination.
The democratic party does not care about “moderation” – if they did, you would see money and polls supporting moderate democrats.
I think Tulsi Gabard is too far left for me. But she is “hard right” compared to the the 10 who are in the debates.
Regardless, you can beleive me or not about the driving forces that have shifted nearly all democrats to the left.
You can pray that “Moderate Joe” will find his voice.
But democrats are going to spend the next 9 months fighting with each other about how far left they can go. At the end to that they will pick a candidate. No matter who that is, they will have a long long trail of extreme leftist nonsense as an albatross arround their necks.
Worse – if they try to tack to the center in the general they will lose their base.
Why is this likely to be a landslide ?
Because Trump and republicans are going to capitalize on the fact that the democrats have boxed themselves into the far left.
Because democrats can not distance themselves from the far left without losing their base.
Trump’s base is rock solid – hopefully you grasp that by now.
Trump can spend the entire campaign attacking the left, touting his successes, and appealing to those in the middle.
“Two hunters bedded down at their campfire and were about to fall asleep when a giant bear loomed in front of them.
One hunter rushed to put on his sneakers. The other said, “What good will that do? You will never outrun that bear.”
The first one said, “All I have to do is to outrun you!”””
To win the election in a landslide Trump must:
Hold his base – a near certainty.
Gain a small number of votes outside his base,
Make sure that voters that will not vote for him will not vote for democrats.
Conversely democrats can not both hold their base and appeal to moderates.
The current democratic base is fickle. If their candidates move too far tot he middle they will not vote.
By the way, to get back to the topic of Rick’s post for a bit…Beto O’Rourke has chosen to center his candidacy around a policy of government force that carries a high likelihood of genuine violence and loss of life, and almost none of the other candidates are even acting as if this is a bad idea.
Although he now says that he would rely on Americans obeying an order to give up their AR15’s, that he apparently thinks he could issue as president, rather than sending armed government agents going door-to-door to confiscate, by force, the private property of people who legally purchased their guns and never used them for any illegal purpose, I think that it’s highly unlikely that gun owners, who believe that they have the right to self-defense, would meekly submit to this.
More likely, it would be a bloody debacle, in which many formerly law abiding citizens, as well as government agents following orders, would end up dead or wounded, because President Beto decided to defy the Constitution with force. It could possibly start a real civil war. In any case, it’s shockingly irresponsible to propose such a thing.
As far as I can tell, the only candidate on the debate stage who pushed back, even a little, when Beto declared “Hell yeah, we’re gonna take your guns!” was Joe Biden, and he was drowned out by the cheering of the crowd for Beto’s words, and Kamala Harris laughing hysterically as she told Biden “Yes We Can!”
So, anyone interested in constitutional gun law reform is pretty much SOL because of the extremism of these people. It’s pretty much guaranteed that any bill that is agreed upon by Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey, Chris Coons and the President ~ that is, a bill that could pass both houses and be signed into law ~ will go down in flames, because conservatives will say that all of their fears about gun control being a ruse for gun confiscation have been validated.
I would like to see Beto takes his gun program to Westmont, Harbor section, & Koreatown and other sections of South L.A., West Town in Chicago and other cities with high crime rates. Tell the people in those areas how their guns are banned and witness how law abiding those people would be. Then apply what worked there to the rest of the country.
I can’t comment on how people in other parts of the country will respond, but I can tell you how the “Bubba’s” and extreme right around this part of the country would. There would be many dead and injured, including my brother-in-law. He is very anti-social, almost a recluse, leaves everyone alone and expects the same. He lives down the street and I never see him. But if someone tried confiscating his AR rifles, I suspect another Ruby Ridge would occur. And I suspect many would show up and give him support.
But when politicians only need to reach out to 26%-27% of the adults in this country to win, why worry about the other 70%-73% that they don’t think matter. Hillary and Trump did nothing to attract me and many others and I suspect Trump and “whoever” will do nothing to attract my vote in 2020.
“ I think that it’s highly unlikely that gun owners, who believe that they have the right to self-defense, would meekly submit to this.”
Didn’t 70% of Australians meekly submit to the same kind of law?
Did household invasions or other crimes against the public by the 30% who kept those weapons diminish? Yes.
Did mass shootings diminish significantly. Yes.
Did “Rake” go into syndication? Yes!
https://www.google.com/search?q=australian+tv+series+rake&client=firefox-b-1-m&prmd=vnsi&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjeq6uswtbkAhXdIDQIHRfsCmMQ_AUIGSgE&biw=1024&bih=648#imgrc=QwZX8MDt9UMgWM
Jay, you may be right but I seriously believe people in the USA would not respond the same as in Australia.
For the main reason, there was never a national law in Australia on gun ownership. The federal government supported the individual states and territories in Australia, each with their own law. The feds did work with the state’s after the shootings, but each state controls licensing and ownership still today. In America, there is a clear national RIGHT to gun ownership in the constitution.
I know you and others do not agree that gun ownership is a right for anything other than flint lock rifles and guns. But some do believe the meaning of the constitution evolves with the evolution of society and technology, so gun ownership now covers much more than single shot rifles and pistols.
If the right to gun ownership has not evolved with technology, then the right to free speech should not cover what is said and communicated on the internet. The right to speech should be limited to technology of the 1700’s, basically standing on a street corner, newspapers and books.
So, for those that support the constitutional rights as I do, if you want the ownership of guns restricted, do it the right way, amend the constitution. Like you say about people giving up their guns, if they support that, why wouldn’t they also support an amendment restricting ownership?
This entire gun control debate is stupid.
The central premise is that feelings and outrage make changing reality in a positive way possible.
“Didn’t 70% of Australians meekly submit to the same kind of law?”
Yes, But Australia and America are vastly different when it comes to guns:
1. There is no 2nd Amendment-style protection written into Australia’s founding document. Americans believe that gun ownership is a right….because it is.
2. The mandatory “buyback” program confiscated less than a million guns,
which was estimated to be 1/5 to 1/3 of the total number of guns in the country. To match that percentage, a US confiscation/buyback would need to take somewhere around 100,000,000 guns ~ and that would still leave 200,000,000 to 250,000,000 guns out there. THe cost alone would be prohibitive, even if it were a “real” buyback (that is, if the government were going to give owners a fair market price, which of course they wouldn’t)
3. Assuming that American gun owners wouldn’t “meekly” give up their guns is a pretty safe assumption. Maybe a small number would, but, to even get to 100 million there would have to be a door to door confiscation. We do not have a national gun registry, so the government doesn’t know who the gun owners are. Do you think think that the government would be able to hire and pay, thousands upon thousands of ATF agents, and do you think that Americans would voluntarily let these agents come inot their homes and search for guns??
More likely there would be a resistance that would make the “resist Trump” movement look like a game of patty-cake. Even non- gun owners would be outraged at the idea of government jackboots coming in to tear their homes apart, looking for weapons, and many gun owners would take the Charlton Heston position of making the Feds pry their guns from their cold dead hands.
It’s not going to happen, without violence and bloodshed.
“It’s not going to happen, without violence and bloodshed.”
No shortage of that now, first graders, church and synagogue goersm concert attendees, and on and on, practically weekly massacres.
Any gun owner who thinks its more important to hold onto his assault weapon than to obey the law that makes murder a crime would simply a violent criminal. I have no sympathy.
Yes, there are a lot of guns but no one is talking about outlawing them all. I am sick to death of the idea that it is impossible in principle to regulate what type of guns people can have. I see no danger that the 2nd amendment would allow the confiscation of all guns, people will be able to have guns to hunt, they will be able to own a gun for self defence in their home.
If the 2nd amendment is finally interpreted by the SC to say that guns and gun ownership cannot be regulated then yes, the 2nd amendment must go. But the 2nd amendment does not say that, or at least has not thus far been interpreted to say that. There have been guns laws on the books for a long time and they have not been ruled unconstitutional.
The NRA and the truly over the top gun nuts are like the abortion radicals who demand the right to choose with no restrictions whatsoever. I’m sick of the lot of the rights radicals. Me, me, me, don’t dare regulate me. I might have to kill you if you do is the special twist the gun nuts put to this.
I actually seriously doubt how many people are going to commit murder and mayhem because they are that in love with their AK-47. Such people do not deserve respect and deference, especially when the cost of making them a special protected species is the constant slaughter of innocents. If it is their choice to turn to violence they should face the consequences that violent criminals face. Why are GOP politicians so unable to say that? The leverage the NRA of GOP politicians has is obscene. Wayne LaPierre practically has a private hotline to trump.
The gun nuts are already guaranteed to vote republican, and do every election. Let the dem party court those of us who want gun regulations, we outnumber the NRA voters. Its a solid political choice.
Many conservatives have taken up the idea guns must not be regulated as a sort of holy principle. BUT It is not by all means all conservatives. There are plenty of sane conservatives who support many types of gun control.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-politicians-are-much-more-resistant-to-gun-control-than-gop-voters/
The best place to start is the attempts to get guns out of the hands of people who are unhinged. The NRA won’t even have that. &*^%$# bastards.
I am hoping that Beto’s outburst marks a turning point in coddling the NRA and the worst types of gun nuts. I have no illusions, even if the country is finally willing to make a stand of removing the ability to mass murder using guns, it will be a long slow process in gun nut America. All the reason to seriously start now and get the long process under way.
Prohibition in the 20’s and the only people that did not break the law were the prohibitionist that got the law past.
Drug laws since whenever and we have the worst cases of opiod abuse in history.
Marijuana has been illegal and law enforcement has done nothing but make the Latino cartels mega rich.
Gambling and the numbers racket illegal for years, could not be controlled, so they states decided to go in the business themselves and called it the lottery.
Ban an AR-15/47 or whatever, and then that same nut gets two Glock 9 mm guns with multiple clips with 10 bullets and goes into a crowded space and begins shooting. Clip takes 2 seconds to drop are insert, keeps shooting.And close up handgun is much more accurate than spraying bullets from a distance with a rifle. Probably more bullets fired from the rifle, but due to accuracy of the hand gun just as deadly if not more depending on ability of the shooter. So in less than 10-15 seconds, a good shooter can empty a 10 shot clip (or more), switch guns, empty it, reload both and empty both. Just depends on how fast that finger can react and squeeze again. Anyway, in 1 minute it is conceivable a shooter could get off more than 100 rounds unless the guns overheat or jamb. The rifles are just the weapon of choice. ban them and another becomes a weapon of choice and may be even more deadly.
So tell me, if these prohibitions did not and do not work, how is another law prohibiting something going to work this time? If they can not control the mass imports of illegal drugs, how are they going to control the illegal imports by the cartels of illegal guns?
I am not some nut that makes comments like Charlton Heston about prying guns from my cold dead hands, I am being a realist and trying to point out that never in history has any prohibition on anything worked in this country. We have gun laws that prohibit certain individuals from owning guns, Has that worked in LA and Chicago? Maybe it worked in the UK. Its an island for the most part. Australia is an island like country. None of those countries have borders with countries that are basically run by gangs that make their money on illegal products.
And when the left will not support any efforts to seal those borders and make it much more difficult to get crap through them, they have a hissy fit and do everything in their power to stop any blockage of the border to take place.
If, like Jay stated that gun control worked in Australia, someone needs to research what Australia actually did. They did not ban guns, they just made it much more difficult to own a gun through licensing and the need to own one. If this is what Americans want, then why not do it the right way and amend the constitution?
Now I will be a nut. As a Libertarian, I do not trust our government any more than I trust a happy jack used car dealer. They will tell you one thing and do exactly the opposite. At least Beto is being honest. He want guns banned. So whoever wants this to happen should support Beto for president because he has the guts to stand up for his principles and tell you what your going to get unlike the other bag of corn chips running for the democrat nomination. They are all alike and will tell you one thing and then do something completely different.
While long guns are present at something under 50% of “mass shootings”, most casualities are from handguns. Long guns are not good weapons for close quarters work .
Many “mass shooters” bring long guns – because AR-15’s look kool. But even they are smart enough to use handguns – because those are more effective.
After you have banned guns then you will have to ban this.
“No shortage of that now, first graders, church and synagogue goersm concert attendees, and on and on, practically weekly massacres.”
Just when we were starting to get along.
An average of 29 people are killed each year in Mass shootings.
That is less than the homocides in Chicago for a month.
About the same number as are killed in lightning strikes.
1300 people die of cancer EACH DAY.
Actual “Assault Weapons” are nearly totally banned in the US.
An AR-15 is .223 caliber – that is just about the smallest bullet made.
A 9mm is about 4 times the mass.
The actual number of casualties from AR-15’s – or rifles of any kind – in mass shootings, or generally is extremely low.
Mass Shooters carry AR-15’s because they looks intimidating.
But they use hand guns because at close range in crowded venues they are far more effective.
The point is that not only are you trying to use a nuclear weapon to smash an ant, but you are entirely missing the ant.
If you are incapable of being rational enough to propose something that MIGHT have an actual effect, why should anyone take you seriously about anything ?
“Any gun owner who thinks its more important to hold onto his assault weapon than to obey the law that makes murder a crime would simply a violent criminal. I have no sympathy.”
DO you read what you write ?
Absolutely – violent criminals are not detered by laws.
The only effects of ANY law are;
Deterence – the hope that even violent criminals will obey the law – because they do not wish to spend the rest of their lives in jail. That is a weak effect, and a zero effect on those who expect to die anyway.
The hope that there will be something positive gained by otherwise moral and law abiding people following the new law. Again in the instance of mass shootings this is idiotic.
How many people would not choose to be mass killers if all guns were banned ? ZERO.
“Any gun owner who thinks its more important to hold onto his assault weapon than to obey the law that makes murder a crime would simply a violent criminal. I have no sympathy.”
More generally your statement is exactly why you should never have a voice in making ANY laws.
You have elevated the law to an end in an of itself.
The rule of law DOES NOT mean suplication to any law passed.
There is an REQUIREMENT that those passing laws, only pass those that are NECESCARY and JUSTIFIED.
Doing otherwise DESTROYS the rule of law rather than builds it.
It creates criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens and destroys respect for the law.
Too much law is lawless, anarchy, chaos.
Those who advocate for unnecescary and unjustified laws increase violence.
Whether you do so with a gun or otherwise – you have an absolute right to self defense.
As with all rights – government can not whittle them away indirectly by making them impossible to effect.
Government can not end free speach by cutting out everyone’s tongue – yet there is no constitutional right to a tongue.
“Yes, there are a lot of guns but no one is talking about outlawing them all.”
Well Beto is absolutely talking about outlawing any entire class.
“I am sick to death of the idea that it is impossible in principle to regulate what type of guns people can have. I see no danger that the 2nd amendment would allow the confiscation of all guns, people will be able to have guns to hunt, they will be able to own a gun for self defence in their home.”
I am sick to death of the idea that it is impossible in principle to regulate what type of sex people can have. I see no danger that the constitution would allow the confiscation of all contraception, people will be able to have sex to procreate, they will be able to own a dildo for procreation in their home.
What does it take for you to grasp that the CENTRAL premise of your assertion is ridiculously stupid.
You may not regulate ANYTHING just because you want to.
You may not regulate it merely because YOU think the harm of the regulation is deminimus.
If you wish to infringe on the liberty of another you must demonstrate that the infringement is
NECESCARY
JUSTIFIED
And the least infringing solution to the problem.
This is ALWAYS true – whether we are regulating guns or sex.
There is no RIGHT TO REGULATE.
There is a RIGHT to all liberty that does not actively infringe on the equal liberty of others.
This is NOT about GUNS, This is about the idiocy that you can and should solve every pretense of a problem with government force.
Constitutionally the 14th amendment is actually stronger than the 2nd.
The ratifiers and drafters of the 14th were absolutely crystal clear of their intention that it guarantee to freed blacks the right to own and use GUNS.
This is also why SCOTUS struck down state laws as well as federal gun control laws.
There has been a (bad) argument that the bill of rights does not bind the states.
The 14th amendment EXPLICITLY binds states.
But entirely ignoring the constitution – you are attacking a fundimental right – not just a constitutional right.
The right of self defense. I do not need a constitution to be able to argue that the right to self defense is so fundimental that it is as old as life itself.
The language of the 2nd amendment ends “the right of the people shall not be infringed”
That is not about guns. It is a general expression of the relationship of government to rights.
Government exists to SECURE OUR RIGHTS that when government becomes destructive of rights we are entitled to end it.
Regardless quit trying to smarm your way arround all of this.
You want gun control – amend the constitution.
“There have been gun laws for a long time”
Yes, southern democrats disarming blacks.
There were laws supporting slavery for a long time too.
I am not a member of the NRA, I do not own a working gun, I am not a “gun nut”.
And I am opposed to gun laws that the NRA supports.
Trying to make this about the NRA is a fallacious straw man.
I am defending a right. I am defending it from any infringment.
I am defending it because it is a right – and not merely because of the 2nd amendment.
I am defending it because people like you do not value ANY rights.
Fine – give up your own. But you do not get to take away mine.
While the right sometimes plays this stupid game – attacking things Sorrow funds.
It is fallacious to pretend that it is a valid argument to attack the people, funding, of those making the argument.
It is a form of ad hominem. It is slur as argument.
The NRA, Koch, Sorros, Steyer, …. are all IRRELEVANT to the merits of any argument on any topic.
Make a valid argument – not a slurr.
There are many reasons why assorted fallacies are invalid arguments – one is they have no logical value. But another is they foment bitterness and division and distract from the actual issues.
Try dealing with issues.
Facts, Logic Reason.
That is the LEAST you owe people whose rights you seek to infringe.
The courts have found that bedroom slippers and hard boiled eggs are “deadly weapons”
“I actually seriously doubt how many people are going to commit murder and mayhem because they are that in love with their bedroom slippers or hard boiled eggs. Such people do not deserve respect and deference, especially when the cost of making them a special protected species is the constant slaughter of innocents. If it is their choice to turn to violence they should face the consequences that violent criminals face.”
Respect and deference – no – no one is entitled to that, you must earn those.
But EVERYONE is entitled to respect for their rights. PERIOD.
Listen to your argument – “such people do not deserve respect” ?
Rights are not “Special” they are what ALL OF US are entitled to.
The fact that you do not value yours does NOT mean that you get to take away those of others.
People die every day – millions. No one gets out of this world alive.
Turning to violence has been a crime as long as there has been law.
Those who do so are subject to consequences – for their actual violence – not because they ignore your efforts to infringe on their rights.
You are making a stupid argument that litterally conflates gun ownership with being a murderer.
“The gun nuts are already guaranteed to vote republican, and do every election. Let the dem party court those of us who want gun regulations, we outnumber the NRA voters. Its a solid political choice”
Just short of 50% of american households own 330M guns. Of those who do not currently own guns almost half have said they might choose to do so in the future.
Only 1/3 of those who do not own guns say they will never own a gun.
If you really beleive the right to guns divides democrats and republicans – democrats are in trouble.
“I am hoping that Beto’s outburst”
Beto is not a turning point – atleast for anything but Beto.
He is flamed out. His is burning his future for the desparate chance to stay on stage.
“marks a turning point in coddling the NRA and the worst types of gun nuts.”
Who would it be that we are coddling ?
Your back to slandering people – worse you are doing so obliquely.
If your are going to complain about “coddling the worst types of gun nuts” – the least you could do is be specific about who you are maligning.
Or is it acceptable to malign large swaths of people while maintaining deniability – no, no, I did not really mean you.
“I have no illusions, even if the country is finally willing to make a stand of removing the ability to mass murder using guns,”
What crap.
1) – YOU get to make a stand. Each of us gets to make choices for ourselves.
2). So it is just “mass murder using guns” that you oppose ? Bombs are OK ? Flame Throwers ? Poisonous gas ? ….
You made a really important point – that you completely missed elsewhere.
PEOPLE commit crimes of violence.
You can not make “mass murder” impossible.
You can not even make “mass murder” using guns impossible.
And why are we talking about depriving have the country of their rights over something less common than deaths from lightning ?
“it will be a long slow process in gun nut America. All the reason to seriously start now and get the long process under way.”
It is usually a long slow process to take rights away from people,
and it quite often results in violence.
There are 330M guns in the US today.
If only 1/1,000,000 of the effort to confiscate those guns results in a single death, you will have caused more deaths in a decade than you prevented.
I instead 1/100,000 of those confiscations results in violence – you will have murdered more than a century of mass murderers.
Have you forgotten Wacco or Ruby Ridge ?
BOTH of those were ATF/FBI efforts to take guns from people who had done absolutely nothing except possibly violate stupid gun laws ?
Even McVeigh justified OKC with Ruby Ridge and Waco ?
You are actively seeking to make the problem you are trying to fix WORSE.
You are seeking perfection where it is not possible.
EVERYTIME you pass a law you MUST face the fact that law will be enforced using STATE SANCTIONED VIOLENCE,.
That is how law works – ask Eric Garner who was killed for selling lose cigarettes.
Whatever your goal in passing a law – if government enforces the law – THERE WILL BE VIOLENCE. People will DIE.
There are times that is acceptable – that is why we MUST justify the laws we pass.
The use of Violence is SOMETIMES justified.
We allow the use of violence in self defense and in defense of others.
BTW as stupid as it is – your gun nut argument is irrelevant.
We do not murder people because they are off their meds.
We are not supposed to murder people whose offense is merely holding views we do not like or owning things that annoy us.
Not sure who you consider “gun nuts,” Roby, but I know plenty of gun owners who vote Democrat. Most of them own handguns, which are not generally lumped in with “assault weapons,” even though far more people are killed with handguns than with rifles.
But a lot of them also own AR15’s, which they consider hunting rifles, not “assault weapons.” So when Beto snarls that he’s “coming for your AR15’s,” they’re sort of put off by that.
Just from a political perspective, I think he’s an idiot for saying this. Of course, I think he’s an idiot anyway…
But like I wrote back to Roby, Beto has the guts to stand up in front of America on TV and say he will ban guns. I don’t support his position, but I respect him for standing on his principles (in this case). Most will not.
You really beleive O’Rourke is standing on principle ?
I think he is striving to get his campaign out of a tailspin.
An AR-15 is just slightly more powerful than a .22.
You can not even hunt dear with this.
Because it is a rifle the bullet is supersonic – and likely will go through just about any bulletproof vest, but it is still a very small – low weight projectile and is not likely to be lethal.
The 1911 Colt – which has been the sidearm for officers in the military for over 100 years, can now be made by anyone with a CNC machine. This is a semi-automatc .45 ACP weapon – orders of magnatude more leathal than an AR-15.
This entire debate is stupid – why has it come back ?
There is not a credible argument for “gun control” beyond “feelings”.
There are dozens of excellent arguments against
starting with, it is way way way too late. GC is not possible without attempting to impose a police state.
Dave “This entire debate is stupid – why has it come back ?”
It has come back for a few reasons.
1. It makes for a good debate between those that support the constitution as an originalist and those that believe the constitution can be interpreted under changing conditions.
2. It makes for good debate between political positions.
3. It has become a focal point in the Democrat primary season.
4. It provides a means to research issues and use those facts to support ones positions.
If you believe the debate that has brought Tony and Jay back into the discussion, just delete the emails your getting and move on. You don’t have to respond to everything others are discussing. Just this morning I delete over 35 without commenting.
“It makes good debate” – no it does not.
The issue has been thrashed endlessly – The facts are not present to support gun control.
The arguments do not change. The facts get no better with age.
All that happens is some distant event spotlighted by the news tugs at our hearts and drives us to demand answers that do not exist – AGAIN.
And idiots and their lackeys as well as those seeking power over others use the opportunity to try once again to increase their stature power and influence.
Should they get what they want – nothing will change – and at the next attrocity they will demand another sliver of our freedom – promising everything but delivering nothing.
When government fails we must QUIT FEEDING IT, not feed it even more.
Dave ““It makes good debate” – no it does not.”
THEN KEEP THE “F” out of it and let those that want to debate the issue do so. You really dont need to be part of the discussion if you can not accept the fact we wont become a disciple of your thinking!
This is not about “my thinking”.
It is about facts.
One of the most significant problem with the left is that debate with them is useless.
In the event that the facts undermine their position – they go home and wait for another moment. Ultimately something heinous enough will happen that we will act quickly and stupidly and lose another bit of our rights.
It does not matter whether the issue is guns.
And I will be happy to re-open discussion on anything when the facts change – but they have not changed.
Or more accurately as time progresses we learn more and more of the facts and they are more and more damning with respect to whatever the left seeks.
You have said before that everyone does not have the same knowledge of the facts I do.
That is only partly true.
I long ago learned that when someone on the left is making an argument – they are wrong.
Pretty much 100% of the time. That you will not be let down just assuming they are wrong.
That is NOT how things should be. Many people on the left are intelligent. You would think that they could not possibly be wrong ALWAYS. But I am still waiting for the day I am proven wrong on that.
Regardless – most of the time I argue FACTS. We have had some political discussions here – such as whether Trump will win in 2020 that are fact informed oppinions – not actual facts.
But mostly I argue facts. I am not always happy with what the facts are. But “facts do not care about your feelings”.
But I have come to KNOW that when someone on the left argues for something – they are wrong, and that it will not take much effort to find the facts to prove that.
That frequency of error does not happen by accident.
It can only happen when people do not care about the truth.
Robby annd all the others trying to foist Gun control or other regulation on you – DO NOT CARE WHAT THE TRUTH IS.
When you argue positions that I think are wrong – you actually care what the truth is.
I may not succeed in persuading you, but both of us fully understand that if the facts incontrovertably supported your position – I would change, or if they incontrovertably supported mine you would change.
That is the difference between philosophy and religion. Religion is about faith not facts – and humans are inherently religious creatures. Those on the left are indistibguishable from Torquemada or Jerry Falwell. They beleive – therefore what they beleive is true.
And if you beleive strongly enough – you can do evil things for purportedly good causes.
That is the root of terrorism.
Philosophy aims to find the truth. Classical liberalism is a philosophy – not a religion.
If you falsify a fundimental tenant I will have to change my philosophy. Belief is not sufficient.
Conversely you can not argue facts to counter religion – I should know – I do it constantly – right here.
What I find interesting about gun control is it is one of few areas – were we really have enough information to establish some things – not everything, but enough CONCLUSIVELY.
There is no example anywhere ever of effective gun control.
That should be a very simple statement to falsify – but it has not been falsified.
Falsifying it would NOT be enough to justify gun control.
But falsifying that statement is an ABSOLUTE requirement to do so morally.
The converse position – the claim that guns make us safer – is not proveable either.
But it does not need to be. The burden of proof is always with those seeking to infringe on rights. I think there is good evidence – but not incontrovertable evidence that guns make us safer.
But to regulate you must prove that the regulation you propose will make us safer.
That is less than the minimum you must prove. But it is where you must start.
Dave, I dont care if it is about your thinking.
You can think it is useless. to you it may be. To me it may be “fun”.
you can think it is stupid. To me what may be stupidi to you s interesting to me.
It does not matter if everyone has all the facts. I may learn something, they may learn something.
You may think they are wrong. I may not think they are wrong.
You may argue facts, but the amount of words you use in your comments never get to me, and probably some others because your comments are way to wordy, wonder onto too many issues, do not stay on target and if I have net seen in about 3-4 minutes of reading I delete the rest.
You have decided that most everything anyone on the left says is wrong. I may not think that. For instance, Jay and Roby think the NRA is wrong in many of their positions. I also think the NRA is wrong in many of their positions.
So again, if you can not debate the issues without claiming someone is always wrong, then dont join the conversation. Its that easy!
And if you do, don’t give us the encyclopedic version of why something is wrong. edit your comments so the reader can read it in 2-3 minutes, understand your position and move on to the next one. Today I received over 75 e-mails from this site and I don’t have 2-3 hours to waste reading all of them.
Sorry if I can’t accept your positions, but that just the way it is. I enjoy the conversations with Jay and Roby, along with Priscilla because there is always something to discuss. Right or wrong!
I have not “decided” that almost everything said on the left is wrong.
The facts establish that.
I have accepted it.
I have accepted it sufficiently that I KNOW before I start looking that I will have no problem finding FACTS to discredit any new leftist claim.
It does not matter what that claim is.
What I am describing above is a NORMAL process that humans frequently use.
It is called “credibility” – or in our financial deallings it is called credit – and we even have something to measure it called a credit score.
We start with neutral credit or credibility – when we make accurate factually supported assertions or pay our bills on time – our credit/credibilty RISES. when we fail it declines.
I am specifically tying credit and credibility together – because they ARE very nearly the same things.
People who are honest in their financial dealings, are honest in everything else – and visa versa. There are few exceptions to this.
The left and other posters here frequently make appeals to authority – to some extent we all do. Climate change is a BIG area for that.
Appeals to authority are fallacies – but where we do not have sufficient information to establish that something is true or false factually we rely on weaker evidence – such as credibility. We do that Especially when we are forecasting the future.
We do not know whether anyone will repay the loan they take out – that is a prediction not a fact, it is an oppinion. We do know what their past history has been. There is a very high correlation between past behavior and future behavior.
So when we use measures that are not directly based on FACTS, it is important that we know the credibility of those measures.
As I have said many times – the truth is still true if Hitler says it.
That is a powerful argument – one that must entirely end debate where the truth of something is known or knowable.
The actual truth is not racist or homophobic or mysoginist.
Slurring the truth or facts is just idiocy.
The credibility of someone asserting an actual knowable or known fact is irrelevant.
But the credibility of someone making an assertion that is not a known fact is extremely important.
“So again, if you can not debate the issues without claiming someone is always wrong, then dont join the conversation. Its that easy!”
Why ? Is there some law of nature that says that any given person or position is occasionally or often right ?
I am sorry that you are frustrated by my arguments.
I am also sorry you did not take what I asserted seriously.
Rather than belittle my assertion – try TESTING IT.
Make a list of assertions made by an individual, a group, a political party, an ideology – whatever you seek to test.
Divide those up into assertions that must be either true or false – and therefore testable.,
and those that are more difficult to evaluate – either because they are predictions or probabilistic, or because they are just unknown, even unknowable.
Score those that can be determined as true or false – and possibly those where the probability of being true or false is fairly well known.
You now have the equivalent of a “credit score” for whatever individuals or groups you are looking at.
And that is a means of assessing the assertions that remain where the truth is unknowable or atleast not known.
As with many things – if you do this for a large enough group you will end up with a score distribution that is near certain to be “a bell curve”.
Some people or groups will have near zero credibility, some will have near 100%,,
But the overwhelming majority will fall into the middle.
But you can go further – and you can test how other attributes of a person correlate to where they fall on the credibility curve.
Are rich people or poor people more prone to be accurate about things that are true or likely true. I think we know that already – credit scores measure almost the same thing.
But we can also compare philosophies and ideologies or other attributes to determine if there is a correlation.
Again Dave, you are missing the point completely. You can not understand what others are saying. You have only your opinion and yours alone.
Roby, Jay and I were discussing our positions on gun control.
You got pissed off and said why has this come up again, it is stupid. Or something to like that.
I said if you dont want to discuss it, stay out of the discussion. Delete any e-mails concerning that.
Is that so hard to understand?
What didn’t you understand about that so maybe I can clarify that statement to make it easier for you to understand?
I don’t care what the issue is, if we want to discuss it and you think its stupid, fine. Don’t get involved.
If I want to claim black is white and Roby and I begin a conversation as to why it is or is not white, that is our prerogative. You dont need to be involved.
“You got pissed off and said why has this come up again, ”
This is not about getting pissed off.
My point is valid.
It is rare outside of govenrment that the same problem comes up over and over and over
with the same tired arguments being made.
Outside of government – when a solution is determined to be bad, it is not raised again (and again) unless something has changed to make it more viable than before.
But with govenrment – and MOSTLY unique to the left, we will raise the same tired arguments again and again, in the hopes – often correct of wearing opponents down – or capitalizing on brief periods when people act emotionally instead of rationally to force through things that are no less stupid today than a decade ago.
So my question – to those who want to change something but have an argument that is no more effective than it was last time – is “what has changed” ?
Why will what did not work or persuade before, suddenly work today ?
Just about everything the left is after fails this test.
Dave, ok, my point again. If I want to discuss with “Y” and they are willing to discuss that issue we me, are we not free to discuss that between us?
Do you make the rules here on what needs to be included in any discussion?
Are you free to refrain from commenting when you see comments and think ” that is the dumbest comment I have ever seen?
Am I not free to determine what I want in a discussion with others here?
Other than Rick, who makes the rules?
Have I or anyone else put a gun to your head to stop you from discussing anything you wish to ?
My point is that there is no evidence there is anything to be gained from discussion,
Tangentially – despite my own assertions of the pointlessness of it, I am unlike to stop responding to nonsense with facts, even though I get nothing but fallacies – particularly slurs impugning my character in return.
I would note that in a couple of the recent responses – you and Priscilla are now being being slurred too.
Dave, no , no one is holding a gun to anyones head.
But on 9/17/19 you posted “This entire debate is stupid – why has it come back ?” (regarding gun control) Have I put a gun to your head and made you read my comments or respond to comments?
My point AGAIN!! If you think what I discuss with Priscilla, Jay or Roby is stupid then dont comment. Dont take the time to read them. Something you believe is stupid does not deserve a reply, right?
Does everything others discuss, stupid or smart, deserve your insight?
First of all I was responding to the idea that gun control should not be attempted because certain people will become murderously violent if their sacred relationship with their assault rifles and high capacity magazines are interfered with.
Let us apply that logic to other disgruntled people. Perhaps the six states that have passed laws that made abortion illegal entirely should not have done that because angry women may show up to the legislature with an arsenal and start taking out republican lawmakers.
Perhaps the NRA should shut the F up because the some parent who has had their life destroyed when their first grader was murdered in class might get sick of Wayne LaPierre’s endless fight to prevent any regulation of any kind of gun ownership and finally lose it and take an arsenal down to the National NRA headquarters and start taking shooting.
Nobody suspects that these things will happen however, those people whose lives were destroyed in Sandy hook simply suffer in a civilized way in silence and are not considered a threat to go off.
But, god forbid someone should take someone’s gun away, a child yes, you can take that away forever, but not a high capacity magazine.
This is sick and twisted. I can accept American exceptionalism on health insurance but not our twisted exceptionalism on guns.
Beto is right, let the dem party finally take on the death cult that is the NRA and break the spell they have on the GOP.
No regulation – not gun control not ANYTHING should be attempted unless:
It can be proven to work.
It can be morally justified
It can be done with the least possible infringment on rights – preferably NONE.
While “it will make things worse” is a perfectly valid argument – and in this case a true one.
You do not get their until you have jumped through the above hoops first.
Further UNLESS you can PROVE IT WORKS, PROVE IT IS JUSTIFIED, MINIMIZE the infringement – then YOU are the one acting immorally.
If people – whether they are “gun nuts” or just people like Eric Garner trying to make a living, get killed by police enforcing immoral laws – that is on those who passed those laws – NOT THEIR VICTIMS.
Randy Weaver never hurt anyone. But the FBI and ATF MURDERED his family.
There remains to this day no evidence that David Koresch harmed anyone – yet the FBI/ATF
murdered him and almost 100 followers.
While both Weaver and Koresch fall short of ideal as people, neither was violent until they faced violence from government.
Our laws are their to protect us from Violence NOT to impose violence on is.
If your proposed law – whatever it is does not ACTUALLY reduce violence – that law is IMMORAL – no matter how high sounding you try to make it.
Neither government nor you get to murder people because they are “disgruntled”.
We are not required to be happy with outselves the world and our neighors to avoid being murdered by government. We are not even required to be mentally healthy.
No state has made abortion completely illegal.
Regardless abortion would still be a different debate.
Those seeking to regulate abortion must meet the same criteria as those seeking to regulate guns or anything else.
Though there is atleast one consequenctial difference regarding abortion.
We generally recognize that a born child is a human with rights, that the mother can not murder for her convenience.
We generally recognize that a separate sperm and egg are not human and are not entitled to the protections of the social contract.
We are not universally agreed on when after a distinct sperm and egg combine they reach the degree of humanness and therefore have rights that preclude the woman from murdering them.
I think we would all universally agree that male or female – non of us are free to murder others for our convenience.
The debate over abortion is ALWAYS about the rights of the fetus.
The rights of the woman are well known and understood.
Her rights only reach that permitting the killing of the fetus so long as that fetus is not a person. And we are not agreed on when that is.
It is the legitimate role of govenrment to protect people from actual violence – not hypothetical but actual violence. If a fetus is human – it is the duty of government to protect it from murder.
Gun owners are human. They are not an actual threat to a specific actual human.
“Perhaps the NRA should shut the F up”
Where you stand on free speech is perfectly clear.
Victimhood trumps rights ?
When you can make a case that the regulation you wish to pass will work – and to date there is zero data supporting the effectiveness of any gun control measure anywhere ever.
“Didn’t 70% of Australians meekly submit to the same kind of law?”
Sort of. NZ is trying the same experiment. Almost no one is turning in their guns.
Regardless, despite some of the most draconian gun laws in the world – aU gun ownership is BACK to pre law levels.
“Did household invasions or other crimes against the public by the 30% who kept those weapons diminish? Yes.”
Can you please elaborate ? Unless I missunderstand you, you are arguing for guns to protect against household invasions ?
“Did mass shootings diminish significantly. Yes.”
If you successfully eliminate all butter knives, crimes committed with butter knives will drop to zero”. The trend in mass killings in AU was unaltered.
“Did “Rake” go into syndication? Yes!”
!!!!!!!!
The bottom line? The right to bear arms is constitutionally protected because the founders knew that government could grow so powerful that it would infringe upon free speech, free worship, free press, and even the fundamental right to life. In short, they believed that an armed populace is a check on tyranny.
If disarming citizens is so important, make the repeal of the Second Amendment the key to doing it, not unconstitutional confiscation. Get the supermajority in the House and Senate, and get 3/4 of the states to approve.
The Democrat Party is not willing to go through that process, because they know that the will of the people is not on their side.
(By the way, door-to-door confiscation would also be a violation of the 4th amendment, so maybe the Democrats could repeal that one while they’re at it)
“First of all I was responding to the idea that gun control should not be attempted because certain people will become murderously violent if their sacred relationship with their assault rifles and high capacity magazines are interfered with.”
To be clear, Roby, I was not referring to gun control laws, which we already have, and which may be in need of reform or addition. I was talking about mandatory, forced government confiscation of private property. Or, as Beto says ” Hell yeah, we’ll take your AR15!”
If that is attempted, it will result in violence. And it will be the fault of extremists in the Democrat Party, not gun nuts.
“The right to bear arms is constitutionally protected because the founders knew that government could grow so powerful that it would infringe upon free speech, free worship, free press, and even the fundamental right to life. In short, they believed that an armed populace is a check on tyranny.”
The right to bear arms is a hopelessly imprecise and broad phrase that gives me the right to own a missile launcher that can take down a 707 if we wish to express it broadly enough. Does any sensible person wish to? Armour piercing rounds? High capacity magazines? Unhinged people having the same access as hunters? Give me a break. Regulate this.
There are plenty of gun control laws on the books, see Giuliani below, a proponent of gun control laws while he was mayor of NY City. There is no need to repeal the 2nd amendment, just to interpret it in a sane manner. You have fallen for the NRA GOP nonsense that gun control is unconstitutional, we must not have it, even if it leads to endless slaughter of innocents, so that we can potentially fight the evil government in armed combat. So, you conservatives resort to the rhetorical trick of setting a politically impossible goal, repeal of the 2nd amendment, instead of the entirely feasible goal of working within a sane interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
The will of the people is definitely on the side of sane regulation of guns and gun ownership, you are flat out wrong Priscilla. I say that the democrats can win with this issue in this cycle. People are ready for this, they are disgusted with the status quo that that obscene NRA-GOP alliance has established.
Door to door unconstitutional confiscations of weapons is a boogy man. Instead we can start by establishing, again, the principle that gun regulation is constitutional and that the NRA has gone much too far in preventing sensible gun related laws. Outlaw the the most destructive items and get them out of the system little by little. Keep guns out the hands of crazy people. I can’t believe these are even points to argue about.
Or, do nothing, swallow the NRA GOP bullshit, pray for the victims each time, have our flags at half staff more often than not it seems. NO THANK YOU!
“The right to bear arms is a hopelessly imprecise”
Nope.
” and broad phrase”
Yep,
“that gives me the right to own a missile launcher that can take down a 707 if we wish to express it broadly enough.”
And it is likely that there is not a law prohibiting that TODAY.
To my knowledge you may NOT
Own automatic weapons (without a hard to get license)
Own some explosives – without again difficult to get licenses.
TODAY private individuals build rockets all the time capable of reaching space.
And I am not talking Bezos and Musk.
I am talking about hobbiests who are building rockets that can get to 80,000ft.
This is many orders of magnitude more complex that what would be needed to take out a 707 (or much harder a 767 at 55K ft)
There are no laws against this. At most there may be some FAA regulations government launches.
For the most part your easy access to WMD’s is primarily because no one will sell them to you. It you can figure out how to make them yourself – you can own them.
The US government will not sell you a warship, or a howitzer, and no one will build one for you. But you are actually free to own them. And during the revolution many private parties owned warships, and most revolutionary cannon were privately owned.
My former Mayor famous for decades of 4th of July celebrations. We were the only place in the US were you could hear the 1812 overature on the 4th with over a dozen cannons – all privately owned. Most were historical, but a few were replicas made by their owners.
BTW most states and the federal government have special provisions in their gun laws relaxing them for “relics” – collectors items over 50 years old. All the federal rules regarding the sale of guns do not apply to relics.
Guess what ? The AR-15 is now over 50 years old. As of 2017 there were 10,000 AR-15’s that are relics – antiques, collectors items and exempt from most of the laws regarding the sale of guns. And every year that number increases dramatically.
“Armour piercing rounds?”
Again read Federalist 46. You brought Madison into this. Well Madison makes it clear that the 2nd amendment is atleast partly to asure that no federal army is capable of dealing with an armed citizenry. And BTW – that does NOT mean winning in a pitched battle.
It means doing exactly what colonials did that drove the british out of new england.
Forms of guerilla warfare. That combined with the reluctance of soldiers to fire on their own citizens.
“High capacity magazines?”
BTW a magazine is a part of a gun, a clip is something that holds amunition and is inserted into the gun.
Several times each year some “citizens” thwarts a home invasion by multiple armed invaders. with “high capacity magazines”.
Further if you are facing ATF or FBI intent on murdering you and your family – as Randy Weaver and David Koresch did – or on several occasions more recently the Bundy’s did, then you are not doing so with single shot weapons.
Further why would anyone be stupid enough to pass laws against things that can trivially be made at home ?
3d printers and cheap CNC’s make mincemeat of the entire cancept that you can make the world safer by banning “things”.
“Unhinged people having the same access as hunters?”
There are more guns in the US than cars. the concept of limiting access long long ago became untenable. Yet guns are overall much safer than cars.
Lots and lots of people – hinged and otherwise have easy access to guns.
And outside of democratic enclaves like chicago we are not engaged in mass murder.
The episodes you see are rare – less frequent than huricanes.
“Give me a break.” Lets not do anything stupid that will not work, will near certainly make things worse, increase violence and at the same time restrict peoples freedoms.
Doing nothing is ALWAYS a choice. Not engaging in violence is nearly always the right choice. And government action IS violence.
You have proposed a number of things.
Many of us would very seriously consider them – if they could actually be made to work.
Almost every rifle round – even a plinker .22 used to shoot groundhogs is “armour peircing”
Just about every rifle bullet ever made will get through the body armour of police and most military from 300yds or less. Rifles fire projectiles at supersonic speeds. Walls will not stop even small calibre rifle ammunition.
But “armor pericing” and lethal are not the same thing. Given a choice between an AR-15 round and a Colt 1911 at short range – you are far more likely to survive the AR-15.
When you can demonstrate the ability to successfully identify the “unhinged” before the fact – and not merely use redflag laws as the means to “swat” each other or further stigmatize mental health issues or just being unconventional – we can talk.
Today trained professionals can not do it.
And we can go on.
You are rushing to regulate, but the benefit you expect to gain – is nothing more than false hope.
When you have real evidence that what you wish to do has any reasonable probability of working.
EVIDENCE – not CLAIMS.
Then we can procede to seeing if you can justify what you want to do.
Almost 8000 people die in the US every day.
We always have an excuse to fly the flag at half mast.
The laws you seek to pas will not work – you know it
The ones you already passed did not – and you know that.
It does not matter whether we are talking guns or whatever.
Government is one of the few places were FAILURE results in MORE.
More laws, more demands for money, ….
I am saying MORE THAN ENOUGH.
It should ALWAYS have been the rule that you must prove effectivness before resorting to force. It is now.
Doing otherwise is immoral.
Do not tell me what you want to do that you hope will work.
I do not trust government, and I do not trust you – for very good reason.
SHOW ME. PROVE WHAT YOU SAY.
Check out an activist named Maj Toure…he is the head of an organization called Black Guns Matter. He is running for City Council in Philadelphia, as a Libertarian. https://71republic.com/2019/05/11/maj-toure-city-council/
I have seen him speak and I always try to catch him on TV,when he is being interviewed. He quit the NRA, because he believed that the organization was not addressing the self-defense needs of the inner city black community:
“Toure has garnered notoriety for bringing gun safety and education to America’s inner cities. He’s traveled to all 50 states and introduced conservative principles, as well as the desire to protect the Second Amendment, to people who traditionally feel abandoned by the right.
“What our organization does is we go to areas with high violence, high crime, high gun control, high slave mentalities, to be perfectly honest, and inform urban America about their human right, as stated in the Second Amendment, to defend their life,” Toure explained. “Urban America has been left out of that conversation and it’s time for that, them days is [sic] done.” (I would include the link, but I already posted one in this comment)
I’d love to see big, bad Beto tell Maj that he’s going to come for the guns of inner city blacks who own them to defend their families and their homes .
Apparently from listening to the comments from the NRA-GOP crowd they heard Beto O’Rourke say that he was going to “come into people’s homes and illegally and unconstitutionally take their guns.” This sent these people into a frenzy of chest beating about what would happen to O”Rourke if he tried.
Now, reality:
He was talking about a BUYBACK program. The whole thing is just the typical testosterone frenzy of the gun-loving right.
“Quoting the candidate’s past comment about SELLING BACK AR-15s and AK-47s, moderator David Muir asked O’Rourke: “Are you proposing taking away their guns? And how would this work?”
O’Rourke answered, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”
“I am, if it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield. If the high-impact, high-velocity round, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body, because it was designed to do that, so that you would bleed to death on a battlefield and not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers.
When we see that being used against children, and in Odessa, I met the mother of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by an AR-15, and that mother watched her bleed to death over the course of an hour because so many other people were shot by that AR-15 in Odessa and Midland, there weren’t enough ambulances to get to them in time. Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”
I can’t argue with anything he said there, its 110% fine by me. Buy them back.
Ya! Force citizens to give up their private property for a pittance of what they paid for it, using their own tax dollars!!
How much they are paid is irrelevant.
All that is relevant is whether they voluntarily wish to part with what is theirs or not.
There are certainly people who could make better use of your kidneys than you – can we take them by force ? How about if I pay you ?
Using tax payer money just doubles down on the theft – now you are not merely stealing from the gun owner but also the tax payer.
If you wish to buy someone else’s guns and destroy them – go ahead – use your money, and accept no for an answer and I do not care.
Why is is so hard for you to accept that:
No means no! That forcing others to do as you wish – through violence of threat of violence is nearly always immoral.
That the only money or property you can legitimately make choices regarding is what you own.
Everything government spends is taken from people without permission. All government spending must be justified to far higher standards than private spending.
It is NOT YOURS.
Roby/Jay
Please do some research on guns and their capablity. I did and I learned some important facts.
These guns are the choice because they are macho. But they were not the ones used in Columbine that killed many.
Handguns like a Glock can kill just as many and are actually more accurate for anyone set on killing a large number of people. The same, if not more, can be killed by a pistol that a rifle. The Florida shooter used a AR-15 and a 9mm pistol. No one has said that I can find, but I suspect more died from the 9mm than the rifle. “According to the autopsy reports, many of the victims were shot multiple times in the front or side, and from a short distance. More than a third were shot in the head, and most had multiple bullet wounds and were likely shot more than 3 feet (0.91 meters) away. In total, there were over 200 gunshot wounds” That indicates to me the Glock was used more than the rifle given the accuracy of the head shots.
My point. Banning just the AR rifles will solve nothing. You need to begin supporting a complete ban on any weapon that holds more than 6 bullets and can be shot without having to use a Colt 45 Frontier trigger action.
Long guns are used in slightly less than 50% of mass killings over the past 40 years.
Handguns have been used in about 90% – obviously some mass killers bring both.
Of the mass killings involving long guns about half are shot guns and carbines – like at columbine. Rifles generally – long guns other than carabines and shotguns, are a poor choice for close quarters offense. Mass killers tend to bring them – because they look kool, but with few exceptions – los vegas as an example, they are not what is used to kill people.
Handguns are NOT more accurate – they are less accurate under all circumstance, but they are more maneuverable in close quarters.
The range of a rifle is great but the field of fire is small – you can not swing a rifle 360 very quickly. For distant threats that is not a problem.
But if you are a “mass killer” and anyone gets within about 5 ft of you – particularly if they are not right in front of you – then the rifle is useless. Once someone can get their hand to the muzzle you will not be able to shoot them. You will be on the wrong end of a lever.
There is a lot of factors in the lethality of a bullet – and all other things being equal a rifle is more lethal than a hand gun. But all things are not ever equal. An AR-15 fires a .223 round at high velocity – this is basically a 22 caliber bullet – at high speed. It is going to be much less lethal than a .38 at lower speed and do much less damage – all things being equal.
What point is there to a public debate on anything.
In fact what point is there to facts, or reality,
If facts to do not resolve the issue, if whenever one party does not like the result – they just restart the debate. if there are infinite do overs until you get whatever you want ?
You want gun control – or anything else ?
Before you get to use FORCE – prove it is going to work.
That is LESS than the minimum required.
So let me clarify – when someone says the government is going to take something from you, that just a suguestion ? That if you keep it in your home and only take it out to polish on Sunday’s – your safe ?
I clearly have no idea how to reconcile leftist gobledy gook speak, but in my mind when someone says that government – aka the people with the guns, is going to “take what is yours from you” – while they will start nicely, if you do not do as they say, it will end with your doors being broken down, your property being confiscated and you being hauled away to jail.
For nothing beyond refusing to turn over legally obtained property that they have decided you are no longer free to own.
“When O’Rourke was asked by the moderator if he was proposing taking firearms away from their owners, he answered:
I am, if it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield. If the high-impact, high-velocity round, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body, because it was designed to do that, so that you would bleed to death on a battlefield and not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers.
When we see that being used against children … and in Odessa, I met the mother of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by an AR-15, and that mother watched her bleed to death over the course of an hour because so many other people were shot by that AR-15 in Odessa and Midland, there weren’t enough ambulances to get to them in time — hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”
BTW that ignores the myriads of other errors in O’Rourke’s remarks.
“battlefield” weapons are NOT designed to kill, Military leaders have known for a long time that dead soldiers are far less of a tactical value than wounded ones.
Military weapons are not designed to kill you on the battlefield or to tear your body apart so you quickly bleed to death. Not only is this a bogus claim – it is actually a violation of the geneva Conventions. Millitary amuntion is jacketed – that is specifically so that it does NOT splinter into a bazilion peices and shred your insides. The miitary objective is to incapacitate not kill. That is not always possible – anything that can “incapacitate” a tank is likely to kill everyone inside it.
“battlefield” weapons are serious. But for the most part are required to be less likely to kill you than private weapons. All rifles are high velocity. That is how a rifle works. Anything that can strike a target further than 50 yds away MUST be high velocity – and that means all hunting rifles. That velocity is primarily acheived because the barrel is longer and therefore the bullet is accelerated for a longer period. Handguns with long barrels are higher velocity than those with shorter barrels.
The Govt. Isn’t considering taking MY guns. I don’t have any of those bang-bang bang-bangers. My Shotgun and pistol are safe from the proposed banning.
Whew! O’Roarke isn’t going to be showing up at my door. Or the doors of other Americans who don’t own assault-style rifles -that’s the VAST majority of gun packing citizens.
And why are those who do own assault-style weapons worried their safety will be compromised if those weapons are confiscated and turned into scrap metal? Few… I REPEAT FEW … home invasions are carried out by armed intruders, even FEWER of the culprits are armed with those guns. You have greater chance of lighting killing you then to be physically assaulted by an assault-weapon-carrying home invader.
Here, examine these stats, and let me know if you’re still shaking in your undies that an AR-15 armed hooligan will invade your home.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
“My Shotgun and pistol are safe from the proposed banning.”
Until next week.
Beto’s argument was rooted in the injury that the weapon could cause – shotguns ARE used as weapons of war, They ARE among the most deadly weapons when they are appropriate.
People do not shoot deer with Shotguns.
I think you are in trouble.
They also do not shot deer with pistols.
1). Beto said he is coming to TAKE your guns – not buy them back.
Unless “take” has a magical meaning in the left-o-sphere.
Take intransitive verb To capture physically; seize.
Doesn’t sound like buy back to me.
2). I do not think guns are the legitimate business of government so long as they are not used (outside of self defense) to harm or threaten another. But lets presume they are.
I think that voluntary buy=backs are stupid – and there is lenty of statisical evidence that all they do is end up with people turning in crappy old saturday night specials to the police and going out with the money and buying better guns.
But if that is what you want to do – fine, though you should do it privately and not waste taxpayers money on something that stupid.
But there is absolutely zero difference between a manditory buy back and breaking down your door to take your property.
Ask Susette Kelo. If you are required to sell whether you want to or not, the distinction between direct confiscation and “buy back” is just “lipstick on a pig”.
If you disagree – how about if government decides to “buy back” you house, your car, or anything else that you own that you would prefer to keep.
The only people who think “buy back” is not confiscate and is somehow warm and fuzzy and not “taking” are left wing nut idiots.
You keep telling me you are not one of those.
“Ya! Force citizens to give up their private property for a pittance of what they paid for it, using their own tax dollars!!”
Ya, get a phone call from the police saying that your child has been killed in yet another mass murder!
Which person do you think is have the worse day?
You are farm more likely to get a call that your child was killed by a lightning strike.
Regardless, there is no bad thing that can happen to you that justifies your doing bad things to innocent others. NONE.
IF I get a phone call from the police saying my child was murdered – my question will be – where where the police ? And my next question will be why werent the teachers who I entrusted to protect her able to do so ?
We know that mass shooters target gun free school zones – because they say that is what they do.
Ron, I wish you luck with taming Dr no. Using cherry picked facts a person can show that dihydrogen oxide is a dangerous substance that should be banned . You know that, I know that. I’m right you are wrong is the purpose of his life here. It would be a bore if he could do it in few short posts. I will be surprised if you can make a dent in his pattern.
In any case, you are a person who really could have a thoughtful political discussion in the right environment. You do it well.
But I hope to move on again. This arguing thing for me is time consuming and inevitably depressing. In truth I have gotten way more absorbed in the news again than I want to be. I am afraid that the 2020 election gives many people false hope. It’s going to bring nothing good no matter how it comes out. 2121 is not going to be a good year.
Sanity lies in personally rising above it as much as possible. I wish you the best.
Facts do not care about your oppinions.
You can not “tame” something – just because you do not like it.
Once again – you resort to slur rather than argument.
Facts are not “cheery picked” just because you do not like that.
Nor do you seem to know what “cherry picking” is.
Cherry picking is pulling a few carefully selected data points from a much larger body of evidence that contradict the broader body.
Mann/Biffra etc selecting 21 tree cores from over 200 where any random pick of tree cores would have produced different results is “cherry picking”
In fact in their papers they openly admit that they selected the cores that would produce the outcome they wanted.
On issue after issue that we have butted heads – I have repeatedly said
FIND ANY EVIDENCE ANYWHERE that supports your argument.
I have begged you to attempt to rebut MOUNTAINS of evidence – with your own cherry picked evidence. And you have repeatedly FAILED TO DO SO.
As an example there is no evidence ANYWHERE EVER that gun control has worked.
There are RARE studies that make claims about gun violence – such as that the US has the largest per capita number of mass killing in the world – if true – that is STILL not evidence that gun control works. But those studies have NOT survived scrutiny. They used crap for methods, and are not repeatable, – and in the specific example cited where trivially rebutted – the US is approximately 61st in the world – using the criteria the original report used, and almost half of europe is higher.
On issue after issue that we confront each other on – the story is the SAME.
We are not fighting over “cherry picking” – you are on the wrong side of MOUNTAINS of evidence.
And in fact you have NEVER made a serious effort to debate that.
You say that evidence you do not like is “cherry picked” – fine WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE ?
Argument is not slurring the argument of your opposition.
To discredit an argument – you DISPROVE IT.
If something is “cherry picked” – PROVE IT. Cherry picking is a pretty easy charge to support when True.
I would further note ONCE AGAIN, you are making a MORAL CLAIM.
Cherry picking is “deliberate misrepresentation” – it is LYING.
You are calling me a LIAR.
You are not making an argument you are responding to an argument with an unsubstantiate moral claim.
If you call someone else a LIAR and you are unwilling or unable to prove that then YOU are LYING. You are guilty of moral failure.
Ron absolutely is a person that one could have a thoughtful political discussion.
YOU are self evidently NOT.
Further if I completely disappeared – you would turn on Ron and Priscilla much as you do on me. AND YOU HAVE IN THE PAST.
You fixate on me only because I am the largest impediment to your ability to sell garbage.
You make the same crap arguments and ultimately devolve to slurs and insults rather than arguments with anyone who disagrees with you.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do something to prove that I am wrong ?
TNM – the world, would be a far far better place – if you and other like you bothered to make arguments or counter arguments with facts, logic reason. Rather than lobbing false moral accusations, slurs and insults at anyone who disagreed with you.
“I am afraid that the 2020 election gives many people false hope. ”
If my projection that Trump will win in a landslide is “fantasy” – it is certainly a “fantasy” that you fear.
If your fear is rationale – then you KNOW what I am predicting is plausible, not fantasy.
If you think your fear is irrational – then your criticism of my “fantasy” is hypocritical – you are no more rational by your own admission than you are accusing me.
“Professional pollsters and political strategists say that despite all the president’s bravado and his thousands of false statements, his public confidence about a second term is very much rooted in reality.
“I think the president’s support is undervalued,” said Neil Newhouse, the leading pollster for Republican Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential bid. “If you separate things in a poll and ask someone if they disapprove overall with his job performance, there are a healthy number of voters who will then say despite that, ‘I strongly agree with many of his policies.’
“That, to me, shows there are more gettable votes out for the president than most people believe right now,” added Newhouse, now a partner at Public Opinion Strategies. “A month out last time, polls had him trailing Hillary Clinton by 11 points. But he won.””
Er, 2021, I meant, to which I could add 2022, 2023,…
Beto is trying to shoot the moon,
He is engaged in a last ditch bid to relevance as he slowly falls out of the race.
What is amazing is that he was an actual contender for the senate in TX.
Right now he is burning any political aspirations in TX and harming democrats – though they are allowing that willingly.
Bernie is doing this now too, by calling for an end to ALL deportations. If I were Joe Biden, I’d just sit back, relax, and let these folks self-destruct. If the Party ends up nominating one of these extremists, there will be a Trump landslide.
I am more and more wondering if there won’t be a surprise “late entry” in the primary race. Seriously, if Biden continues to look confused and feeble on stage, who do they have? Warren?
She wouldn’t win, even wearing Hedda Hopper hats (hat tip to Jay).
Biden will join them with a slightly milquetoast version of extreme leftism.
Because you can not win the democratic primary without kow towing to the far left.
My prediction is that the outcome of the presidential election will rest on whether the winning democrat can re-assure middle america than they did not mean a thing they said to win the primary – while at the same time persuading their base that they meant every single world litterally.
I do not thing that americans are that stupid.
I assume it was Madison who wrote the 2nd amendment since he wrote the Bill of rights. I am sure he had no intention when he wrote it of creating the crazy cult of gun violence that is now part of the American fabric. I am sure he would be heartbroken if he could see what his well intentioned words led to. I am sure he would have written it differently if he could see what happened, either more specifically, even perhaps not at all.
The 2nd amendment did not have to become a curse, it did not have to lead to Sandy Hook and the many endless bloodbaths that take innocent lives. I am sure the founding fathers never in a million years could have imagined that their descendents, the future citizens of America, would kill each other by the tens of thousands year after year with ever higher powered and more lethal variants on the primitive muzzle loaders the colonists had.
For me and most Americans this situation is unacceptable. I am not having this business that trying to change the game is hopeless, just like prohibition, doomed to fail. I am sure that many, many people are alive today because some people who were ready to go off did not have easy access to guns at that moment. We will never know of the specific massacres that were prevented by gun laws. I am sure that they have saved many lives.
The 2nd amendment did not have to become the tool of evil, it was not created with evil intentions but it has become the tool of unthinkable violence and endless heartbreak. No other civilized nation has this blight. Bringing its level steadily down over time is one of the best uses I can think of for the rule of law. In 50 years, or 100 years, we do not have to be the sick society we are today with respect to guns.
The left is crazy about a lot of things, but gun control is not one of them. The GOP is the crazy party when it comes to guns. Gun control is the reason why I will support dem candidates with money in 2020.
“I assume it was Madison who wrote the 2nd amendment since he wrote the Bill of rights. I am sure he had no intention when he wrote it of creating the crazy cult”
You do alot of assuming.
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
It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.
James Madison
You can also try Federalist 46, where Madison makes HIS argument that an armed citizenry is necescary to thwart an oppressive federal govenrment.
There is a reason that people like McVeigh, Weaver, Koresch, and the Bundy;s think he was speaking to them – because he was.
You have gone from arguing that you know what your opponents in an argument think – regardless of what they have actually said, to claiming to know that dead people who have already expressed themselves on the issue would think differently today.
You seem to have a very powerful ouija board.
The 2nd amendment did not lead to Sandy hook. That is absurd.
Scottland has almost no guns, It has double the murder rate among caucasions of any country on earth – without a single gun.
More people were murdered in france on a single day by a rental truck than were killed in mass shootings in the US is several years.
There is ample evidence throughout the world that guns are not necescary for murder.
Early humans had a life span of 25, with almost all dying violently at the hands of other humans. It would be 150,000 years before a gun would appear.
Humans have killed other humans with infinite inventiveness for 150.000 years.
Getting rid of AR-15’s – which is not even possible would not be a speed bump.
And contra the left the US – the only country in the world were the ownership of firearms is recognized as a right – has LESS mass killing per capita than 61 or 170 nations in the world.
Less per capita than 7 european countries – including France and Norway.
There is no connection between the 2nd amendment, and mass killings.
You call Trump a Liar for far more accurate statements.
So what is it that constitutes a “lie” – a factually inaccurate statement ? Or just one that you feel is inaccurate ?
Is a statement therefore True – because it “feels” right to you ?
“No other civilized nation has this blight”
4 pinochios.
Mass killings are defined as acts of violence resulting in 4 or more deaths.
Per capita the US ranks 61st in the world in the number of mass killings. ‘
Virtually every nation with more total mass killings has gun control laws.
7 european nations rank above the US in per capita mass killings – including norway and france.
In point of fact rates of violence are incredibly stable and predictable across the world.
The single most important factor in a countries rates of violence are the ethnicity of its people. Asians have the lowest rates of violence – about 1/2 that of caucasions with Blacks having a right double that of cacuasions.
You can take any nation and from its ethnic mix caluculate its rate of violent crime with incredible accuracy.
NOTHING else correlates. Not guns, not anything.
Of course the left is crazy about gun control
It does not work. Anyone even slightly familiar with the data would at the very least have grave doubts that Gun Control will work.
But the more familiar you become with the facts the more clear it is that gun control is nothing but an emotional sop.
Passing laws solely to feel good certainly meets my defintion of crazy.
Its funny, there have been lots of comments on gun control today but I notice that no one here has had any thoughts on Rudy Giuliani saying the same thing O’Rourke did or stronger. In fact, Giuliani actually DID those things and it seemed to work in NYC. Kind of embarrassing isn’t it, actual sensible words and actions on gun control coming from the GOP anti crime hero mayor of NYC. But that was already long ago, no respectable republican would say anything like that today now would they? The NRA long ago got the GOP by the short hairs.
Priscilla, You and Dave can have your rhetorical field day with O’Roarke and the gun control advocates on the left, like you had it with Hogg a while back here at TNM. A punk you called him, among other things.
You know how I see the NRA tough-talking people on the right? The right is epitomized by Laura Ingraham and her followers thinking it was a gas to dump shit all over a kid who had recently survived a terrible massacre of his schoolmates hiding in a closet. They thought it was a hoot to mock him, insult him, Ted Nugent got his mouth rolling good and proper.
What the hell kind of people would do that?
The NRA right is very, very full of itself, I am hoping to see them taken down quite a few notches in my lifetime and see more conservatives take the slaughter of innocents a lot more seriously and not as the chance to beat their damned chests and and make threats.
Sure, the left is full of people who are bat shit crazy. The right is full of people who are bat shit crazy and vile on top of that.
“Its funny, there have been lots of comments on gun control today but I notice that no one here has had any thoughts on Rudy Giuliani saying the same thing O’Rourke did or stronger.”
No, it is not funny, your statement is incorrect. I responded.
Violence accross the US declined from 1989 through the present – not just NYC.
While something worked better in NYC than in Chicago. It was not “gun control” as Chicago has the same or worse gun control laws.
Like you Guilliani was wrong.
Regardless, why does A saying the same thing as B add to your case – if both are wrong ?
Bad ideas do not become good because a republican expresses them.
Trump is likely to buy some perverted version of Red Flag laws. Even the NRA supports them. They are still a BAD IDEA. They do not work – not even if you can get all republicans to vote for them.
Roby, I’m not sure why Rudy Giuliani’s position on gun control should or would be a determining factor in my forming my own opinion.
I would imagine that even Rudy’s position may have changed over the 25 years since this interview, but, even if it hasn’t, my own opinion is not tied to that of the former mayor of New York.
(And I still think David Hogg is a punk. So sue me.)
The issue regarding Hogg is whether his victim status precludes him from otherwise legitimate criticism.
If he makes a public figure of himself – then yes.
I am pressed to remember all the details, but it is my understanding that he attacked and lied about other students as well as himself.
Sounds like a punk.
No one is coming at you with Rhetoric.
What you have fobbed off as mere rhetoric is FACTS.
Absolutely everyone would like a magic solution to mass shootings – particularly schools.
But adults have learned that magic does not exist. This is not Harry Potter or the Lord of the Rings.
It is near certain that you could get overwhelming support – even for draconian guns laws if they actually worked.
But they do not. Wishing otherwise does not change anything.
And I do not honestly beleive your are personally so stupid that you actually think that any gun law proposed will work. I am sure you hope it will – all of us hope that whatever stupid thing you manage to pass will magically work even though we know better.
But some of us are not willing to use force justified only by hope that we know is false.
Hogg is free to express himself however he pleases. But he is not free to force his will on others, alter the facts to suit, or lie without rebutal. I have defended Hoggs right to free speach. But I will still critize the stupid and inaccurate things he says.
I recall alot of criticism of Hoggs false facts – is that what you mean by “insult”
I recall lots of insults coming from Hogg – do you get carte blanche to slander others if you have been a victim ?
Regardless, no one (outside the left) dumps shit over people who survived horrible things – until they decide to make public figures of themselves.
Absolutely – the press, the left and the right should leave the victims of horrendous things alone. They should not be holding “victims” town halls, and trying to convert victimhood into policy. That despicable conduct belongs to the left and the press. Victims should not be used like that. But when they do so willingly – when you step onto a public platform you make yourself a public figure and take all that comes with that.
You are absolutely free to speak out on any issue you wish. But you are not free from criticism for stupidity because you were some form of victim.
We do not allow victims to craft our laws to their whim.
And I actually know a thing or two about violent crime first hand.
Another thing that the left does – which Hogg is a sort of example, but attempting to use 15yr autistic girls to score political points on climate is despicable.
You can pretty much count on the fact that any ideology that feels it has to hide behind children – and disabled ones at that is morally bankrupt.
You have stupidly made a boggy man out of the NRA – I am NOT a fan of the NRA.
I think they are corrupt, but they are a private organization and people give money to them voluntarily. I also completely disagree with them on Red Flag laws. These do not work, the NRA knows it. But they are selling out the rights of people with mental health problems in the false hope that they can protect the rest of their constituents.
I doubt that there are alot of paranoid Schizophrenics that are NRA members.
Regardless, I oppose STUPID where ever it comes from – including the NRA.
I have not been influenced by them and pay very little attention to them.
But I do oppose stupid gun laws.
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
This is not a slippery slope. This is a highway to hell.
There are myriads of instances of “the slaughter of innocents” – that you could care about – and actually do something about. When I see evidence that you actually care about “the slaugther of innocents” when there are things inside your power – I will take you “rhetoric” more seriously.
Otherwise you are just farting emotion and not even credible at it.
There is zero doubt that for reasons we do not understand violence in the US started to increase in the 60’s and peaked in the late 80’s and has dropped precipitously since.
We do not know why. Guiliani is making a case for his approach as a very successful mayor – his “broken windows” approach.
But that is only one contender for the cause of decreasing violence after 1989.
Others are mass incarcertation – the long term effects of Rowe, or just the possibility that 1965-1989 was an aberation.
There are some other complications – post 1989 violence did not drop uniformly accross the US. NYC is inarguably much safer than it was, but Chicago and LA are not.
There are likely identifiable causes to that. Policing methods MIGHT be one of those.
Gun control is not. NYC has weaker gun control than Chicago and lower rates of violence.
BTW violence is NOT the only thing that peaked for unknown reasons during this period and has subsequently declined without explanation.
We are now rethinking alot of what we thought we knew about health and medicine – because the explanatiosn we thought we had for the increases have been falsified by the decline.
One would think on constitution day that this would be the characters actually taught student about that. Now we know why so many have no idea what’s in it. They can’t even find the time to teach it today.
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/education/constitution-day-is-tuesday-here-s-how-local-teachers-will/article_6286c9a5-f8eb-587a-a425-cce61e061137.html
Ron: “If the right to gun ownership has not evolved with technology, then the right to free speech should not cover what is said and communicated on the internet.“
So private citizens should be able to own surface-to-air missiles designed to counter ballistic missiles their aggressiveness neighbors could drop on them from new tech drones; and legally be allowed to own bazookas because criminals could crash into their homes with heavy duty Uhaul Trucks.
And your example elsewhere that if military-style riffles were outlawed criminals and mass murderers would simply substitute with multi-fire hand-guns proves the constitutionality of banning the former – because citizens could still protect themselves with the same hand-gun substitutions.
In the final analysis we humans are a violent murderous species who will adeptly find numerous ways to kill each other (and ourselves), and so I hereby withdraw my support to circumscribe those innate human impulses.
“So private citizens should be able to own surface-to-air missiles designed to counter ballistic missiles their aggressiveness neighbors could drop on them from new tech drones; ”
I suspect that you will find that is already legal. While there are FAA rules about launching rockets – I do not think there are any regarding owning them. And quite a few people own rockets capable of reaching “space”. Taking out balastic missles and drones is a technical problem – not a legal problem. I would be happy if my neighbor had an ABM – wouldn’t you ?
“and legally be allowed to own bazookas because criminals could crash into their homes with heavy duty Uhaul Trucks.”
Bazookas can be legally owned already. But the shaped charge shells would meet the defintion of an explosive and are currently regulated.
“And your example elsewhere that if military-style riffles were outlawed criminals and mass murderers would simply substitute with multi-fire hand-guns proves the constitutionality of banning the former – because citizens could still protect themselves with the same hand-gun substitutions.”
Handguns are a more effective offensive weapon – which is why they are more frequently used in mass shootings, while rifles are frequently better defensively – though it depends on the circumstances.
Rifles are very very effective at keeping threats at a distance. If you have an AR-15 and a reasonably open field of fire – no one with a handgun can get close enough to hurt you.
At closer distances shotguns work better. Handguns are generally less effective defensively until the threat is close.
“And your example elsewhere that if military-style riffles were outlawed criminals and mass murderers would simply substitute with multi-fire hand-guns proves the constitutionality of banning the former – because citizens could still protect themselves with the same hand-gun substitutions.
Jay, you do know that 3-D printers can now print semi-automatic guns, including AR15’s, right? And they’re getting better at printing ammo as well. Criminals and gang members across the country already have them, as well as the technology and plans to create more. They are virtually untraceable.
Gun bans will not prevent mass shootings. Virtually every mass shooting you can name could have been stopped if at least some of the victims had been armed.
Change my mind with facts, if you have them.
I have a 3-D printer. It’s just sitting there, waiting for a project.
Want me to print you up a gun?
Though illegal in the US to own non-metal guns that can’t be spotted by security metal detectors, it’s not illegal to print them here – I could probably print one and add decorative foil to sidestep the legal barrier.
And because the 3-D printing technology is so flexible I could customize and personalize the design- I’m thinking a gun with a barrel that looks like a circumcised penis would be a work of art in high demand. I see the possibility of a lucrative artistic internet business in the making!
Cool! I would like a pink gun, very girly-looking, with baby blue bullets. I’ll pay you in bitcoin. 😉
It is possible to “3d print” an AR-15 lower receiver, but I think the most anyone has ever fired with one before it self destructed was under 100 rounds.
But for 3 times the money – still quite affordable you can buy a CNC machine and make an AR-15 that is as good or better than one you can buy – with no serial number of registration.
Or you can make 10, or 100, or …
Jay, again some research might be in order. It was settled many years ago with multiple court cases what “arms” were considered in the constitution. To begin with, the right to arms is related to “militia” which during the time the constitution was written was considered the citizens (men) of the colonies.
So arms as it Is used in the constitution refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the rifles, pistols, and carbine. The term, in this connection, cannot be made to cover such weapons as artillary, rocket launchers, drones, etc since they were not part of the weaponry used by the general population in defense of the nation during the time the constitution was written.
In this definition, AR rifles are covered as are all pistols.
This is not a fight anyone is going to win without amending the constitution. If that happens, I am fine with that. But if government does it without that action, the fight over abortion is going to look like a childs game. If the majority of people trust the government and support that happening, then go for it.
But using force like prohibition to achieve an outcome has not and never will work. If the estimate of 15 million AR-15 rifles in society today is correct, if 80% of Americans follow the law, that still leaves 3 million in circulation, enough for the 2-3 nuts per year to get their hands on. Even banning them through a constitutional amendment will not rid us of them, but at least freedoms have been revised doing it the right way.
For me, it is not owning one of these or others owning them. It is not owning a semi-automatic weapon. It is the slow deterioration if rights, from choice in healthcare coverage, property rights, right to privacy (Patriot Act and health information ( HIPPA) actually increasing what providers can do with information, citizenry ( illegal immigration reducing legal immigration) and the biggest one is the change from representation in congress of the citizens of their district to the representation to a handful of powerful individuals nationally. If you trust your government not to become an amoeba and absorb other rights like a flesh eating fungus, then support an amendment. Write Pelosi and encourage her to do that.
This is an interesting article on gun buybacks. I found it very informative.
Also has an interesting quote from the “moderate” Joe Biden:
“But at least one leading candidate showed indifference to the prospect of agitating conservative fears to get his passed. Asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper whether a Biden gun buyback would amount to coming for conservatives’ guns, the former vice president said, “Bingo!” ” https://www.thetrace.org/2019/09/assault-weapon-buyback-policy-cost-estimates/
So, Biden is unconcerned about the 2nd Amendment rights of conservatives ? Good to know.
Also, there is no data that proves that the buybacks in Australia and New Zealand have been effective at reducing gun violence. To early for NZ and gun violence was already decreasing in Australia.
The article actually claims there was a reduction in overall violence do to the AU law – just that it is unable to determine the extent.
However comparative analysis of AU and NZ – which have near identical populations and from 1996 to 2018 completely different gun laws. Found no difference at all in violence between AU and NZ.
I have argued repeatedly on every single regulation related issue that you can not attribute to a regulation a benefit that is nothing more than continuation of the pre=existing Trend.
AU BTW has levels of gun ownership today that match pre-ban levels.
The law is still in place but it has been radically weakened wither by lack of enforcement or by vastly increasing the ease with which waivers are granted.
Completely ignored in this article is the likelyhood of violence in the event of any effort to confiscate guns in the US.
In the event that the US ever passed one of these idiotic proposals. the most likely result would be:
a significant portion of people ignoring the law – and law enforcement turning a blind eye.
That is a very bad thing. The 55mph speed limit likely did more to undermine the rule of law in the us than anything else.
DO NOT PASS LAWS YOU ARE NOT GOING ENFORCE!!
It is destructive of the social contract and the rule of law.
But ignoring people breaking the law – especially this law would be a necessity.
If you increased the number of police deaths in the US by 10% you would have a revolt among law enforcement. And 10% would be a radical underestimate in the number of police that would be killed enforcing this.
It is entirely possible that the police deaths alone – excluding people killed by police – would exceed the deaths from mass shootings.
If the goal was to preclude the violent end of life from guns – this would be an absolute failure.
Ok, so Beto says “it wouldn’t be necessary for federal government agents to go door to door to seize guns because he believes Americans will comply with the proposed law.”
Kamala will take guns via executive order, but “will give people their value for the guns” , i.e. use public funds to incentivize people to comply with her order.
Both plans propose using taxpayer money (as Anon pointed out) to pay off citizens who give in to the government’s unconstitutional infringement of a right that the Constitution says may not be infringed.
Neither Jay nor Roby seems to have any problem with the Democrat’s position that any citizen who refuses to surrender their legally purchased private property should, by that refusal, become a criminal. Both seem to believe that Americans will meekly submit to their masters, and that no door to door search and seizure would be necessary.
Roby says that amending the Constitution is impossible, so it must be violated. Jay believes that his own guns will be exempt, so he doesn’t care about others.
The unlawful and arbitrary seizing of private property by force is the definition of tyranny.
Why not a voluntary buyback? Seriously, if buybacks are the most effective way of reducing the numbers of guns, why not a massive voluntary buyback, giving fair market value to all who choose to turn in their guns?
https://neonnettle.com/news/8813-kamala-harris-pledges-to-force-americans-to-surrender-their-guns-to-the-government
© Neon Nettle
Priscilla, “The unlawful and arbitrary seizing of private property by force is the definition of tyranny.”
I am in your court on this issue. To begin wIth, just the 15M AR-15’s in circulation today would cost $7.5B if the government really paid market value for those. But to some, thats just pocket change!
Now for my question. Why does the seizure of guns by government elicit such a reaction as it being illegal and tyranny, but society meekly goes about its business when government seizes land based on EPA regulations create d by E.O.’s (not legislation), home owners are prevented from selling, improving or significantly changing properties in the future paths of roadways for 10+ years, property can be seized for the benefit of the community and the biggest one going on now is the seizure of property for the border wall, sometimes splitting property in half due to EPA rules preventing walls along a river, resulting in those being many yards from the actual border.
Seizure of private property, under the 5th amendment, should be illegal no matter what property is seized and citizens reactions should be the same under any case. Just because it is a gun makes no difference!
Ron, I totally agree with you on the seizing of private property. Even in the justifiable instances of eminent domain, the government always seeks to avoid paying market value for the land that they seize. In my town, the local government used eminent domain to pay about a quarter of the market value of a 15 acre farm, so that it could be used to create a youth sports complex, which the township said “was badly needed.” THe owner of the farm had died, his heirs were planning on selling the land to a residential developer, and they said that they would sell it to the town, if the town would raise their offer to something comparable to market value ~ in other words, not necessarily match the developer’s offer, but get somewhere in the ballpark. Didn’t happen.
Town took the farmer’s family to court, got court ordered mediation, raised the offer to 1/3 the market vakue and the family had to take the offer. If they didn’t, they would have been dead before they got a penny of their inheritance.
And, speaking of ballparks, there are now multiple Little League fields, soccer fields cross country trails, dog parks, nature hiking trails, etc. and just lovely park space in what was once the farm.
It adds tremendously to the lifestyle of the town, but was it obtained essentially by force. The town could have paid market value, but they knew that the court would side with the public use argument, so they saved millions, and used it to develop the park.
Not only did the town not support the farmer’s family , they applauded the seizing of the land for a “bargain price”
If we value ball parks and hiking trails – they will occur because we value them.
I just did a site assessment of a new development in Clarksbug MD.
It is full of parks and hiking trails and ball parks and recreation facilities.
All privately owned but mostly open to the public.
Why ? Because it makes the townhouses being sold more attractive.
Because 100% of all land is not easily developable anyway. Since there mut be areas to manage runoff and store storm water anyway, and since the people who choose to live in townhouses rather than the city explicitly WANT more open space – the developers made sure that was present.
People valued it – so they got what the valued – no government needed.
I can think of very very few instances where eminent domain is necescary – regardless government is constitutionally obligated to pay full value for what they take.
“Neither Jay nor Roby seems to have any problem with the Democrat’s position that any citizen who refuses to surrender their legally purchased private property should, by that refusal, become a criminal. Both seem to believe that Americans will meekly submit to their masters, and that no door to door search and seizure would be necessary.
Roby says that amending the Constitution is impossible, so it must be violated. Jay believes that his own guns will be exempt, so he doesn’t care about others.”
What a heap of manure. You are as bad as dave, you pretty much sound like him at this point. You two have become the Davilla twins.
Reality: Any hypothetical strong gun, gun registration, or mental competency to own firearms bill after the election will make its way through congress, the POTUS, and almost certainly the court system, including most likely the SCOTUS before it has effect. Beto is not emperor. I am not emperor. Our words have no legal weight. I support getting the deadliest weapons out of the system, as do a majority of Americans, as do many republicans actually, and as did Giuliani when he was Mayor of NYC. There will be as many unconstitutional seizures of guns by groups of roving gun seizers as a result of Beto’s words as there are abortions of healthy pregnancies at full term (None), to make an analogy with another of the absurd right-wing-nut alarms over nonsense you have posted about. Its all right-wing bullshit.
Here, I offer you my version of your nonsense propaganda about me, but with the provocative distortion of your ideas turned on you this time:
Priscilla supports keeping the status quo on gun massacres and believes, with dave, that the constant slaughter of innocents isn’t really that bad and is simply the price we must pay so that the government will fear its citizens.
Priscilla believes that gun owners are not to blame if they go on a violent murdering spree if they feel their Constitutional rights have been violated.
Priscilla thinks that it a great idea to mount a national right-wing campaign of dumping slime and abuse on children who have survived school massacres if they speak out for gun control.
Hows that sound? Its not quite correct, its a bit distorted, but its probably less distorted than your comments about me.
Ok guys ( the collective, not sex), can we take a step back because I am confused. I am beginning to think I dont know anyones position on gun control other than Dave’s and my own ( and then I am wishy washy on some control).
So if I do a list of controls, would everyone answer ONE WORD!!! yes or no if you support or do not support that issue. I will add mine when sending out. Then we can list everyones response, know where we all stand, and then if wanted, we can tell each other how assinine our position are.
I will support absolutely anything to reduce violence – whether with Guns or hard boiled eggs that:
Demonstrably works.
Does not do more harm than good,
Of all choices infringes least on individual rights.
Further I will acquiesce – to anything that anyone wants to do WITHOUT using FORCE – ie. government – whether I think it works or not.
We could cut mass shootings today by nearly 1/2 by executing everyone showing signs of paranoid schizophrenia
Unlike most of the proposals that have been floated that would actually work.
But I think most of us do not think killing a couple of thousand people – nearly all of which are innocent to reduce the number of mass shooting deaths by a dozen is a good idea.
You will note – I have not addressed any proposals or programs.
The proposals themselves DO NOT MATTER.
What matters is the PRINCIPALS used to determine whether FORCE may be used.
Guns, knives, 640z sodas – it DOES NOT MATTER what the “thing” being regulated is.
Ron I can tell you before you start that its not so simple as support not support A, B, and C. I support, as I Clearly said above, and have said many times, working Within the Constitution. So I may support something in principle, that does NOT mean that if that thing in the end turns out to be unConstitutional that I support violating the Constitution. Not that you would make that leap about me here, but some would and have.
Since I am not the POTUS and my individual preferences are not about to have any outlet, I can say that I support blah blah blah, but really what I support is voting for politicians that have a strong desire to strengthen controls on firearms and firearm owners. I will vote for pro gun control politicians and then believe that a political process will occur and in the end it will produce legislation that will be tested for Constitutionality.
Many GOP voters support the same things I support but GOP politicians live in fear of the single issue NRA voters so I will have to vote for democrats to get strong gun control. I will do that.
I think my position is simple and clear and that you, at least, will understand it.
The constitution you support working within – is NOT the one that was written.
While I think you are WRONG about your understanding of the 2nd amendment – it does not matter, the authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment made it ABSOLUTELY crystal clear, they were assertion an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT of EVERYONE, including Negro Former Slaves, to posession of guns without restriction by either the state or federal government.
The 14th amendment and its history was far more important in deciding Heller and McDonald than the 2nd. There was zero ambiguity in both the legislative drafting and the ratification debates on the 14th amendment.
Dave, referencing anything in the constitution seems to turn the switch off on those that believe the constitution changes as technology changes. After Jay, who has since left once again, asked me a question concerning the 1st and 2nd amendment, I took the time to look up information concerning the definition of arms.
Somewhere is the hundreds of comments and millions of words we have posted just on this one article Rick wrote, I responded to Jay concerning how arms has been defined over the years by courts. This information came from various legal sites.
The silence is deafing. This drives me nuts! Unlike you, right or wrong, I want to debate issues and have others defend their positions. They can use personal positions that they believe is right. They can use positions that they believe, if enacted into law, would make a difference. I dont care, as long as they respond.
But just like twitter, too often comments are made here, someone else returns with information that counters their comment and they disappear. Why should anyone even read what they say to begin with?
Of course the constitution changes over time – WHEN WE CHANGE IT.
We are free to adapt it to technology – though I do not think technology ever does much except point out that past restrictions on freedom were a mistake.
Regardless we are free to change it.
It is no harder to change than it was to create in the first place – and we are free to throw it out and start over too.
What we are not free to do is wish it into meaning something it does not.
BTW though I generally support the proposition that the supreme court is the finanl word on the constitution – primarily because I think the leglislature and executive are WORSE choices. That construct is not in the constitution at all.
The constitution speaks very little about the courts, and specifically about the supreme court and its role.
The role of the modern supreme court was laid out by a number of very early supreme court decisions – and by the fact that the executive and legislature aquiesed to them.
NOT by the constitution itself.
Debate issues ? Sure.
Jay and Robby are NOT the modern left. They are the left of a prior era.
But they have not grasped they have not merely been left behind but stabbed in the back and they are still using the same techniques as the modern left.
Not debate, facts, confronting issues.
I would absolutely welcome a real strong lefty to TNM – someone capable of arguing left positions with facts and logic and reason, with eloquence.
I do not think that Jay and Robby are “bad people” – though they are happy to accuse everyone else of being liars and frauds. But they are unanchored to anything.
They do not make arguments, they engage in character assassination and nothing else.
When your response to an argument is a slur or insult – that is where the rest of discussion will go.
If one party says – provide one instance ever where what you propose worked,
and the response is “liar” “Cherry picker” and abuser of victims,
the remainder of the exchange will be bitter and personal.
That is one of the reasons fallacies are not legitimate argument.
BTW I will absolutely agree that Trump revels in this. But he did not create this environment – it predates him substantially – in fact it has been arround forever.
JS Mills writes about it in “on liberty” – almost 200 years ago.
It has always been a part of politics – possibly even the dominant part of politics – by all sides.
But more recently – starting slowly with Bush II and rising to the present it has become the only aspect of public political debate.
Our government was always dysfunctional – but it has become far worse.
Our press has always leaned left, but at the moment we are talking lemmings running off the cliffs.
Discussion of issues is not possible – because everything devolves to character assassination – nearly instantly. To claims of morality rather than truth.
Morality is incredibly important – but when you morally desparage another – you had better be right. There is not the toleration for errors in moral judgement there is for factual judgement – and there should not be.
But this is the debate field that we rapidly devolve to.
Today – and for much of the past couple of decades – the left has driven that more than anyone else.
I think the roots of the current problem are in the 60’s not the present, but it has taken a long time for them to become dominant.
Alynsky’s rules for radicals is one facet of this. I do not think it is a cause, but it is a reflection of the values of alynskyites – win at all costs, facts, morality be damned.
Moral attacks on opponents are easy. They are much easier than defending facts.
And if not overused they are incredibly effective (whether valid or not).
Further the left of the 60’s truly beleived they were virtuous – and in many many things they were – though often very naive. But that presmuption of being virtuous – particularly without much thought about the actual virtue of what you were doing and how you are doing it has gradually come to completely dominate the left.
We celebrate victimhood – because we attach a presumption of vritue to it.
Read all of Robby’s posts. They are universally smug assertions that “I am right, and you must be evil to disagree”
Little or nothing in the way of argument to back that up.
The 60’s left was born as the anti-war movement.
Today the left is not even antiwar anymore – especially if Trump is opposed to it.
If Trump does not want to start a war – then starting a war MUST be the virtuous thing.
The left has gone from – we are virtuous because of our principles and values, to our values are virtuous – because they come from us, and we are more virtuous than anyone else, to Trump (or anyone we do not like) is evil therefore whatever they favor – the opposite must be good and virtuous.
And every debate they have starts with the presumption they are more virtuous than anyone who does not agree. Often without even knowing what it is that they seek to do.
SOMETIMES the left is champions of virtue – though again the ends DO NOT justify the means. And bad means rarely bring about good ends.
But the left has lost connection with virtue as a principle – it has become just a feeling.
Those on the left FEEL virtuous – therefore it is OK to lobb moral hand grenades.
Trump has charged into this and apparently he has read “alynsky’s rules for radicals” pssibly he has over a lifetime devised a few more rules of his own.
Regardless, he does to the left exactly what they have been doing to everyone else.
AND THEY HATE IT..
And they deserve it.
And I am not appologizing for that.
I am not confronting the left – or robby or .. in the way of Trump.
But I am calling them out.
I am not ceding the moral high ground to people who would not know a principle if it bit them on the ass.
I am actively going after people who make false moral claims as arguments without a clue about what they are doing.
If Robby wants the field of discussion to be moral – that is where it will be.
I am going to hold a mirror.
I have addressed your constitutional claim, but few of my arguments rest on the constitution itself.
I am mostly not interested in debates about the meaning of the militia clause – as they are truly irrelevant, not just because of the 14th amendment – but because the right to self defense is FUNDIMENTAL – the social contract may not infringe on it.
Constitutions may not infringe on it
it is supra-constitutional.
A govenrment that denies its citizens the right to defend themselves is not legitimate.
And as has been discussed before – you can not infringe on a right through the back door.
All of the free speach decisions the left finds heinous – DO NOT rest on “corporate personhood” – even though that is merely a legal simplifaction or the fact that corporations are owned by people, and you can not infringe on the rights of people merely because they have chosen to excercise a free association right.
The free speach decisions rest on the FACT that you can not restict a right by restricting the tools for acting on that right.
You can not pass a law that says – you can say whatever you please – but not on sunday.
Or but you can not use money to spread your message further.
You can not regulate ANY right indirectly by regulating the necescities of that right.
Gun rights do not require the 2nd or 14th amendment.
They do not require the constitution.
The right to self defence is both a “natural right” and an inalienable one.
Whereas the right to a jury trial is a constitutional right, and a civil right – it is a government created right as opposed to one that exists in nature.
Civil rights are the rights we receive from government as part of the social contract,
The social contract trades a few natural rights – the right to initiate violence against others, to government in exchange for:
The government protection of the rest of our natural rights,
AND our civil rights – which are the protection FROM government abuse the the natural rights we ceded.
WE allow government to take our freedom if we use force to infringe on the rights of others.
That is the gist of the social contract.
But what safeguards us against government abusing its power to take our freedom ?
THAT is what constitutional and civil rights are for.
The right to self defense is NOT a civil right, it is a natural right that is echoed in the constitution.
Robby;
No your positions are not “clear”.
It is often possible to “guess” them.
I can “guess” your positions – by assuming that feelings matter more than facts.
But I can not reach your positions by any process that is determinative, that involves principles.
That is pretty much the definition of unclear.
Taking Potter Stewarts ‘I can not define pornography, but I know it when I see it” broadly does not make it any less repugnant than it is when narrow.
We do not need principles to guide us in everything we do.
But when we use force against others – we MUST follow clear simple principles that EVERYONE is aware of whether they agree on them or not.
Anything less is lawless.
And I have never seen evidence that you recognize any such principles.
Every issues is decided individually – and ultimately by your “feelings” not by principles.
I would be ecstatic if you would prove me wrong on this.
Regardless, without immutable principles, you can not have clarity on the use of force.
“Priscilla supports keeping the status quo on gun massacres and believes, with dave, that the constant slaughter of innocents isn’t really that bad and is simply the price we must pay so that the government will fear its citizens.”
What the hell, Roby?!!? That is not only ad hominem, it is bizarre and ridiculous ad hominem, which is why I won’t even respond.
Ron, I will answer in one word, when you post your list.
Priscilla, you and I are on about the same page on gun control. A few differences, but not many. Roby said he did not need to list the differences, he knew where I stood. Jay has once again gone off into the sunset, so we will just have to assume he supports confiscation of weapons based on his comments earlier.So making a list really does not spund productive.
Absolutely – just as predicted – if I completely disappeared – you would target the same slurs and insults at Ron and Priscilla.
All you do is insult people who disagree with you.
You have no interest in facts of debate.
Priscilla makes a valid point ?
How are you going to make this work ?
If you can not make a law work – you should not do it.
Your “reality” ? You want to pass gun control laws – and then have the courts strike them down ? That is your idea of how things should be done ?
I take those who propose laws at their word.
I presume that they are proposing things they actually want to see happen.
I am glad that the process of imposing your will on others is complex and difficult – as you note, and wish it was much more complex and difficult.
But no matter how complex and difficult it is, I am not voting for a president who openly states they are going to do as they please and make every possible effort to circumvent all the impediments to doing so.
You seem to think that stupid tweets disqualify you from being president.
I think proposing policies – that if passed will be impossible to impliment is a disqualifier.
I think that proposing policies that you expect the courts to prevent is a disqualifier.
I think proposing policies that obviously will not accomplish what you seek is a disqualifier.
Beto is not emporer. But what he is proposing is either tryany or unconstitutional – one or the other.
He knows that – and so do you. If you are counting on the courts to thwart the stupidity of political candidates – you should not vote for them – right or left. That seems pretty obvious to me.
No your words have no legal weight.
But they are MORAL DEMANDS – and bad ones.
You are not merely bemoaning mass killings – you are DEMANDING that FORCE be used against the rest of us to prevent them.
FORTUNATELY you are unlikely to get what you demand.
At the same time you are MORALLY SLURRING everyone who disagrees with you.
The entire point is that THANK GOD you do not have the power to make your words into actions – because you are not sufficiently morally trustworthy.
BTW the deadliest weapons BY FAR are handguns.
364 people were killed in the US in 2016 with long guns – that is rifles of all types and shotguns, That is less than 1% of all gun deaths. It is less than 10% of deaths from knives.
Of those 364 – less than half with “semi-automatic” rifles.
So you are not looking to controld the most dangerous weapons – you are looking to control the scariest – but actually least dangerous weapons.
Again why it is a very very good thing that your moral demands have no weight.
AND SHOULD NOT EVER.
You are not trustworthy. You want to make moral choices – for others without any factual basis.
If you have no intention of doing something – why are you talking about it ?
Why are you DEMANDING that we do it ?
I am glad that you are wise enough to understand that what you want is unlikely to happen.
But that does not alter the fact that you are still arguing for it.
You still want it.
You would go ahead and do it – if the obstacles that fortunately make doing so unlikely were overcome.
If you posted that if there were no obstacles preventing it you would steal from others, or rape them – that would be a reflection of very bad character wouldn’t it ?
We advocate for what we beleive in.
I advocate consistently for
“The maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order”
You are constantly advocating against freedom – and I am thankful that the impediments to what Beto and Harris seek are still barely sufficient impediments to you.
“Here, I offer you my version of your nonsense propaganda about me”
And yet all you offered was more slurs and insults of the rest of us.
There was absolutely nothing in the rest of your post demonstrating a slur or insult of you.
What FACTS about you have either Priscilla or I asserted that are untrue ?
You have claimed that I am cherry picking.
i.e. you are saying that I am a LIAR.
That is a testable assertion. Further it is not merely a factual assertion – it is a moral one.
You are not obligated to prove factual assertions – though it is usually necescary to persaude.
You are obligated to prove negative moral claims about others or to be judged immoral yourself.
Or are you saying that in civil society it is acceptable to call everyone you disagree with a liar ?
With respect to your claims about me – though my arguments probably apply to Priscilla,
Your assertions are FALSE.
What I have said – consistently, whether about gun control or drugs or environmental or health regulations is:
You MUST justify anything you propose that uses force to infringe on liberty.
There are many requirements to jusification.
ONE of those is that what you propose to do must WORK.
i.e it must pass a utilitarian test that the benefits outweigh the harms.
That test alone would eliminate nearly all regultions.
You say Priscilla and I want to preserve the “status quo” – that is near meaningless.
Nothing you propose will have demostratable positive effects.
We are going to get the “status quo” regarding mass killings – no matter what.
Whether we do what you want or most anything else.
The only way the “status quo” will be disrupted is by the loss of rights.
Wishes and hopes do not disrupt “the status quo”.
Absolutely no one here has claimed that people who “go on a violent murdering spree” are not responsible for what they do.
Anyone who has – I condemn – and I am sure Priscilla will join me.
In fact your assertion makes a strong point against you.
PEOPLE are responsible for the actions they take.
Not their cars, or knives or guns or pencils or whatever.
Inanimtate objects even dangerous ones do not have moral culpability, and do not act on their own either for good or evil
We do not even assign moral blame to non human actors we do not call wolves or huricanes good or evil.
Moral action (or immoral action) is confined to humans – because humans have free will – CHOICE.
Morality does not exist without free will.
I have made a point of confronting YOU morrally.
“Priscilla thinks that it a great idea to mount a national right-wing campaign of dumping slime and abuse on children who have survived school massacres if they speak out for gun control.”
Your back to reading minds again. To the extent that ANYONE has slimed victims – that would be exclusively the left.
No one else seeks to parade them in public. No one else is pushing autistic teens as either factual or moral authorities.
Those of us who disagree with you tend to LEAVE VICTIMS ALONE – until they are paraded out in public by shills looking to exploit them.
Hogg went beyond being exploiting into self exploitation and becoming a public figure.
There is no difference between attacking Hogg and attacking Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz.
Hogg made the choice to become a public figure.
You do not get a free pass to advocate publicly for the use of force against others because you are the victim of a crime.
But you should be entitled to privacy so long as that is what you want.
When is the left going to quit exploiting victims ?
What is distorted about how you are presented by me or Priscilla ?
As best as I can tell the argument in your Beto post was
It is perfectly OK to advocate to infringe on the liberty of others – so long as the mechanisms of government will preclude what you advocate from actually happening ?
I think that is a fairly accurate expression of your position – if not, please tell me which part is incorrect ?
Are you not advocating to infringe on the rights of others ?
Are you not prepared to use the force of government to do so ?
Have you provided a justification of that use of force ?
Have you demonstrated that you will be able to accomplish what you hope for.
Have you demonstrated that any benefits will not be outweighed by harms ?
How is asking you any of those things “distorting” ?
You seem to think that it is distortion of your position to point out that you have not considered how what you propose will ACTUALLY work ? That it has consequences aside from those you hope for, and that it will not accomplish what you hope.
Most recently you have accused me of ‘cherry picking’.
And not occasionally – but pretty much ALWAYS.
Am I distorting what you have said ?
That is a MORAL accusation. Not merely a factual one.
You are accusing me of LYING
And infact you do that all the time. You do that with EVERYONE who disagrees with you.
Everyone who disagrees with you is universally engaged in some form of moral malfeasance.
We are either sliming the victims of violence or engaged in some form of LYING.
You are free to claim that.
But if you make a moral claim – and nearly every word you write is a moral claim,
unlike merely factual claims – you are obligated to prove moral claims.
Or is a society in which everyone accuses everyone else of moral failure all the time without any basis acceptable to you ?
And that has been one of my core points regarding what is wrong with politics TODAY.
I want to be clear on the TODAY part – I am not defending every republican that ever was or attacking every democrat that ever was. I am not even attacking every democrat today, nor defending every republican today.
I am pointing out that the bitterness in our public debate RIGHT NOW is the consequence of todays Left. It is a consequence of the VALUES of todays left.
It is a consequence of the concept that there is personal truth or social justice.
Truth is NOT individual and Justice IS. It is a consequence of the destruction of the meaning of words, It is a consequence of the assumption that all viewpoints are equal (except those that aren’t), it is a consequence of the cult of victimization.
Regardless, it is not merely the prefered tactic of the modern left it is the ONLY tactic of the modern left.
And that includes YOU.
You do not debate – you insult and slur. You cast moral judgement on everyone you disagree with – without ever justifying ANYTHING with facts – not your viewpoint, not your arguments, not your moral judgement of others.
Absolutely positively I am RIGHT NOW doing something similar.
But not the same.
I am MORALLAY condemning you – for making a moral claim and failing to back it up.
And I am BACKING UP my Moral claim against you – with the EVIDENCE of your own posts.
In the past I have said you are in error often – constantly, and I have usually backed that up.
But I have RARELY accused you of being EVIL – and when I have I have produced the evidence to support that claim. Mostly I have stuck to the consequences of your actions are or will be evil – which is true.
I have given you the benefit of the doubt MOST of the time – doubt I am not so sure that you deserve, that your errors are not intentional deception.
But you offer no such lattitude to ANYONE else.
Everyone who disagrees with you is engaged in deceipt.
Is a LIAR.
And you wonder why the nation is split ?
Look in the mirror.
“americans will comply with the law”.
Like they complied with the 55 mph speed limit ?
Like Eric Garner complied with NYC laws baring the sale of loose cigarettes ?
Like David Koresch and Randy Weaver complied with laws on guns ?
Do we think that these people are going to meekly comply ?
How about the Bundy’s – are they going to comply ?
We already know that Law enforcement in New York and connecticutt is REFUSING to enforce the gun laws those states have passed.
The police are not interested in dying trying to enforce bad laws against otherwise law abiding citizens.
I oppose government buy backs – voluntary or otherwise, regardless of compensation.
I do not support government using taxes they collect from me to buy guns from others.
If you want to do gun buy back – do it privately.
Pretty much anything you wish to do through government by force, you are ALWAYS free to do privately.
So Today we learn that NYT not only ran a straight new story with a new claim against Kavanaugh BUT at the time they ran the story they knew:
The alleged victim had no recall of the incident.
They had contacted several other purported witness to the event,
all of whom denied not only the claim – but that the entire naked party thing happened.
Again this was a straight news peice – not an op-ed.
NYT has just become a bad gossip column that is heavily politically biased.
Even the National Enquirer would not run a story with this as the only basis.
Sexual assault is very serious.
Some of the time – the evidence is overwhelming and damning.
Some of the time – the claim is bogus.
Alot of the time what we can prove falls in the middle.
When NYT runs garbage it damages not only its own credibility but the likelyhood that we take seriously allegations that are either provably true or that have a high probability of being True.
There is increasing evidence emerging casting even more doubt on the original Ford allegation. While it appears impossible to falsify that allegation, we are increasingly moving from – something happened to ford, but her recollection is flawed and it probably was not Kavanaugh, to Ford engaged in a politcally motivated smear.
Certainly her lawyers did. Further the public remarks of her lawyers are under all circumstances an ethics violation and the lawyers should be sanctioned.
A lawyer may not put forth a case they do not beleive to be true for political or other motives.
A prosecutor may not prosecute for political reasons.
A defense (or any other attorney) attorney may not put on a witness they know to be lying,
Further, a lawyer may not reveal publicly the confidential communications of their client.
If Ford actually told Katz what Katz has claimed:
Katz would have been ethically barred from representing Ford
Katz would be ethically barred from repeating that communication.
Ethics matters. But ethics go out the window when an ideology beleives the ends justifies the means.
“The alleged victim had no recall of the incident.”
WRONG!
Jay ” WRONG! ”
Really.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/16/new-york-times-admits-alleged-victim-kavanaugh-incident-no-recollection/
What info do you have?
“that several friends of the alleged victim in question say she has zero recollection of such incident.”
She’s REPORTED BY OTHERS to have said she “could not be certain” that Kavanaugh was the person who exposed himself.
But SHE HERSELF hasn’t subsequently confirmed or denied ANYTHING to reporters: refusing to be interviewed.
I personally was skeptical of the dangling penis story from the start. I tried to visualize the description of his friends ‘shoving his penis into her hand, and only got a good laugh from that. Did they grab it in their equally inebriated fingers and guide it into a phallic handshake with her trembling fingers? Or is it possible he or another one of his pals dropped their pants and dangled their droopy daisy in the direction of female attendees- and that story over time was exaggerated?
Maybe he did or didn’t dong dangle at frat-like parties. Maybe he was or wasn’t sloppily and incoherently drunk during his undergraduate years. So long as he’s put that behavior behind him I don’t care if he was an obnoxious asshole back then if he stopped behaving like that on the bench.
But his decidedly CONSERVATIVE judicial philosophy should have kept him off the SCOTUS. Obama’s balancing moderate-liberal Judge was hijacked by Republican perfidy.
Centrist–moderate Americans like me don’t want ultra conservatives or liberals on the court. We want MODERATE judges. Kavanaugh needs to be removed from SCOTUS and replaced ASAP. And if the MSM swallows him and spits him out with Trump-like distortions, I’m OK with those means justifying a moderate court ends..
You have called others liars – and this is your defense ?
then if you want K removed, why not wait until Warren is elected President and then impeach him and she can nominate Phyllis Hamilton to take his place?
““The alleged victim had no recall of the incident.”
WRONG!”
NYT disagrees and printed a correction below.
Can I expect you to print a correction for calling me a liar ?
Touche!!!!
“ran a straight new story with a new claim against Kavanaugh”
It wasn’t a straight news story. It ran in The Sunday Review which is a platform for essays as well as excerpts or adaptations from books. The Times article was quoting from the book where the accusations were made.
And the article in fact reported the complaints about the accuracy of those Kavanaugh accusations
You are a day late and a dollar short – and lobbing false allegations all over.
This consumed several embarrassing news cycles for NYT and they fared badly.
Multiple appologies were made.
And the story has died – and yet you keep looking to revive it.
No this was not just a book review. The reporters went on the sunday news circuit – and embarrassed themselves there too.
The book is non-fiction. A deliberately misleading excerpt – even in a book review is defamation. And NYT did NOT publish the article as a book review but as a NEWS STORY,
The section of the Sunday Review the story was in was called NEWS ANALYSIS.
That is STILL straight news. It was the intention of the authors and the intention of NYT that the story was to be treated as a NEWS STORY.
Authors do not typically review their own books.
And book reviews do not typically defame people and lie.
Now the authors are trying to spin Kavanaughs agreement to speak with them “off the record” as somehow a request for them to lie.
Journalistic ethics is not what it used to be.
This is not the stuff of serious non fiction or of the former New York Times,
this is stuff that the National Enquirer did.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/461599-weve-lost-sight-of-the-real-scandal
I am completely open to a serious debate regarding the criteria for entry to the US.
Personally, I will argue for “open borders” – so long as immigrating to the US does not create a claim against citizens for anything beyond entitled to the protections of “the rule of law”.
In fact the entitlement of immigrants from our govenrment should be exactly the same as citizens. It is wrong – whether you are an immigrant or a citizen for govenrment to steal from others to provide for you, what you are obligated to provide for yourself.
Charity is a duty of all of us – individually. It is not a duty that government can impose.
Even though I beleive that immigration is an incredible positive good.
There is no right to immigrate anywhere.
In an article I cited elsewhere, a democratic polster noted that he has found a groundswell of public support for democrats arrising from immigration issues.
Is there anyone who beleives that ?
Regardless, as noted by this article – when “catch and release” is not the US policy – most of these immigrants return home.
Another factor that the article notes is that those with likely credible claims for asylum are delayed by the throngs of what are clearly economic immigrants.
I found the stories of those disturbing. We have women who left their 3 year old sons in the care of older children to “seek asylum” in the US from the violence in their countries.
We bemoan the US policies of family separation – yet these people have often done just that – voluntarily leaving children in the very dangerous circumstances they claim entitle them to asylum.
SCOTUS has just stayed court orders impeding Trump’s policies on immigration.
You can expect that within the next 6 months the “crisis” at the borders will disapate.
The greatest problem with past immigration policies is that they encouraged people to illegally immigrate to the US. Those policies said – do not concern yourself with our immigration laws. We do not enforce them.
That is the single largest impetus to illegal immigration.
Let me be clear – I WANT
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
But that is an offer of freedom and opportunity, not an offer of charity.
I want an american where anyone has the chance to succeed.
Something you can not have unless everyone also has the chance to fail.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/17/waiting-juarez-trumps-remain-mexico-program-ruin-smugglers-trade/
The transformation of liberalism to progressivism and the ills that accompany it
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/public-schools-story-shows-radical-left-transformation-american-education/
NEWS FLASH:
It has just been revealed that Trump promised Putin ‘Oral Satisfaction’ if Russia helps Trump get re-elected in 2020…
Jay, i did not try to access the New York Slimes article for two reasons.
1. I dont have an account, so whenever I try one of there articles, I hit their pay wall.
2. Are you REALLY putting any credence in anything they write after the lies, made up facts and personal attacks on SCOTUS justice Kavanaugh to destroy that man the past week?
If so, your hatred for Trump rates right up there with the psychopaths that shoot others. Destroying lives, no matter whose life and how its destroyed.
No likee NY Times, try AP:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration plunged into an extraordinary showdown with Congress over access to a whistleblower’s complaint about reported incidents including a private conversation between President Donald Trump and a foreign leader. The blocked complaint is “serious” and “urgent,” the government’s intelligence watchdog said.
https://apnews.com/48f63d46490a409ca20aecc1c4fdf573
So Jay, what should I do with this info?
Do I jump to conclusions like so many did with Russia?
Do I jump to conclusions like I did with Clinton thinking she would be charged and tried like you and I would be based on GOP propaganda, only to be deflated when nothing happened.
Do I jump to conclusions like so many did when Adam Schiff said he had evidence about Russia working with the Trump campaign, only to find there was no evidence?
Sorry Jay, I cant believe anything from any news source because they all lie to make a story fit their narrative. I will wait until congress investigates, find substantial information that ends in impeachment and/or charges to top level administrative/personal presidential advisors and those individuals are found guilty. Anything less is fake news propaganda or political party campaign lies for election processes.
You can beleive the entire story – except the hyperbole and still have nothing.
I would give Congress broad power to subpeona executive branch records – much more than the courts currently allow. But the courts would still be the ultimate aribiter.
There is not a “constitutional crisis” or “showdown” because the exceutive branch does not want to give the house something it is after.
If the house beleives that executive priviledge does not apply – then it can ask the courts to order the whitehouse to turn over records.
The IG has decided the allegations are serious and urgent.
I am not sure about urgent – but an allegation that the president is using the power of his office to influence an election is serious.
And an enormous number of people from Obama through Robert Mueller should take note of that.
Urgent ? Less so.
At issue is whether it is legitimate for the US to ask Ukraine to re-open a criminal investigation that appears to have been colsed for political reasons as a result of alleged threats made by the vice president of the united states at the time.
If credible – that is an extremely serious crime.
So the question is whether the allegation is credible.
It was credible enough for NYT to report it in 2015.
It was credible enough for a Ukrainian prosecutor to investigate it – without any prompting from Trump was was likely unaware of it in 2015.
So we have lots of evidence that Trump had nothing to do with concocting.
Ukraine is being asked to lookin to evidence that exists, not evidence that Trump manaufactured.
There is no quivatent to the steele dossier manufatured by the Trump campaign.
There are FBI spies – but these were in Ukraine spying on the Russians and on Paul Manafort, not the Bidens.
Put simply Trump has absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances that created the initial investigation.
There is nothing even slightly extrodinary about it.
It is pretty minor compared to Rosenstein Stonewalling the House GOP after Trump ordered him to cooperate.
As has been publicly reported long ago, Trump’s strategy from the start was to provide Mueller everything he asked for, and to provide house democrats nothing.
Absent Mueller finding obstruction, past court precidents suggests that Trump’s claims of priviledge will hold.
In the whistleblower case – there is an ongoing IG investigation and the House is just not going to get much until that is over.
House republicans did not go to court with Rosenstein – because they would have lost.
House democrats will not either.
If this was actually extraordinary – the house would be in court now.
Who knows maybe they will get lucky.
But much of the story is already out – but with Trump controlling how it was presented.
Nadler is chasing the story, and anything he does will resemble the Lewedosky and Mueller testimony – democrats making fools of themselves.
I have not read the article either.
That said – there appears to be a story, thought it has nothing to do with Putin or Russia.
We do not know all the facts that the whistlebolower is alleging.
But it is extremely hard to come up with a set of additional facts consistent with the ones we do already know that would be a problem.
In fact mostly this appears to be a problem for Clinton, Biden and Hunter.
The worst allegation that I can think of here is that Trump personally appealed to the new president of the Ukraine to re-open an investigation into political corruption in the Ukraine involving Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the Clinton Campaign, Paul Manafort, an FBI double agent. Allegations that VP Biden threatened to cut off US aide to Ukraine if they did not sack the prosecuter investigating Hunter, …
There may be nothing here. But there is an actual basis for an investigation.
Trump has publically called for one repeatedly. His doing so privately would not be some dirty deep dark conspiracy.
Further there is pretty much no scenario that can be alleged as wrong doing here that does not make the entire Trump Russia investigation into a heinous and impeachable crime.
With respect to the House – there is pretty compelling information that the Trump strategy was to fully cooperate with Mueller from the start – to give him Everything he wanted.
And to give house democrats nothing.
Providing Mueller everything he wanted completely undermines the “obstruction claim”.
Without that the house has no foot in the door to get any of the information they wanted.
Further the obama whitehouse stonewalled the house egregiously.
In fact that stoenwalling continued after Trump was inaugurated even though Trump directed DOJ/FBI to provide the house what they wanted.
There is not some – the executive can stonewall republicans but not democrats rule.
If Nadler wants this stuff – he can get a court to decide whether he is entitled.
Thus far democrats have not sought to go to court to enforce their demands.
Probably because the courts are likely to say no.
Interestingly Trump is often making Public what the democrats ask for.
But he is not providing it to the house.
He is not allowing the house democrats to manufacture fake crimes.
Dave the only thing I do not like in all of this was Trump’s campaign promise “to drain the swamp” and he has done none of that, especially with his DOJ blocking everything of questionable circumstances from going to congress.
The president is not a king. He should have little executive privileges and when national security is involved, congress still should have this information through the committees with security clearances.Only grand jury testimony and information should be blocked.
I don’t care if it is Reagan, Bush 41-43, Clinton, Obama, Trump. When something of this nature comes to the attention of the DOJ, at least the chair and vice chair of the House and senate intelligence committees should have info. Otherwise it just makes the administration look bad to many that are not rabit supporters that will call anything a witch hunt if it has to do with their president or administration.
We saw what congress can do with the senate investigation of Trump concerning Russia with Warner and Burr without all the grand standing. Adam Schiff is just out for making himself the Johnny Manzell of the house, all attention and no results. That is what happens when things are shared with appropriate individuals.
This sounds like “draining the swamp ” to me.
What we know to be a fact is sufficient for Trump to ask the Ukraine to re-open their investigations.
While Hunter and Joe Biden are entitled to a presumption of innocence, the allegations are damning and there is evidence that makes them plausible.
Independently there is alot of evidence of malfeasance regarding the manafort prosecution as well as substantial evidence that Mueller has repeatedly engaged in brady violations – failure to provide those he was prosecuting with exculpatory material in his posession.
Prosecutors are not required to go looking for evidence of thier targets innocence – Why Not ? But they ARE required to provide the defence with anything they uncover that MIGHT be exculpatory.
Mueller has been repeatedly on the wrong side of brady in the past.
The Ted Stevens investigation involved deliberate hiding of brady material.
There are substantial issues with Richard Jewel as well as the Anthrax case, and every party he has chased in the Trump investigation has MULTIPLE credible claims of brady violations.
We now know that Klimenick was an FBI spy, not a russian asset.
Neither Manafort nor the court were told that.
It strongly appears that a manufactured case against Manafort was created by parties now gone in the Ukrainian government.
There are alleged links between the Clinton campaign and the Ukrainian government in 2016.
There is plenty for Ukraine to investigate.
I do not understand why Guiliani asking is an issue.
It sounds like “draining the swamp” to me.
Dave, you are way too intelligent.
You are way over 99% of other Americans in their understanding of current politics.
What the hell dies anything with Russia have to do with a perceived illegal offer or arrangement with Ukraine and Bidens son?
No, other than you and maybe 10,176 others can make the connection.
The only thing many voters hear is Trump blocking an investigation by “HIS DOJ”
I suck at understanding politics. But I am no worse than anyone else here.
and an awful lot of so called pundits have sucked pretty damn bad too.
I do not think I am better than others at understanding politics. I just think we are all pretty bad, but only a few of us understand how bad we all are.
I do not think that – just because I know I suck at it, that Robby or Jay or you are better.
“The only thing many voters hear is Trump blocking an investigation by “HIS DOJ””
I have not heard that Trump has blocked an investigation by his DOJ – please enlighten me ?
While we are shot a little on some facts – I think we know enough that we can speculate on a worst case for the rest and Trump still comes out fine.
FACTS:
Trump has repeatedly tweeted that something appears rotten with the Biden’s in Ukraine.
There is plenty of evidence for the rest of use to think things smell fishy with respect to the Biden’s in the Ukraine.
Trump has tweeted hoping the Ukrainians to reopen the investigation that they started of Hunter Biden.
There exists no evidence that Trump had anything to do with the original investigation of Hunter Biden. there is no evidence that Trump say manufactered false claims about Hunter Biden – BEFORE TRUMP RAN FOR PRESIDENT.
It appears likely that Trump asked the new Ukrainian president to reopen that investigation.
It appears likely that this is what the “whistleblower” has reported to the IG.
There is to my knowledge no evidence that anyone is interfering with the IG investigating the whistleblower complaint.
Absent some fact we do not know the worst case for what Trump is likely to have done, is not a problem. He is likely to have done pretty much what Guliani said he did – asked to have the investigation re-opened.
Nadller and house democrats have lept on this. Trump is stonewalling them – not the DOJ who does not appear interested. and not the IG.
The only possible way Trump is in actual trouble is if he threatened the Ukraine – in the way that VP Biden allegedly did.
As to congress. I beleive in broad congressional oversight – though I think that unless there is a crime involved, the communications of the president with others are protected.
The courts have generally found that too. Even if I changed my mind and decided that congress should be able to subpeona people to testify to their communications with the president, the courts have still said generally they can’t.
1. There are numerous report’s about Trump administration blocking someone from testifying before congress. Haven’t covered much of them, but just constantly hearing about “corruption” and the need to hear from this person
2. Maybe I’m the one out in leftbfield. Dont do twitter and if I did, I certainly would not waste time following Trump.
With respect to “executive priviledge”.
I have argued here, before repeatedly for greater congressional access to executive information.
I do beleive GJ material can not be shared PERIOD. I do not think it should leave the posession of the prosecutor of the case, and if no one is indicted it should be destroyed.
I DO NOT beleive there is an “ongiong investigation”priviledge” – if congress wants to muck up an ongoing investigation – that is their peragotive. They courts have nullified convictions and the grounds of the mess created by concurrent congressional investigations. – that is the proper resultion to congress wading into an ongoing investigation.
The “gang of eight” is supposed to be the resolution to national security issues.
There is no “national security priviledge” – but that does not mean ALL of congress can dig into classified information trivially.
The last and most difficult privildege is executive priviledge.
NARROWLY, that is that the direct exchanges between the president and anyone else is priviledged from congress, but not from criminal investigations. I think that is actually appropriate. But it is limited to the direct exchanges with the president.
I do not beleive the President has priviledge with respect to the IG on this issue.
That is appropriate.
If congress disagrees with claims of executive priviledge – that is what the courts are for.
At this point in time this is NOT a DOJ issue, it is an IG issue – also appropriate.
The allegation of the “whistle blower” is serious – though I do not think it is urgent.
Based on the facts we know thus far – an IG investigation is appropriate. I do not expect anything of that – unless there are facts we do not know – and we know a surprisingly large amount. Curtesy of Trump Twitter diariah.
Unless there is some fact we do not know, which is always possible, there is nothing here.
This is all about taking Joe Biden’s corruption, along with his now wealthy son, Hunter Biden, and creating a narrative where Biden’s forcing the former Ukrainian prime minister to fire his Proscecutor General (similar to our AG) because he was investigating an energy company called Burisma, which had mysteriously appointed Hunter Biden to their board, and then, just as mysteriously, transferred 3 million dollars into Hunter Biden’s bank accounts.
Biden himself talked about this last year, claiming that he told the Ukrainian PM that Ukraine would not receive the billion dollars in aid that the Obama administration was planning to give him, unless the Prosecutor General was fired . Needless to say, he did not ,mention his crack addict son and his involvement in the company that the prosecutor was investigating.
By an “anonymous whistle blower” claiming that Trump was trying to “get dirt” on Biden in a phone call with the new prime minister, by asking that he reopen the corruption investigation, the Democrats are attempting to create a new “collusion” narrative, and stonewall Biden’s involvement in a huge scandal.
It’s hard to find the facts, since Google only displays liberal and leftwing sources on its front page. Here is an article I found. I’m sure there are many others, since more right wing outlets reported Biden’s boast at the time he made it, but this one is short and clear:
“I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.” (Joe Biden’s quote)
https://tradingyourownway.com/son-of-a-bitch-got-fired-joe-biden-brags-he-forced-ukraine-to-fire-key-official-in-exchange-for-money/
Oops, I didn’t finish the first sentence… it’s about creating an anti -Trump narrative to hide Biden’s corrupt actions in protecting his corrupt son.
There is no privilege to be corrupt:
Nope, he is perfectly correct, The allegation is specifically related to the non-public communications of the president of the united states. Those are priviledged.
That privildge can be waived – it has not been. It can also be circumvented by the courts.
I am pretty sure the priviledge does not apply tot he IG investigation, and it certainly would not apply to a criminal investigation.
But it absolutely applies to congress.
Congress will be able to get the information on this – If and Only if, the IG investigation results in an allegation of criminal conduct to DOJ AND the house goes to court AND the court agrees to provide the house the information.
That is essentially what occurred during watergate.
This is little different from why the House can not get alot of what it wants from the Mueller Team. Grand Jury material is priviledged – even from congress. And the communications of people with the president is priviledged – even from congress.
To get that material – you have to persuade a court to give you access.
We went through a version of this with Lowendowski yesterday.
House Democrats asked Lowendowski lots of questions he could not legally answer and were angry when that was his response.
Lowendowski has testified 3 times before on this – nothing new was going to be revealed.
If congress wishes to break priviledge – they know where the courts are.
FOLLOW THE LAW.
I am not personally a big fan of presidential priviledge. There is a very legitimate basis for it, but I want it to be as narrow as possible.
But even if I agreed that congress should get this material I am STILL going to expect that they must go to court for it.
All that said – given that it is near certain that everyone’s best guess as to what this is , is correct – Trump should just go public with this himself.
Something to the effect of:
On a phone call with the new Ukrainian president I asked him to investigate ukrainian corruption involving americans and the prior ukarian administration – just as I have done publicly on twitter and in press conferences many times before.
There is no story here. If Democrats think there is no priviledge or there is an exception – they can ask the court to enforce their subpeona’s.
L. Tribe: “If it’s Ukraine, then this looks very much like a promise of US arms or other aid in return for dirt on a political opponent’s family (Biden’s son Hunter) — both a violation of federal campaign law and bribery, an explicitly impeachable offense. Smoking howitzer, anyone?”
Tom Nichols: “Rudy’s performance on @CNN just now was a level of pants-sh*tting panic rarely seen on national television.”
CNN’s @ChrisCuomo: “Did you ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?”
@RudyGiuliani: “Of course I did”
Jay, I suspect if there is anything “there”, then the Democrats will find it. Hopefully it will not just be another witch hunt like the Russian investigation or Trey Gowdy’s Bengahzi investigation that provided little useful information in bringing charges against anyone.
And I hope this is not another statement like the one months ago “I have information that the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russian Government” but never produced it as of today. You can only cry wolf a limited number of times until even your friends stop believing.
And if there is anything there, then that gives the GOP time to find someone who may continue many policies in place, without the insanity surrounding the current administration.
There is almost certainly something “there”.
But it is going to be hard to make a crime out of following through privately on numerous public requests for Ukraine to re-open an existing investigation.
It is also going to be hard to make Trump’s conduct criminal – without making that of 2/3 of the Obama administration also criminal.
I will trade impeaching Trump for sending Obama, Biden, Comey, McCabe, Powers, Brennan, Clapper, Rice, Lynch all to jail.
If there is no crime, then there is no there “there”. In my use of “there” it means soemthing that is a criminal offense. To many there was something there in the Russia issue. To me there was no “there” there.
And if there is something “there” then it should be shared with the house and senate committees chairs.
Given what we know – there is not a national security issue. There is no need to share it with the “gang of 8”.
There is an IG investigation – that is appropriate.
This is purportedly about direct communications with the president – that is a legitimate subject for priviledge.
This only becomes the houses business if the IG refers this to DOJ AND the house forms an impeachment committee. That is if we are going to follow the same law as we did during watergate
Ron, I won’t repost my explanation of what I think this is all about, but it’s in the thread just a little above this one. It’s another witch hunt, combined with a smoke screen to protect Biden.
Using one anonymous source, who claims to “have heard” Trump say something inaprropriate is the tipoff. Was the Oval Office bugged? Is the source lying? Was he in the Oval Office at the time? Listening behnd the door?
I watched the Giuliani interview on Chris Cuomo’s show, and Giuliani was excellent…except that they were both talking at the same time through 80% of the interview. I think there is also an attempt to destroy Giuliani in this, so that Trump will fire him.
Yes, something to use during the election, proven or not. They need something to counter Trump personal mud slinging.
Like Roby, I have no trust that anything will get better anytime soon. We have had this crap going on since McConnell said he was going to make Obama a one term president. But we just did not have someone like Trump that throws the $&!* into the fan and sprays it far and wide like now.
I do not like McConnell, but this dates back prior to Saul Alynsky it has been a long long time coming.
Guiliani has openly admitted to asking the Ukrainian President to re-open the investigation.
And he was not slightly bashful about it.
Trump has not commented on the content of his remarks but said that he knows that as president half the intelligence services in the world – including the NSA listen on every phone call he makes – and he KNOWS IT.
Further it would be pretty hard to make a case that Trump was engaged in furatively doing something he has openly asked for on twitter.
Lots of us would like to know why the US DOJ is not investigating these allegations.
In the end I think we will find that Trump, Guiliani and the Whistle blower all agree on the facts.
What we have is someone who thinks something is a crime when it is not.
Rudy Guliani has already admitted that he asked Pres. Zelnysky to investigate VP Biden.
What is it that you expect to find here ?
Known Facts:
Hunter Biden has many lucrative deals in the Ukraine.
Hunter Biden was being criminally investigated by a Ukrainian prosecutor.
VP Biden met with the then Ukranian President.
The investigations were stopped and the prosceutor was fired.
Further Ukraine also investigated Manafort during the 2016 election.
False documents were provided by the Ukraininan investigators to US press that resulted in Manafort resigning from the Trump campaign.
The alleged Russian Spy that Manafort was purportedly working with turns out to be a “double agent” working for the FBI. Spying on Russia and probably Manafort.
The above are known facts at this time
The items below have been reported in the media – most in NYT
In Dec. 2015 the New york Times reported that VP Biden threatened to withdrawl US aide to Ukraine if they did not end the criminal investigation of Biden.
NYT (and many others) also reported about HFA’s ties to the Ukraine and Ukrainian support of HFA during the 2016 election
Hunter BTW has similar deals with other countries including China.
The above does NOT prove a crime. But it is more than sufficient to request that the new Ukrainian president investigate of the misconduct of his predecessor and possible corruption involving americans.
Further this is FAR MORE credible than anything that has EVER existed on Trump/Russia
So is it not acceptable for the US to ask Ukraine to reopen an investigation that was shutdown by the current President’s predecessor that involved americans and corruption ?
I will be happy to have an open debate over what constitutes sufficient grounds for an investigation.
I will note – that no one is hiding anything. Trump tweeted long ago that Ukraine should investigate. I am pretty sure Trump publicly asked the prior president to do so.
It is reasonable that he would ask the new president to continue.
I have listened for 3 years to all of you telling me that an investigation into Trump – that to this day not only found nothing, but still has no basis.
Biden and Hunter are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
But I can not see anything wrong with Trump (or Guliani) asking for an investigation – particularly given substantially more evidence.
But if this is wrong – why wasn’t Obama impeached ?
Hey, Jay, they’ve really got him now, right? This is finally it ~ forget “Russian collusion”, Stormy Daniels, and all the rest ~ this is the end of Trump. Right?
The complaint is about Ukraine – not Russia.
We do not know the facts – but they are not particularly hard to guess.
It is now OBVIOUS that the Obama administration manipulated Ukraine to make false claims and provide false information against Paul Manafort.
It is Also OBVIOUS that VP Biden extorted the Ukrainians into dropping investigations of his son-in-law.
It is highly likely that Trump asked the new president of Ukraine to investigate the corrupt acts of the prior regime.
But apparently democrats do not want foreign countries to investigate the corrupt conduct of american officials.
Absolutely The Ukraine re-opening the Manafort investigation would help Trump’s re-election.
Absolutely The Ukraine re-opening the investigation into the corrupt dealings of the Biden Family in Ukrained would help Trump’s re-election.
Should the president resist asking Foreign nations to investigate corruption involving americans if success in those investigations might help them politically ?
Regardless, this has nothing to do with Russia – The Ukraine is – and was a US ally AGAINST Russia.
Further the state department has confirmed that the “Russian Agent” that Manafort was purportedly sharing election analitics with was an FBI spy.
If Trump asked the new Ukrainian President as a personal favor to reopen these two investigations, I FULLY SUPPORT THAT.
The left has told us that it was OK for The US to investigate the Trump campaign without any basis. It is then certainly acceptable for Trump to ask the Ukraine to investigate corruption involving americans – where there is already ample evidence.
If as has been reported in the left wing nut news VP Biden threatened the Ukrainians with a loss of aide if they continued to investigate his son-in-law – I think that should be investigated by both the US and the Ukraine.
That would constitute a number of crimes if true – including ACTUAL obstruction of justice, extortion, and the use of public office for personal gain.
Are you saying that Trump is prohibitted from asking that credible allegations be investigated because the offenses were committed by democrats ?
BTW Trump LONG AGO tweeted about this – asking publicly for exactly what purportedly the whistle blower is alleging. If it was a improper for Trump to ask in a Telephone call,
it was improper for Trump to ask in a tweet.
I did not here any complaints then.
Regardless I expect foreign campaign interfereance to be a major theme in 2020.
But the stories will near certainly be about Chinese efforts to aide the Democrats.
I expect the chinese effort will be much larger than those alleged of Russia.
I expect that they will be as inefectual as those alleged of Russia.
And I specifically say “alleged of Russia” – because Mueller was actually bitch slapped by a federal court for claiming that the actions of private Russians were driven by the Russian government. The court said that Mueller could not raise claims involving ties between the defendants and the russian government without proving evidence of those ties, and that to date the court had not been provided ANY evidence of such ties.
The media did not report on this much, But the Trump.Russia collusion narrative is dead – because Mueller could not actually tie the Russians who DID NOT collude with Trump – to the russian government, or the Russians who did engage in internet trolling – to the russian govenrment.
The standard of proof the court requires for making an allegation is VERY LOW.
The court was not saying – the evidence was weak, They were saying an allegation alone is not evidence.
So, what a %^&$# mess we are in. There is a world of urgent problems, national and international and the reactions to them, which ought to be based on facts, common sense, and common decency are instead a matter of well patterned tribal warfare.
I’m afraid this site has given me no hope for an improvement.
It has no connection at all to moderation after Rick posts his pieces, which are moderate in intent. Its just the same old war between tribes that exists in the nation, except with an relatively outsized libertarian aspect.
I wish it was a site that truly discussed how the center can take the parties back from the extremes and the partisanship their core believers and their partisan provocative media with their constant red meat tactics have taken them to. But it isn’t. Its not going to be either. I could name the culprits but everyone already has their own understanding of who they are. The discussion is mostly pathological, that is, driven by pathologies, personal and national. In spite of Ron’s sincere efforts, this conversation truly stinks.
I would love to see some light in the tunnel for moderates, the parties are both FUBAR. Many many people do not want what either party is selling; it a perverted product in both cases. Those people who don’t believe in the delusional left and the right party cores can’t seem to organize in any way to stop the trainwreck
I think the founders would be aghast. They built a process that was best in the world at the time, but I think they wanted a result, a healthy society, more than anything. That is not what we have. And the world continues to be a very dangerous place.
I see a disastrous 21st century as a strong possibility, perhaps with even more disastrous conflagrations than the those of the 20th century. The tools we have for self destruction grow in power daily.
Just venting. I don’t expect my venting to change anything.
Yep, I agree 100%.
You, myself and (most of the time ) Priscilla could discuss issues, and maybe not agree, but at least discuss have we view things, even iof we don’t use facts to back those up.
Jay is so far off the rails with his Trump hatred he can not discuss anything without it being something the radical left has released, proven true or not.
Dave and I have been in a active discussion because I , and other, don’t always use facts, he does not want much said if it does not include facts, but also does not want to remain neutral if it doesn’t.
There are many things we could be discussing between us, but I am very close to becoming an “any Democrat president” voter because I am extremely tired of the current situation in Washington with the constant attacks on Trump with questionable facts and nothing getting done that matters. At least with Warren as president we could have 4 years of the GOP and far right news attacking her. At least for a few months, it would be something different.
I could sit down and have a beer and talk politics with Jay or you. Jay hates trump like Dave hates anything that has anything of the left about it, so they both have a narrow focus. But Jay’s opinions outside of the subject of how much to vent about trump are more similar to mine than different.
I suspect that you could have a beer and talk politics with anyone here one on one and have plenty to agree about, even with Jay.
But, as I said,.the conversation here has no connection to moderation and in general most of it stinks most of the time.
I think if people took the purpose of the site to heart moderate political positions and how to move the parties toward them, it would not have to be a rehash of the daily trench warfare.
Not holding my breath.
My problem is not with the left specifically it is with those who would impose their will on others by force, especially those who wrap themselves in fraudulent morality to do so.
At other times in my life that has more frequently come from the right. Today it is nearly exclusively fro the left.
Ron,
I can not make sense about the paragraph about our exchanges.
You and I disagree on some policy issues regarding immigration and trade. Even there the differences are small. I think there are facts to support my position. But the difference is sufficiently small that what I beleive to be error on your part is not the end of the world.
Regardless, I do not see our debates as nasty or full of vitriol or emotions and venom.
I do not want anything to get done in washington – so I am happy about that.
“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session”
I have my problems with Trump – but I think his presidency is apt punishment for the left and the media – and it can go on forever and they can pummel each other to death while I ignore them.
“There is a world of urgent problems, national and international and the reactions to them, ”
Mostly no. It NK actually lobbs a nuke at us – that is an urgent problem.
Nearly everything else – after passing a budget we could send congress home.
“which ought to be based on facts,”
Yep
“common sense”
Too often that means – feelings not facts,
“common decency”
Government is not about “common decency” it is about law. It is about when the use of force is justified and when it is not.
Most everything that is about “common decency” is about each of our relations with each other, and have nothing to do with government.
“are instead a matter of well patterned tribal warfare.”
Then accept the results of the election, figure out why it did not go the way you hoped, try to fix that and move on.
Regardless, the right is not particularly involved in tribal warfare.
“I’m afraid this site has given me no hope for an improvement.”
Be the change you expect from others.
If you want to change the world – start with yourself.
Or as Jordan Peterson says, if you want to change the world – start with cleaning your room.
“The time is all we’ve lost
I’ll try it
He can’t even run his own life
I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine,”
“It has no connection at all to moderation”
Your not after moderation – your after your own way.
Your entire bitch here is “I know what moderate is, and this isn’t that”.
Maybe, or maybe you do not know, maybe your idea of moderate is just leftism ?
“after Rick posts his pieces, which are moderate in intent.”
Now your reading Rick’s mind.
“Its just the same old war between tribes that exists in the nation, except with an relatively outsized libertarian aspect.”
Good, this country could use much greater libertarian influence.
“I wish it was a site that truly discussed how the center can take the parties back from the extremes”
Given that there is no agreement on what constitutes the center or the extremes, and that your premise assumes that true = center, which MIGHT be true sometimes, but certainly isn’t always.
“and the partisanship their core believers and their partisan provocative media with their constant red meat tactics have taken them to.”
There are people here worse – but your pretty high up.
You rush to post fallacies and slurs.
How do you expect people to get along with you if all you do is tell them they are evil liars ?
Ron Priscilla and I sometimes have tense exchanges – but they never rise to the level of those with you. Because there just is not the same level of name calling, and bad moral judgement.
“But it isn’t. Its not going to be either. I could name the culprits but everyone already has their own understanding of who they are. The discussion is mostly pathological, that is, driven by pathologies, personal and national. In spite of Ron’s sincere efforts, this conversation truly stinks.”
With minor differences on immigration and trade – both of which Ron is much farther from you than I, there is far less ideological distance between you and me, than between you and Ron.
So This is not about my idelogy or Ron’s
Maybe you should look in the mirror/
“I would love to see some light in the tunnel for moderates”
There is plenty of light, you just have to open your eyes.
“the parties are both FUBAR.”
Yes, just a good reason not to trust government or to give it much power.
“Many many people do not want what either party is selling;”
Yup, most people what very little out of government.
Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.
Adam Smith
“it a perverted product in both cases. Those people who don’t believe in the delusional left and the right party cores can’t seem to organize in any way to stop the trainwreck”
The worst part of our govenrment is that there are too many things that the left and right DO agree on that are leading to ruin.
“I think the founders would be aghast.”
Absolutely – they never imaginged a government of this scale and intruding to this extent in their lives. They sacrified their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to fight a represive govenment that was MUCH smaller than even local government today.
“They built a process that was best in the world at the time,”
So why have you sought to change it as rapidly as possible. ?
“but I think they wanted a result, a healthy society, more than anything.”
Instead of guessing what they thought you could read what they wrong and know.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
― Patrick Henry
“That is not what we have. And the world continues to be a very dangerous place.”
Not so.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F2378nh2nfow32gm3mb25krmuyy-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FViolence-Stylized-2.png&f=1&nofb=1
“I see a disastrous 21st century as a strong possibility, perhaps with even more disastrous conflagrations than the those of the 20th century. The tools we have for self destruction grow in power daily.”
You can forecast anything, – but matching 20th century violence would be hard.
Somewhere near 150M people died in 20th century wars alone.
I am going to say something that I wish Rick would say. The site is, after all, called the New Moderate. Its intent to be one of the tiny number of resources for people who are moderate, and for moderate political ideas. I wish Rick would come out and say that the site is for this purpose and if someone has something to say that involves somehow furthering a moderate viewpoint on politics, rather than a partisan or ideological one, this is the place for it. If someone is just looking for an endless soapbox for their party or ideology, there are so many places for that, its pollution here of Rick’s intent. Why do that here?
If everyone held to the original intent and spirit of Rick’s site then there might be a much smaller number of posts, but in the end the conversation might be the conversation that Rick envisaged. Who knows? Perhaps over time moderates might actually find this place based on Ricks essays and stay here if it was a site that actually focused on moderation and not the political war of the day.
I’m not sure that’s possible in this day and age. Few people really want to discuss anything. They just want gorilla social media warfare. Quick hitting negative anti-social posts and get out.
What you think it moderate – I think is left wing extremism.
What I think is moderate you think is libertarian extremism.
You seem to think that there is a universal understanding of moderate – and that it is yours.
That you personally sit at the ideological and political center of the universe and anything to either side of you is extreme.
But your not in the center. Neither are Ron. Priscilla and I. But we are closer than you are.
Regardless, you are not bemoaning the death of moderation.
That would require that you knew what it is .
Roby, I know Rick fairly well, and I think that he would agree that being a moderate doesn’t mean having no ideological viewpoint, or partisan leanings. He has strong opinions himself, some more liberal, some quite conservative. But mostly centrist. And he is willing to change his opinion when presented with facts that may contradict his previous beliefs.
I think that the founders would be very clear on what is going on in this country right now, once they had gotten up to speed on the facts. After all, they had just finished fighting a frigging revolution, in order to free themselves of a tyrannical government.
I think that they might agree with all of us in part, and none of us entirely. But they, more so than you seem to believe, would understand the importance of compromise, even in the face of extreme disagreement.
I think anyone who is a history major would find there was just a much, if not more, division in the country in 1776 as there is today.The constitution was not ratified until 1788, 12 years after the declaration of independence.
Priscilla, if you have an inner moderate, and you may have, it does not seem to be in your makeup to let it out with any passion publicly. You are a team player, loyal. What your team does you will provide support for.
Another way I can try to define a moderate is a RINO or DINO. The person the parties’ right- and left-most bases can’t stand. Those are the moderates.
Moderates are the people who try to bring their parties back to their senses when they go too far. No one would ever call you a RINO Priscilla. By your description no one would have called you a DINO when you were a democrat either. You are a team player until it finally gets to be too much it seems. You are not about to make a big public fuss about something your side does, no matter what it is, and you will accept and defend some things that are really out there.
Maybe this analogy will make sense. You are a conservative mirror image of my Senator Patrick Leahy, who is the perfect orthodox 100% reliable Democratic team player. Whatever goes wrong in this country I can count on him to blame on the GOP. Whatever harebrained ideas the Dem party comes up with I can count on him to support them. He is the problem. I have sent some letters his way in the last few years that, believe me, rival anything I have ever said to you in their spiciness.
Moderates are not team players, they are team disruptors, the skunks at the party garden party.
If you have any inner moderate lurking beneath the team player, this would be the time to use TNM to address that side of your mind with some heat and passion, in the way you would address a democratic failing. What has the GOP done, what has trump done, that seemed really, really wrong and wicked to you?
Ah, I am not as you describe, Roby, not even close, but 1) we are not here to discuss my ideology or lack thereof, and 2) I could write a long, detailed explanation of why you are wrong about me, and you would merely blow it off with some nasty personal insult, so I will not waste the space or anyone else’s time here.
Robby.
Look in the mirror.
Priscilla does not need your help.
But you might need hers.
Priscilla does not need you to find her “inner moderate”
Whether I agree or disagree with her on any issue – she and most everyone else here is just fine how they are.
Most of us are not looking to impose our will on the rest by force.
Here you are pleading with Priscilla to repent – for what ?
I thought I had seen everything – but an “alter call’ from you ?
Regardless – why is it that you get to decide that Priscilla is not moderate ?
How else can what you are saying be understood – please enlighten me ?
Open my eyes that I may see.
Preach the gospel of your righteousness to me !
Show us how we have sinned and reveal to us all how we fall short of your concept of moderation ?
“What has the GOP done, what has trump done, that seemed really, really wrong and wicked to you?”
This is not about the GOP or Trump.
But it most certainly is about the fact that you can not conceive of the possibity that anyone who disagrees with you is not evil – in YOUR WORDS WICKED.
almost 65m people in this country voted for Trump.
I was not one of those – but I do not think of them as wicked – or what they have done as wicked.
Trump is a less than stellar president – we have had a long long run of those.
There are many ways he is worse than Obama (or Bush), But thus far on net he has done better. He has done many things I do not like. So have Bush Obama, Clinton, …..
Overall the country is improving 50% faster than under Obama.
If that is your idea of wicked – were you calling Obama satanic ?
Your strutting around preaching like Jerry Falwell.
For your next sermon consider Matthew 7:15-18
By their fruits you will know them.
A good tree can not bear bad fruit, and a bad tree can not bear good fruit.
Hunter Biden for Prez!
He’s a Dem in Trump mode: just as sexually randy as Donnie; as financially greedy; as multi-married; but with genuine legal credentials, and better completion, hair, and teeth.
https://images.app.goo.gl/zjJAqVqj727BFUUMA
For me the essence of moderation is disagree ing with and criticizing the extremes of one’s own closest tribe or ideology. Most voters start from either an affiliation with left or right. The ability to recognize and strongly criticize one’s own side when they become offensive or delusional is the heart of what a moderate is in my universe. The most interesting comments anyone makes here in my opinion is when they disagree with their own party or the party that most closely reflects their ideals.
So you are saying that you are a right wing moderate ?
Roby, I think that the most interesting comments here are those that surprise me, either because they are unpredictable, or because they debate an issue or a story using facts or arguments that I haven’t previously heard or thought of. I don’t always agree, but I like when people give the reasoning behind their positions, especially when it challenges my own.
I hate what’s happening to the Democrat Party, because I am a strong believer in the 2 party system. Frankly, I hope Tump wins in a landslide, so that socialists like Bernie and Liz , as well as idiots like Beto are driven out of power. Losing again to a guy that they’ve tried so hard to destroy, along with trying to destroy his entire family, would be a good wake up call…except that, instead of taking it as a sign that they need to figure out why their party is a mess and fix it, they might just spend the next 4 years whining about Trump colluding with somebody or suppressing votes.
Jay, I would not be surprised if crackhead Hunter Biden, a guy who slept with his brother’s widow less than two months after his brother died, and whose endless greed and corruption may cause his father’s presidential aspirations to crash and burn, eventually becomes a big media star and runs for office himself. Or maybe just gets his own reality show.
Would not surprise me at all.
I also believe that the democrats deserve to lose by a landslide if they nominate a progressive loon. But we can’t afford the consequences of that because the trump GOP is also a hideous delusional mess. That trump GOP mess, if you see at all, you are not about to admit to here in any but the mildest words. I can see the details and the size of the mess on “my side” and they disgust and frighten me. I have given the pointiest side of my tongue to my own Vermont congressional delegation, or at least, to their staffers. Can you say the same about of the mess on “your side”? Surprise me.
The best way to put an end to the progressive delusions may be to elect them and have them fail. Of course, that does carry the danger that they manage to force some of their bad ideas on the country in the same way that trump has forced his bad ideas, without the true support of the country, which just makes all the problems worse.
What the trump GOP is creating is acceptable to 42% of the country and unacceptable to 53%, in spite of a good economy if I believe Nate Silver and I mostly do. The reasons for that state of affairs are something that neither you nor Dave are able to comprehend and basically I guess both of you believe that those numbers aren’t real. I think you are going to find out during the campaign proper that they are more solid than you believe. A majority of the country sincerely are against trump’s style and substance, and for very good reasons.
In any case, at least one side is in for a massive slap in the face in 2020. I would like to see both sides massively slapped in the face.
I can tell you that I have not actually been purposefully trying to offend you and I am surprised that you took offense. Especially my post about your solid GOP loyalty is simply fashioned out of statements you have made yourself. It was not intended as an insult, just an objective statement. Do you really think anyone would ever confuse you with a RINO? Do you really ever strongly criticize your side in public?
I was certainly fairly hot about the absurd idea that I or anyone is keen on unconstitutional seizures of guns, which is just nuts, a non starter. My tone I am sure reflected my anger about that.
Since 2000 the GOP have been engaged in internal power struggles,
As republicans were obviously losing “the culture war”, social conservatives lost power,
and all power vaccuums must be filled.
The McCain’s and Romneys tried to move in and failed.
The NeoCon’s tried to move in and failed.
Fiscal Conservatives and libertarian republicans have gained more power and influence – but have NOT unfortunately gained control.
The Tea Party similarly made a bid for power that ultimately failed.
Trump has succeeded in gaining control the the GOP. He did so primarily by bringing Blue Collar Democrats into the republican party. In the process he appears to have driven NeoCons almost completely out. Frankly that is a net gain for republicans.
Pulling in Blue Collar democrats sacrificed important republican tenants – such as free trade, and taking a stronger position on immigration.
Trump will eventually leave – and the GOP will shift arround a bit as jockeying to replace Trump occurs.
But it is likely that the specific mix of policy focus that Trump has concocted will dominate the GOP for many years.
It is likely to do so – because it is an election winning concoction.
All of your rants about Trump are ultimately rants about style, not substance.
One of the things that the wiser analysts point out is that all those polls that get touted,
Trump’s policies have incredibly broad support.
You may be able to find opposition on narrow areas like family separation or possibly walls.
But the overwhelming majority of americans do not want millions of people crossing our southern border unchecked.
That is a massive losing issue for democrats – and it is not going away.
And it will likely be a more powerful issue for Republicans without Trump.
The same is true on Trade. While I think/hope that Trump and the current administration are inherently free traders at heart. They are heavily invested in protectionist sabre rattling, and it is a politically winning issue for them and for republicans.
The economic success of Trump is also a big win for Republicans – so long as it is sustained.
The more distant we get from 2016 the weaker it will be – people have short memories and are unable to compare 1.8% growth to 3% growth unless they see both close at hand.
Trump’s handling of judicial nominees is both politically appealing – though not on the scale of the other issues. And that will have positive consequences for decades to come.
Trump’s handling of energy policy is also important. The US could have become energy independent 10 years go. Trump did not create the means to accomplish that,. He just got government out of the way.
Energy independence radically alters the emphasis of our foreign policy. we are much freer to back away from “endless war”. Trump has successfully fully wrested control of the GOP from NeoCon’s it is likely that NeoCons will return to the democratic party – good riddance.
Democrats can have the Chenney’s and Max Boots,
Regardless Trump has unified the GOP and put together a winning set of issues.
Politics is dynamic and changes will have to take place.
Put simply democrats as they are currently ideologically constituted will slide into irrelevance.
That will not happen. Democrats will ultimately adjust, but the longer that takes the worse for them and the worse for the country.
In the prior post I covered Trump’s impact on the GOP and its future – from the perspective of issues and policies – that is what ultimately matters. Trump’s style is not repeatable, and style is not really a reflection of any party or consequential to its future.
I do not agree with all the shifts that Trump has accomplished within the GOP.
But whether I agree or not, they are not a “disaster” and in fact they position the GOP for a stronger future.
The GOP is not some hideous delusional mess – that would be democrats.
Trump will ultimately be gone. His “style” will not be an issue then.
Polices and issues will. The restructuring of the GOP that Trump has accomplished is likely enduring.
Though politics is dynamic – and shifting must occur as each party ultimately reacts to the success or failure of the other.
Democrats are in trouble because they are doubling down on everything that cost them the election.
They will be especially in trouble if they are still rushing off the left edge of the world post Trump.
Lets presume that my political analysis is wrong.
Right now what you call “the looney left” is in control of the democratic party.
I do not mean control in the sense of unknown powerful men in smoke filled rooms,
I mean in the sense that every serious national democratic candidate must kowtow to ever more extreme left policies to win a primary.
The democratic party is practically owned by Antifa.
While the extreme left does not make up the core of the party, They hold the power.
This is the consequence of the demographic changes that the pew ideological shift charts note.
Republicans still primarily fall on a bell curve centered just slightly to the right of center.
But the distribution on the left has its center much farther to the left, and has a long taper to the right with a short one to the left.
It is irrelevant where the political center of the party is, the concentration of substantial mass towards the far left rather than a traditional bell curve means that the party as a whole MUST pander to that mass.
When the distribution is a bell curve the group as a whole can ignore its own extremes.
When the peak shifts significantly to the right or the left – the group MUST respond to that peak.
Right now democrats can not win a primary without shifting to the far left, and can not win a general if they do.
Even if center voters forgive democrats for shifting to the left during the primaries – the far too large left wing of the democratic party WILL NOT forgive them for shifting back toward the center.
The majority of voters can as a concept prefer “anyone but Trump”.
But unless a democratic candidate can get ALL of the ABT voters to vote – they will lose.
If Democrats remain left in the general – the center will either vote for Trump or not vote.
If they shift to the center – for every vote they gain they risk 2 on the far left not voting.
Fair enough, Roby. I do always appreciate your take on things, and I know that, especially when it comes to things like gun control, there is a lot of fear and anger on both sides.
As far as my loyalty to the GOP goes ~ I wouldn’t say that I am loyal to the GOP, although I have reached a point with the Democrats, where I cannot honestly say that I could, in good conscience, vote for any of them. Hopefully, that is a temporary situation, but only time will tell.
Even previous to this, I have been uncomfortable with the leftward drift of the party. Unlike Ron and Dave though, I am one of those voters who follows the advice of William F. Buckley, who once said “Vote for the most conservative (or for most of my life, the most liberal) candidate who can win.” Therefore I have never voted for a third party candidate ~ Until 2004, I almost always voted for the Democrat, and since then I have always voted for the Republican. That’s actually only 3 Republicans: McCain, Romney and Trump.
I think that Trump has been, on balance, a decent president, especially given the unrelenting efforts, of BOTH parties, to remove him from office, often with what we now call “fake news. ” The GOP has now officially fallen in line behind hm, because he has been successful and enthusiastic about sampaigning for Republicans and appointing conservatve judges, but many of them secretly hate him too. Mitt Romney, for example, who makes little secret about it. When the GOP held the House, Paul Ryan stonewalled almost everything that Trump wanted to do, except the tax cuts, which Ryan also wanted. Tough to get your agenda through, when your own party leadership won’t support it.
But what he wanted was not extreme or unpopular. Immigration reform for example. Renegotiated trade deals. Lower prescription drug prices. Less burden on small businesses. Things that many of us want, but we never get, because people focus more on Trump’s personality than on his agenda.
Long before the 2016 election, I related a story about how my husband had several business dealings with the Trump Organization. In the world of NYC real estate, there are few, if any good guys, and dealing with dishonest developers, organized crime leaders, and Big Labor makes even simple projects very difficult. He found Trump to be a man of his word, and respected him for it. How many marriages Trump had, or how many women he slept with was of no consequence to him. If he said he would pay you if XYZ got done, he paid you, without hesitation. If XYZ didn’t get done, he didn’t, and told you why. Sounds simple, but in the NYC jungle of real estate, it’s not the norm. Nor is it in big time politics.
So, I always sawTrump through a diffferent lens that others here, even when I opposed him in the primaries. I see him as a successful man, who has risen to the top of three difficult worlds (business, entertainment, and politics) doing things his way. He is not your “typical” anything, and he does things his way, which does not go over well in Washington to say the least.
Is he a jackass? Yeah, he is. Has he strayed from his marriage vows? Yup, no question. Soes he have weird hair? Check. Is he a disruptor by nature? I think so, and I think Washington has needed someone like him for a long time now. Yet, I do see his flaws, some of them concern me, and I get why everyone else here will not vote for him. I appreciate their reasoning, but my reasoning is different. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong, athough I could be.
But ~ and this is where you misread me ~ do I belong to the cult of personality that excuses Trump from anything, the way that Obama’s much larger cult also did? No. If Trump betrays his voters, specifically me, I would not vote for him again. He can make mistakes, or do things that I don’t like, but, if he becomes just another Washington pol, looking to get rich at the public trough, or putting America’s interests behind those of other nations, particularly nations like Iran, or leading us into a pointless, neverending war, I’m outta there.
I would have no problem voting for a democrat.
I have no loyalty to any party.
I am highly likely to vote against incumbents and those holding “safe seats” just to send a message – regardless of party.
One of the problems that Democrats face – ESPECIALLY as Trump himself fades in signficance, is that if “moderate” democrats do not get the support of their party, they will change parties.
The overwhelming majority of democratic house candidates that won in the last election, would be as much at home on the moderate edge of the GOP as the right edge of the DNC
The Connor Lambs and the McCrearies – and many many like them – could be republicans or democrats quite easily.
And Trump will NOT always be the face of the GOP – but the shift hard left by democrats will likely take much longer to correct.
The crop of moderate democrats who took Orange County in 2018 all appear to be heading toward loss in 2020.
It is unwise to presume that the parties are static. Trump shifted 2.5M voters int he rust belt.
MAYBE he just got they vote for an election or two. But MAYBE they have been abandoned by the democratic party, and they are gone for good.
It is probable that Trump has driven alot of NeoCon’s out of the GOP.
Personally – good riddance, and democrats would be unwise to take them back.
Regardless the shifting policies of parties are not just to cull together the votes to win today’s election they also reflect the future of the party and the future make up of voters in that party.
Shifting blocks permanetly is harder – but it still happens. The GOP is pretty much guaranteed a larger share of every single age cohort as they grow older.
Those here who think that you, I and Ron are far right shills and Trump is a massive liar should seriously think about your story regarding your husband.
It is very important – much more important than just Trump, though it tells you alot about Trump.
There are many factors to success – including luck and talent and ideas.
But NO ONE succeeds sustainably, and in multiple endeavors without TRUST!!!!!!
The left has successfully created the conscious impression that everyone in business is greedy and untrustworthy.
Yet every day we go to McD’s, Walmart, …. we buy things and we expect to get our money’s worth. And we go back again and again.
We may occasionally complain, but billions of voluntary exchanges occur every day.
NONE of them had to occur. Everyone was a free choice.
We might do business with people we consciously think of as crooks.
But we do not do business with people we ACTUALLY think of as crooks.
I have signed contracts for almost 100m dollars.
The best advice I ever got from a lawyer is:
Contracts are for honest people. They address minor miscommunications,
you can not fix a dishonest client with an excellent contract.
Do not do business with people you do not trust!
Trump’s incredible efforts to keep his campaign promises – even those I disagree with, are shocking in modern politics, but they are the hallmark of successful businessmen.
Nor do I think the left fully grasps the long term consequences of their war with Trump,.
It is going to take years possibly decades for much of the media to rebuild its reputation.
Trump WANTS the media and the left to call him a LIAR – and for the accusation to fall short.
Any short term effect is outweighed by the long term one.
AND I would return to my remarks about McD’s and Walmart.
Ask people if they trust business – Walmart, McD’s – they will say NO!!!!.
Then they will buy a burger from McD’s or clothing and groveries at walmart.
Think about that when you are salivating over polls.
The poll is the same as asking a man in the street whether they have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Walmart.
The voting booth, is like the checkout counter.
Ultimately it is our CONDUCT that is the true measure of what we beleive.
Oh, I left out one big groupd involved in NYC real estate that is VERY important, and whom Trump got to know very well : politicians who withhold support and/or approval, unless the developer makes sizeable “donations.” Trump and many D.C. politicians from NY have quite a long history, one that pre-dates Trump’s run for the presidency; Hillary Clinton, Jerrold Nadler, the Cuomo’s, etc…
Surprising comments – absolutely agree.
I want to hear the best arguments, I want to hear the facts I missed, I want to hear the strongest expression of whatever it is that I have not thought of. I want the best rebutal possible. If an article, story, comment, argument, facts can cause me to seriously think about things I thought I had worked out – that is great.
But that has always been incredibly rare and is getting rarer.
Ron was upset about my we have heard all this before “gun control” post.
Most of the time I bring my best arguments. If those who disagree are unwilling to do the same – what is the point of discussion.
But the left – including whatever it is you want to call the “robby left” – I would call them enablers of the lunatic left, do not bring their best arguments, they do not bring any argument. Just the same old appeals to emotion as last time. the same slurring of anyone who disagrees.
Isn;t the purpose of public debate to work though issues to come to conclusions ?
I have repeatedly stated that to use force you MUST justify it.
I have NOT said that the use of force is NEVER acceptable.
Justifying the use of force is difficult. It is not impossible.
I would think that everyone would agree that is should be difficult to justify using force.
The current state of public discourse allows for only one of two outcomes.
The substantial obliteration of the democratic party,
Or the resurgence of the extreme left.
There are lots of people who would like to see other outcomes – but there is absolutely nothing that is happening that has a chance of arriving at a different outcome.
BTW BOTH outcomes lead to the eventual destruction of the left.
Political success by the left also ultimately leads to failure – because the left can not deliver,
It is not possible, and everything that it ever tries to do so fails one way or another.
Either we get messes like the NHS and the UK of the 70’s that very nearly slipped to third world status, or we get the cambodian killing fields or the collapse of the USSR.
There is alot of talk of “socialism” today. The historical ignorance is unbeleivable.
A few years ago we were told that we can not call the left socialist – that is a slur and a lie and they are not real socialists. Now the same people are begging for real socialism, and a few for real communism.
The intellectual debate about socialism took place nearly a century ago and was roundly lost by the socialists.
But the arguments against socialism were NOT specific to “socialism”. Socialism does not fail merely because state ownership of the means of production is a bad idea, but because broader state control of our lives – WHATEVER THE MECHANISM, FAILS.
And by Failure I mean leaves us less well off than if we were more free.
It is irrelevant whether the strong state is “socialist”, fascist, republican, democratic.
Ok I need some technical education. This post includes a meme of a girl with a gun. How in the devil is a meme from another site copied, imported or otherwise brought over and posted here. I have tried everything I know and nothing works…Thanks
Go to Google, DDG, Bing. ….
Search for something.
Click images.
Find the image you want.
Click open in new tab
Go to that tab
Cut and past the web address.
If you are on a web site and see the image you want.
Right click on the image.
Select either copy url or open image in new tab
and cut and paste the address from the new tab.
Absolute worst case.
Find image on web page.
Select view source,
scan through the web page source until you find the link to the image.
But this is really really messy and you must want the image bad to go to this much trouble,
“1. There are numerous report’s about Trump administration blocking someone from testifying before congress. Haven’t covered much of them, but just constantly hearing about “corruption” and the need to hear from this person””
There are – it is called executive priviledge. It is not new, it has been going on forever.
There are other reasons that executive officials can refuse to testify or cooperate with Congress – Rosenstein used every single one despite Trump directing him to cooperate.
This is all a political game. Nothing more. While I would prefer different rules – ones that REQUIRE more openness and oversight by congress – that is not the current state of the law.
When the house goes to court to compel a witness to testify and they STILL do not testify, then you can presume some corruption.
“2. Maybe I’m the one out in leftbfield. Dont do twitter and if I did, I certainly would not waste time following Trump.”
I do not follow trump and I spend little time on twitter – but when something comes up – it is pretty trivial to find out whether Trump is whispering secrets in the ears of Ukranians or saying exactly the same things he has been saying in public for years.
With Trump the LATTER is always the more likely presumption.
So simply, if Trump has said the same things publicly for years as he purportedly said privately to the Ukrainian president – then either Trump’s public tweets were a crime, or his private remarks were not.
Goog God Dave, it is impossible to discuss anything with you. You are so A.D.D. you have a total blockage when understanding what others are posting.
Trump
Whistleblower
Trump administration and DOJ block whistleblower from testifying before congress ( according to multiple reports)
Voters
Hiding something.
Facts not important
Trump fatigue
Thats the outline
Here’s the point AGAIN!
Majority of voters do not have the facts you have. The majority of voters get their news from the internet. Most internet sources say Trump is blocking testimony. Most sources say he is hiding something.
So here we go again. Months of investigations. Months of corruption coverage. Months of more impeachment talk. Months more of “Trump Fatigue”.
I am sick of Trump! Move on! His policies are great, but he sucks. Time for a sleepy old man in Washington that is only seen on sundays and holidays.
If we want to gloss over facts and go for feelling based abrieviated versions:
There has been numerous “whistleblowers” – todate all have proved false or pointless.
Voter fatigue over fake news.
Dems and the media have cried wolf so many times regarding Trump – almost the only people who are listening to this are those who beleive that Trump is a crook and that he just has not be caught yet.
It is likely that Trump could actually get caught with his hand in the cookie jar and get away with it – because we are so fatigued with this fake news crap that we are just not paying attention.
FINALLY – you and I can play all kinds of guessing games regarding the facts we do not know. But ultimately ALL the FACTS are coming out.
Neither Trump nor Gulliani are concerned. Everything they have done has been completely in the open. While phone calls between heads of state are “secret”. What is it that you beleive Trump said in that phone call that is DIFFERENT From what he has said publicly, and what Guiliani has said publicly ?
In Trump’s press conference on this – not only was he completely unconcerned and explicitly said the Media should run with this – because it will blow up in their faces, eventually the facts will be known – AND the media should do their job and investigate Biden and Hunter on this.
So what is the difference between Trump – in the rose garden on TV asking the media to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden and Trump on a Phone call asking the Ukraine to investigate political corruption in the Ukraine ?
There is no difference in Trump’s intent – whatever it is, it is the same.
I have REPEATEDLY defended Hillary Clinton’s “collusion” with Russia to get Dirt on Trump.
Her efforts to get DOJ/State to investigate Trump were disturbing – but legal, and I have said so.
The Crime is not asking for an investigation for political purposes, it is using the power of the US government to run a criminal investigation when there is not sufficient probable cause to do so, and where the impetus is political.
If the FBI had actually credible evidence that TFA was “colluding” with Russia – their actions would be justified.
The problem with Comey’s actions is not so much that they were political, but that they were unjustified and therefore an abuse of power.
Those in government seek to go after people they do not like all the time.
It is an abuse of power – when the go after people they do not like without probable cause to do so – and when they LIE to the courts about the credibility of what evidence they have.
The Crime in the Trump/Russia investigation is NOT clintons actions – even if I do not like them. It is Comey’s actions.
With respect to Trump going after Biden:
Biden has confessed to the facts in public and on the record.
Probable cause is more than met.
It is actually possible that Biden’s conduct has an explanation that is not a crime.
But guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard to convict – not to start an investigation.
There is sufficient basis to beleive that Biden’s conduct was criminal for Trump to urge publicly and privately that it be investigated.
Is it inapproriate for the president of the United States to ask the president of another country to investigate corruption or other possible Crimes in that country ?
Quite some time ago the left and the media were demanding that Trump FORCE Turkey to investigate the death of a Saudi Journalist.
Are you telling me that it was a crime for Trump to do that ?
I will absolutely agree with you that sometimes when the president – the AG, the Dir FBI, … seek to initiate (or stop) an investigation – that act is a crime.
I will also agree that sometimes when those in poser seek to use the power of the US government to start or stop an investigation in a foreign country – that act is a crime.
But it is clearly not all the time.
When is it a crime and when is it not ?
Is it wrong, improper, criminal, for any president to seek a criminal investigation of a political opponent ?
If Joe Biden murdered Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor in front of hundreds of witnesses – would it be wrong For Trump to demand prosecution ?
Conversely if Joe Biden was appearing publicly in FL before 1000 people and a masked man murdered Mitch McConnell in front of hundreds of witnesses – would it be wrong for Trump to seek an investigation of Biden ?
We do not want people to be immune from prosecution – merely because those in power would benefit from prosecuting them.
Nor do we want people to be open to prosecution – merely because those in power would benefit from prosecuting them.
There must be some critical criteria that establishes when a prosecution that has political benefits for the prosecutor is legitimate or not – even when advocating for it is actually a crime.
The answer I would hope is pretty simple – when there is EVIDENCE of wrong doing.
The fundimental problem with the Trump/Russia investigation is that it was begun and sustained without sufficient evidence – from start to finish.
The reason that Trump seeking anyone to investigate Biden is not “wrong doing”.
Is because there is sufficient evidence.
Biden has stated on the record that he blackmailed the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor who was investigating his son.
While that is not quite sufficient for “beyond a reasonable doubt” – atleast not for me.
It is way beyond probable cause. In fact it is sufficiently close to “beyond a reasonable doubt” that plenty of people have been convicted on less.
And just to be Clear – Trump – because he is president, has some potential jeophardy in this case. Guiliani has absolutely ZERO. Guiliani is doing exactly what Clinton was doing in 2016. It is unpleasant – but it is legal.
McCain and Romney were “sleepy old men”.
And they were attacked relentlessly when they ran for president.
They were accused of all the same things Trump has been.
There are two differences between Trump and McCain and Romney.
1). Trump fights back.
2). Trump’s policies are better than McCain and Romney.
Everything you do not like about Trump is the inevtiable product of the left and the media’s lobbing moral handgrenades at any republican with the termidity to run for president.
Trump or someone like him was inevitable.
More information on the “whistleblower” story.
First Biden’s threat’s to the Ukrainian’s are NOT Alleged.
Apparently he PUBLICLY bragged that he told the ukrainians as vice president to fire the prosecutor and end the investigation before he left for the US in 6 hours or the US would withdrawl a billion dollars in aide.
There is only one small step between this and a very serious crime.
And that is we can not presume that because Biden bragged that he committed a crime, that he actually did what he says he did. But it is usually a good bet.
Regardless, there is absolutely a rock solid basis for an investigation.
Next we have gotten a bit more on the whistleblower allegation.
It is alleged that in a phone call with the ukrainian president that Trump brought up the issue of reopening the investigation 6-7 times.
That information appears consistent accross reports.
In other reporting Trump purportedly OFFERED additional aide if the Ukrainians would take up the investigation, or threatened to withdrawl aide if the Ukrainians did not.
But the most recent and most credible report is that of the WSJ which claims though Trump raised the issue repeatedly, there was no enticement or threat.
If there was either a threat or enticement, that would be pretty much exactly the same as what Biden admitted doing. It would be a crime.
Next, all calls of the president to foreign leaders are recorded.
All are also listened in on by several people, and all are presumed to be listened in by others on the recieving side, as well as spied on by foreign powers.
Trump raised this – as have other experts.
Put simply – there is a transcript and it is near certain the IG has it, or will have it, and no matter what this will not remain “secret”
Trump said pretty much that at an early press conference.
In fact he has been taunting the press over this.
He has been telling them that they are going to end up with egg on their faces.
You may not like Trump’s conduct, but it is highly likely that Trump:
1). Knows what he said.
2). Has reviewed the tape recently.
Maybe this will play out badly for Trump.
But if you are betting on that – you are betting against the odds.
To Trump Enabling asswipes
The WSJ confirms this today:
“
President Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, urging Volodymyr Zelensky about 8x to work with Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer.”
A sitting President of the US threatening to withhold funds to a foreign leader unless he investigate the son of his primary political opponent in an upcoming election is PRESIDENTIAL EXTORTION – a High Crime!!
Those not calling for Trump’s immediate impeachment are LUMPS OF MORAL EXCRETION.
It is interesting that you cite WSJ.
As though they make clear that Trump REPEATEDLY asked the Ukrainians to re-open the investigation. They also made it clear Trump did NOT Threaten or make any promises in return for what he asked.
Regardless, no matter how many news stories, no matter how many anonymous sources, no matter how many whisleblowers, and no matter what any of them say.
This conversation was monitored by many many people, as well as recorded.
ALL conversations between ALL presidents and foreign leaders are.
There will be lots of political gamesmenship and spin control,
but there are transcripts.
This is not going to remain he said/she said forever.
We will know. Trump is completely unconcerned. He is taunting the press over this. He is promising that they will once again be exposed as fake news.
Either he has the biggest brass balls in the world (probably true) or he knows what he is talking about (probably true).
We have been round and round over things like this before.
Trump unlikely Reagan is NOT the “teflon president” – Trump prevails int he end – because he is RIGHT. He is not “the great communicator”. he is NOT silver tongued.
He has not been impeached – not for lack of allegations.
But because not a single allegation has held up.
Maybe you are right and this time will be different.
The odds are not in your favor.
Todate I have not accused anyone of lying – that was not lying.
You can not say the same.
What is it when a sitting vice president says that a foreign nation has 6 hours to end the investigation of a relative and fire the prosecutor or he will yank billions of dollars in military aid ?
It sure sounds like a crime to me ?
There is one difference between this and the Trump story.
The Biden story is something Vice President Biden PUBLICLY BRAGGED ABOUT.
You seem to have a great deal of trouble distinguishing between an allegation and a fact.
As well as difficulty reading.
WSJ did NOT say Trump extorted or enticed.
Absent a threat or a promise there is nothing here.
Biden has admitted to threatening the Ukraine.
Biden proudly recounted the moment during an event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations on Jan. 23, 2018. Here’s the relevant portion of Biden’s remarks, which at points were accompanied by laughter from the audience:
“I remember going over (to Ukraine), convincing our team … that we should be providing for loan guarantees. … And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from (then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko) and from (then-Prime Minister Arseniy) Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor (Shokin). And they didn’t. …
“They were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, … we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president.’ … I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
I think it is perfectly reasonable for Trump to “undo” the damage to the Ukraine done by Biden’s meddling and to DEMAND AND THREATEN the Ukraine, if they do not re-instate the prosecutor that Biden had sacked and let him continue his investigation.
Doesn’t that sound like a reasonable action from a president who was elected to “drain the swamp”.
“It means that he used the power and resources of the United States to pressure a sovereign nation—a partner that is still under direct assault from Russia—pushing Ukraine to subvert the rule of law in the express hope of extracting a political favor,” he added.
Joe Biden today.
Pot meet kettle.
Former Republican politician Joe Scarborough:
“Big Government Republican bankrupting America, passing $16 billion socialist schemes for industrial-agricultural interests, hurting Americans with tariff taxes, and, oh yeah, extorting allies invaded by Putin by withholding arms sales unless they dig up dirt on political rivals.”
Former Republican politician Joe Walsh:
“If telling a foreign government to dig up dirt on your political opponent isn’t impeachable, then nothing is… He doesn’t believe in the rule of law. He abuses his power whenever he wants. He lies at will. He doesn’t know the meaning of checks & balances. And he sees nothing wrong with telling a foreign government to dig up dirt on his opponents…. Come on Republicans. Be better than this.”
Ex Republican Conservative Tom Nichols:
“I have never made the case for impeaching Trump, despite my belief that he has long merited impeachment. Until now. Telling Ukraine to investigate Biden was a gross abuse of power…”
Previous Trump short list candidate for United States Solicitor General George Conway: “But even to argue over this fable about Biden is to miss the point, because it changes nothing about Trump’s attempts to enmesh Biden in a foreign investigation for Trump’s own purposes… it’s an effort by the president to coerce (indeed, perhaps extort) help from a foreign country against domestic political opponents.“
Republicans are spending too much. Give me a better choice! There is not a democratic presidential candidate that wants to spend less that $1T/year more.
The “big government” thing is a bit nebulous – outside of Defense – which should be shrunk too, Trump is shrinking government.
the assorted budget bills are heinous. Again blame falls to both parties.
Democrats control the house and you can not get a budget through the senate without 60 votes.
Absolutely republicans are favoring some stupid things.
But there is no hope of better with democrats.
Tarrifs and trade wars are a bad idea. But so long as the economy remains global the harm to US consumers is actually very small. The largest estimate is that Trump’s trade shenanigans are negatively impacting the economy by 0.25%.
China has devalued the RMB – that transfered all the cost of the trade war to the chinese people, in return for propping up exports.
There will be a resolution of the China-US trade conflict.
It just might take a while
Confronting China has paid numerous other dividends – it has strengthened the US throughout Asia and Weakened China, it has also strengthened our allies in Asia at the expense of China. It has accelerated the flight of capital and jobs from China to other asian countries. It has disempoowered China in the South China Sea, and in its dealings with Japan and Taiwan and South Korea and Vietnam.
While it has harmed our strongest leverage with NK – China is less likely to help us with NK,
the effect is small – China is not happy having another nuclear power on its border, and further the balance going the other way is the Kim Un is getting a front row show of the awesome economic power of the United States. And finally as China teeters toward recession, it is less interested in propping up Kim.
The Trade war with China is NOT a winning proposition. But it is also NOT simple or entirely one sided in its effects.
Scarborough either knows better or is stupider than I thought.
Don;t you feel the slightest disgusted offering up Joe Walsh’s oppinion on anything ?
Don’t you feel disgusted at yourself for posting asinine drivel?
“Don’t you feel disgusted at yourself for posting asinine drivel?”
I will be happy to defend my attacks on Walsh’s character – can you defend your attacks on mine ?
I am not the one offering Joe Walsh as someone who should be throwing stones.
“I have never made the case for impeaching Trump, despite my belief that he has long merited impeachment. Until now. Telling Ukraine to investigate Biden was a gross abuse of power…”
Completely false. The US government is constantly making requests of other countries.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking them to uphold their own laws.
There is nothing illegal about our “blackmailing” them to get our way.
What do you think the sanctions against Russia or China or Iran or …. are ?
The US throwing its weight arround to get its way.
While I would greatly prefer that we followed Washington’s advice and kept our noses out of the internal affairs of other nations, that ship has unfortunately sailed.
There is only one area in which threatening (subsidizing) another country to get them to do as we wish is a serious problem.
When it is for personal gain. Such as When Biden threatened the Ukraine with the loss of $1B in aide if they did not fire the prosecutor investigating his son in 6 hours.
President Trump encouraging the Ukraine to investigate past corruption is more ambiguous.
So long as he sticks to asking them to enforce their own laws – even though that might have political benefits for him, that is tricky – it is probably not illegal – Bidens actions clearly were illegal. It gets less acceptable if Trump offered enticements or threatened sanctions.
Thus far we have no evidence of either.
The Biden story is NOT a fable – even politifact found that.
NYT ran a story about it in Dec. 2015.
Biden himself is on the record confirming every single detail – in fact Bragging about having extorted the Ukrainians.
There are only three questions regarding the Biden story:
1). Was Biden lying when he was bragging about extorting the Ukrainians.
We know exactly what VP Biden said he said to the Ukrainians. We do not know what he actually said. It is extremely rare in a criminal case that a jury does not conclude that an unasked for confession accurately states what the defendant did and said.
But it does happen.
2). The Bidens have subsequently claimed that VP Biden had no knowledge that his son was being investigated by the prosecutor that he demanded be fired.
It is possible for a jury to buy that, it is highly unlikely.
It is one coincidence too far. There is really no other sane reason to have demanded Ukraine halt an internal investigation.
3). The Ukrainian prosecutor who replaced the fired prosecutor claims that the investigation had been closed before he took over. That is not credible, and it is irrelevant. What matters is not whether Ukraine was investigating Hunter, but
a) Whether VP Biden though Ukraine was investigating Hunter.
b). Whether VP Biden sought to punish a Ukrainian prosecutor for having investigated his son.
No matter what the Biden story is much worse than the Trump story.
Trump appears to be seeking justice in a fashion that might have personal benefits.
Biden was seeking to thwart justice for personal benefit.
Re: Biden Fable:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/ukraine-prosecutor-says-no-evidence-of-wrongdoing-by-bidens
Mueller said there was no evidence of criminal conduct by the Trump campaign – and yet you do not beleive it ?
Regardless you just can not get past the fact that VP Biden Extorted the Ukraine into firing their Prosecutor General who was investigating Hunter Biden.
You have argued here repeatedly that Trump firing Mueller would have been obstruction of justice – it would not have been BECAUSE it would not have ended the investigation and Trump knew that.
Biden Extorted Ukraine into firing Prosecutor General Shokin who was investigating his son, and that ended the investigation.
Had that occured in the US it would be black letter obstruction of justice.
It is orders of magnitude worse – because Biden was VP at the time.
The facts of the case are damning – because Biden actually did what you have accused Trump of doing.
Yo, lying lump, Mueller didn’t say there was no evidence…
He pointedly said there was insufficient evidence to charge OR to clear Trump & Cohorts Of criminal acts:
“We did not however make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime,” Mueller stated unequivocally in the report.
Duh.
“Yo, lying lump, Mueller didn’t say there was no evidence…”
Please read the report – as well as my words CAREFULLY.
This has been addressed repeatedly.
First Mueller went through a long list of specific criminal claims.
As an example he specifically found NOT EVIDENCE – not insufficient, NONE, of contact between Trump’s campaign and Russia that constituted a crime.
In fact he found NO CONTACT between the russian govenrment and the Trump campaign.
Again please read the words CAREFULLY.
Many of Muellers findings were factually incorrect – Mueller was REQUIRED by the courts to retract claims that actions he alleged in the concord case were actions of the russian govenrment because he had NO EVIDENCE of that.
Not insufficient evidence – you can make a claim in court if you have SOME EVIDENCE, you can not make it with none.
Can you name a single instance where the mueller report found actual evidence that someone from the Trump campaign had contact with someone from the russian govenrment during the campaign that involved the campaign ?
Yes Mueller said “insufficient evidence”.
When you say “insufficient” and provide NO evidence, that is NONE.
“We did not however make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime,” Mueller stated unequivocally in the report.
Aparently you have zero understanding of the word “unequivocal”.
Mueller’s statement is just about the most equivocal and meaningless statement that can be made.
Further, it was Mueller’s JOB to do precisely what you says here he did not do.
And BTW I am pretty sure your quote is wrong.
Mueller has charged lots of people with lots of things – many on very flimsy basis.
Mueller had absolutely no problem indicting on slim evidence.
The standard for indictment is relatively low – sufficient evidence that it is more likely than not that a crime occured. That is not the lowest standard, but it is incredibly low.
It is the minimum necescary for the government to publicly assert that a person committed a crime.
Yet in the entire 2 year debacle the only time Mueller asserts that actual agents of the Russian government committed a crime – there is not a Trump campaign member in the picture AND he only does so where there is no possibility that he will ever have to prove the charges. And he is getting bitch slapped by the courts in the concord case – because concord has US lawyers and decided to defend itself and the court is requiring actual evidence to allow Mueller to allege russian govenrment involvement – and he has had to retract that claim or face sanctions.
Interesting.
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10102624999901134&id=18311186&set=a.655363159994&source=48
The Henry repeating rifle was made just prior to or during the Civil War. Many officers and soldiers bought them for themselves – but the Government did not.
Civilians had “semi-automatic” weapons BEFORE the government did.
This continued after the Civil War. One of the claims regarding Custers loss at Little Big Horn is that he was out gunned – Sitting Bull and his men had repeating rifles, the soldiers did not.
The worst school mass killing in the world was in 2004 in Russia – 384 dead.
The Worst in the US was the Bath School Massacre in 1927,
With 45 Dead and 49 injured. No Guns were involved.
The Worst School Shooting in the US was the Va Tech Shooting Cho used two handguns – a .22 Walther and a 9mm Glock.
The first casualty of war is truth.
What a mess.
I could try to research all the details so as to be able to play the argument game. Or I could withdraw from the news and politics world for a month and the see how it all came out then. That sounds same, I choose the sane path.
“The first casualty of war is truth.”
It is the left that views this as a war.
“I could try to research all the details so as to be able to play the argument game.”
Facts matter – the Truth is not what you feel.
Depending on what you “beleive” the law is. Though the law is not a matter of beleif.
It is what it is, and it should be enforced – whether that results in prosecuting and convicting Biden, or Comey, or Trump or McCabe or …..
In the current Ukraine mess we have three possibilities.
VP Biden committed a Crime and President Trump committed a Crime.
VP Biden Commiited a Crime and President Trump did not.
No Crimes were committed by either.
What we do not have is any scenario in which President Trump’s actions are a crime and VP Bidens are not.
Facts matter – they are how we make distinctions. Such as the distinction between what acts are crimes and which are not.
Facts matter – we have the left, democrats and the media screaming that Trump’s stonewalling the House is unusual, and a crime. It is neither. When the president asserts priviledge the courts decide what must be turned over to congress. House democrats have not even bothered to go to court on most of this.
I beleive that executive priviledge should be extremely narrow – but that is not the current state of the law.
The Obama administration stonewalled the GOP congress on myriads of issues for years.
The documents on Fast & Furious were never provided – despite the courts eventually siding with the house. All of us saw Louis Lerhner not testify publicly. On issue after issue, in investigation after investigation the Obama administration refused to cooperate with the Republican house – and later Senate.
That may be wrong, but it is not unusual – and the courts have not sided with congress nearly so much as listening to house democrats would have you beleive.
During the Mueller investigation Rosenstein refused to cooperate with the House and Senate – citing an ongoing investigation privilege – there is no such privilege, and executive priviledge is limited to communications involving the president. Rosenstein also cited National Security – Many of the members of congress, as well as their staff have TS/SCI or higher clearances. The entire intelligence aparatus of the US govenrment is required to provide the “gang of eight” with any information they want. President Trump ORDERED the DOJ/FBI to cooperate with Congress, declassifying as much as possible. Still Rosenstein refused.
In dribs and drabs we are slowly learning the information that was not provided
Mifsud’s lawyer’s have provided documentation that Mifsud was working for the CIA.
Flynn’s attorney’s have asserted that they have evidence that Mifsud was spying on Flynn as early as Dec. 2015. That actually falsifies several portions of the Mueller report – Mueller repeatedly claims Mifsud was a russian Asset. Mueller is not permitted to report a suposition as fact. Therefore he MUST have evidence that Mifsud was a Russian agent. If in fact Mifsud was a CIA/FBI asset – then the report is either deliberately false of incompetently prepared.
Mifsud has significant ties to the CIA, the FBI, MI6, MI5, and much of western intelligence.
If Mifsud was a russian asset – he had penetrated US and UK intelligence at the highest levels – yet there has been no inkling of an investigation of that.
If Mifsud was a US/UK asset then the entire Trump/Russia nonsense was a political sting perpitrated by the US government against a rival political party.
You are free to do as you please.
You can know the facts before you talk about them.
Or you can just spew fact free nonsense.
But you can not expect to be taken credibly when you have no interest in and openly admit you do not know what you are talking about.
Ron has suggested that he welcomes you back – that your presence adds something.
WHAT ?
Right or left – TNM and this country does not need more fact free allegations.
If we are going to call each other liars, racists, Criminals, hateful Hating haters – then we had better be right and we had better be able to back that up with FACTS – not feelings.
Being right about the facts is NOT a game. It is deadly serious.
We make choices regarding the use of FORCE based on FACTS not feelings.
We are talking about depriving people of freedom, in some instances of killing them, of removing them from power, or taking their liberty and property.
If you are unwilling to know the facts before you demand action or make pronouncements about guilt or innocence – then PLEASE GO AWAY and good riddance.
And PLEASE DO NOT VOTE, Do not seek public office, do not sit on a jury. do not ever do anything that involves the excerise of power over another human being.
This is most definitely NOT a game.
The fact that you think that decisions about the use of FORCE against others is a game is deeply disturbing.
“f you are unwilling to know the facts before you demand action or make pronouncements about guilt or innocence – then PLEASE GO AWAY and good riddance.
And PLEASE DO NOT VOTE, Do not seek public office, do not sit on a jury. do not ever do anything that involves the excerise of power over another human being.”
Dave, the people who believed that 9/11 was in inside job also used facts, I’ve read their stuff, it was full of absolutely true facts. The people that believe that the lunar landing were faked likewise have their set of facts, many of which are also quite true. Reasoning based on facts depends on how you use them, honestly or dishonestly. The way you use them gives me no reason to get into a factual discussion with you. I gave that up long ago. If comparing you to people who believe that the lunar landings were faked seems to be a stretch, lets just consider some of the recent products of your “facts, reason and logic”: all the major problems of humanity have been solved, the left is on it last legs, the US faces no urgent problems that need to be solved, China does not plan for the long term. These are not intelligent conclusions. Wave around your banner of facts, reason and logic all you want. You are misusing them.
Your rage at me and your full caps demand that I depart is typical of your secluded world behind your wall of No, No, No, where the only remaining cloud on the sunny future you see is the existence of the left, and they will soon be gone as well.
In spite of the fact that you are demanding that I depart, I will anyhow. I feel most sympathy for Ron, a sensible person who would like to have a pretty sensible discussion with a broad range of people, which is unfortunately not ever going to happen for long in your presence.
Robby.
I wrote a long response to your “all the major problems” and “the left is doomed” diatribe,
But this is simpler, you have chosen to pretend those two assertions are independent – not part of the same argument, not context for each other, and by separating them you can misrepresent each as meaning something different than it does.
The left’s foundation is confronting “major human problems”.
While we can debate whether anything the left has done has ever contributed to solving or improving any of those – regardless that is the foundations of leftism.
The left would have no reason to exist if major human problems ceased to exist.
I would hope you understand that as a tautology.
My argument – that you are completely blind to and have mischaracterized, is that while we have not reached utopia – and there are infinite technical and scientific problems that remain to be solved. The class of problems that are foundational to the left – racism, etc, are increasingly minor problems.
If you wish we can wasted thousands of posts debating the precise edge between major and minor,
But inarguably thousands of blacks are not being lynched each year.
And if we examine the impediments to peoples success today – racism is orders of magnitude less important than things like – completing high school, not committing crimes, delaying children until after marraige, forming stable families, ….
Put simply there are increasingly fewer and fewer and smaller and smaller issues for the left to take on, and increasingly the majority of us care less and less about them.
If young people today wish to take on curing cancer or delving further into the origens of the universe – oportunities for meaningful work abound. If they wish to find better ways for use to exchange goods and services or new goods and services to offer us – oportunities abound.
But if they seek what the left calls “social justice” – whatever remains is of small consequence.
All of this should be self evident from the frothing over gun control.
We have twice as many guns in the US as cars. we have less gun related deaths than car related deaths. More children are killed in a week in automoblie accidents than in mass school shootings in a year. there are nearly 50 times as many cancer deaths in a day than mass shooting victims in a year.
You are frothing at the mouth over a problem that you can not fix and that is minor – not major – in comparison to many other problems out there.
This observation is not unique to guns, it is true of most everything about the modern left – mass hysteria over tiny problems.
That is what my remarks obviously meant.
You had to microparse and misrepresent them to reach any other end.
Further you did not respond – what do you mean.
You came back “You are wrong” – and you did so by separating the parts of the argument – so that they had no context, so that it was no longer possible to understand that the problems I was talking about are that class of problems that the left seeks to solve using govenrment and force.
I have never “demanded” anything of you short of not using force against others without justification.
I have begged and plead with you to be sane, but I have never demanded it.
Regardless, I do not want you to depart.
I want you to make whatever arguments you make with facts and logic.
There is no other means for making an argument that will ever justify the use of force, and your arguments pretty much always end with the use of force against someone.
There is not a moral alternative
I do not enjoy listing to you shout “hateful hating hater” at anyone who disagrees with you.
I do not enjoy pointing out that what you call arguments – aren;t – that they do not rest on facts and logic.
We are not debating whether “blue is the loneliest color”.
We are mostly debating government – FORCE.
And you may not use force against another – directly or by government as a proxy without FIRST justifying it – using FACTS, LOGIC, REASON.
There is not another moral alternative.
I do not enjoy – pointing out that you have defamed others – defamation is immoral.
I do not enjoy pointing our that when you seek to impose force on another without first justifying it – you act immorally.
As I told you – moral accusations require proof – demand proof.
Challenging you morally is the most risky argument I make.
It is not the field I wish to argue on.
But it is the field YOU have chosen.
“which is unfortunately not ever going to happen for long in your presence.”
Back to slurs as arguments again.
Roby, your decision is a good one.
Another case of an anonymous person accusing the president of wrong doing.
President blocks investigation. Promotes fake news, witch hunt narrative to excite his followers.
Investigation will take months. MSNBC, CNN et al will wet their pants with each tid bit of info that comes out.
Nothing will be found, but millions wasted.
Why should this be different from Bengahzi, Russia, FISA or any other political witch hunt that happens in D.C.
Guess Romney is blowing hot air today too, right Ron-
“If the President asked or pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate his political rival, either directly or through his personal attorney, it would be troubling in the extreme. Critical for the facts to come out.”
So what is it that you think the “rules” should be ?
Reminding you at the start we have several concurrent examples and the rules whatever they are must be applied to ALL scenarious in the same way.
clinton asked for Dirt on Trump through a law firm a british spy, russian spies, and possibly the russian govenrment.
Is that different – how so ? Do enough cutout change whether an act is a crime or not ?
Next, Comey, McCabe, and a raft of others – probably including Obama, used the machinery of the US govenrment to investigate and spy on SEVERAL political rivals.
Under what standards is that acceptable and when is it not ?
Vice President Biden extorted the Ukrainian government into firing its Prosecutor General.
At the time that PG was investigating Biden’s son.
Again is that acceptable of not ?
While you and I might not agree on when this conduct is acceptable – even required, and when it is improper, impeachable or even illegal. there is not a scenario in which you can claim Trump acten improperly that does not also mean all of what was done by Clinton, Obama, his administration and Biden is also improper.
There are however scenarious in which Trump’s actions are proper – and all or most of the others are not.
Regardless, until you are prepared to tell me what acts would be improper or criminal – rather than WHOSE – then all you are saying is “I hate Trump”.
I do not beleive the US government should be asking foreign governments to prosecute people, or to fire people, or to not prosecute people.
I do not beleive we should be providing foreign aide either.
But I do not have the arrangement that I am Washington thought was appropriate.
Once you head down the path of allowing the US govenrment to interfere – even to request actions from foreighn governments regarding internal affairs. you are going to be obligated to sort out when and what circusmtances that can be done properly – and when it can not.
All of the requests – of the Ukraine, of the FBI – by Clinton, by Obama, By Trump, for criminal prosecutions, or to fire people and end prosecutions are
TROUBLING – ever single one.
But not a single one is improper or criminal – automatically.
Each depends on the self interest, as well the strenght of the evidence.
Jay, I can not find exactly what I said given the masses of comments made the last few hours. But I think I said something like claims that Bengahzi and subsequent actions would lead to crimes and charges, Russia would lead to proven collusion, etc and nothing was proven, I would wait until the House investigates and brings charges.
If the House impeaches and the Senate follows up, then we will be done with Trump
If the House finds something with Ukraine, then they should impeach and we will be done with Trump
If the voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan vote for Warren or Biden, the we will be done with Trump.
I have no idea what the issue is with Trump and Ukraine other than they talked on the phone. I have no idea what the issue with Hunter Biden is, I have no idea what the issue with Joe Biden is other than something he did is now impacting his democrat support and Warren is surging.
And I am following Roby’s lead, now turning on ESPN instead of a news program. When the election happens, I have decided that I will vote for the youngest candidate listed on the ballot. I am sick of old men and women leading this country into the shitter. If its led there, then the ones whose generation is going to be impacted should be doing the leading, not old men and women! And if that happens to be A.O.C. so be it!
It is hard to tell what is true with the media – but atleast one outlet is now reporting that the “whistleblower” is not someone with access to presidential communications, i.e. they have no first hand knowledge of what Trump actually said, and that this is why DOJ is not taking this very seriously. It would also explain why Trump is not taking this seriously.
Regardless, there are only a few scenarios in which this is a problem for Trump.
There are almost none in which it is not a problem for Biden.
Biden’s “defense” which atleast some sources consider Plausible is that:
He had no idea of Hunter’s involvement in the Ukraine at the time he threatened the Ukraine, and that the demand to fire the prosecutor general that was investigating Hunter (unbenownced to him) was because that PG was NOT effectively investigating corruption in the Ukraine – and that the International community wanted that PG gone and replaced with someone more agressive.
That “defense” works better for Trump – particularly if he did not personally mention Biden to the Ukrainians – and the WSJ article does not have him mentioning Biden.
Apparently there is alot of corruption in the Ukraine and the Ukrainians are doing a poor job of rooting it out.
Regardless I would not presume anything right now – except that there has been a rush to judgement, and massive speculation most of which is likely false.
The house is jumping the shark and should calm down and atleast wait until all the news stories are in.
It is as if Nadler beleives that if only he can move fast enough he can impeach Trump before the story fizzles into nothing.
If there is any actual substance to this – it will eventually get out.
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
Trump keeps doing the same thing and expects a different outcome.
Trump keeps feeding the beast. He can’t keep his mouth shut. Nothing seemed to be there, but then he says, “It was largely the fact that we don’t want our people like V.P. Biden and his son adding to the corruption already in the Ukraine” after he said the call was a congratulatory call to Zelensky.
So after there was nothing for the Dems to hang their hat on, now he sticks a tree trunk in front of them that they could hang the hat store on. Now they use his words as the basis for more investigation and media negative coverage.
I was not following this, but the newspaper headline was “Trump Suggests He Brought Up Biden On Phone Call”, so I read part of the article. This is why I am sick of Trump!
Increasingly I am looking at this from an entirely different perspective.
You keep asking “why” under the assumption that Trump is acting stupid or does not know what he is doing.
From the perspective of the conduct I would like to see out of the president – I mostly share your views.
While I do not think there is a crime here – involving Trump, There is behavior I consider immoral.
I already know I am not voting for Trump, and I do not approve of his actual (as opposed to alleged) conduct with women.
But I would ask you to consider the possibility that Trump is not acting “stupidly”, that he knows what he is doing.
Is it possible that he is willing to take a small hit now, in order to remove Biden from the race ? Or to assure that Warren is his opponent ?
That does seem to be what is happening. Biden is getting hammered, he is slipping in the polls, it is possible he is not going to recover. Warren is rising, and Sanders is slipping slightly. the rest of the field is probably out of the running – atleast for President.
While I think that Trump wants Warren as his opponent, at the same time a long brutal democratic primary is also good for Trump. Further the longer the primary – the further left the dems go and the harder it is to paddle back.
Still I am pretty sure Trump wants Warren to be his opponent – and to the extent he can influence that – I think he is right.
Nor do I think Trump’s objective is to give Dem’s nothing to hang their hats on.
I think Trump is quite happy with the hearings Nadler is running. I think Trump benefits from Democrats and the press ranting about impeachment.
And there is another advantage for Trump in this.
Biden came from nothing, and now he and his family are very very rich.
Not quite Trump rich – but incredibly well off.
Biden plays the “common man” well. But no matter how this story plays out – Biden and the money his family has made is front and center.
Trump has faced all these emoluments claims from day one.
Yet, Trump and his family made their money BEFORE getting into politics.
To must of us – whether Hunter Biden is “corrupt” or not – he is still feeding at the public Trough. Even if there is nothing “illegal” the constant returns to Biden and his family are bad for democrats.
AND they are particularly bad for the democrats that Trump won in 2016.
According to several recent articles – Trump is in the running in Minnesota.
Elected Minnesota Democrats are openly supporting Trump.
There are facts we know.
We know that there was alot of stalling on aide to the Ukraine.
Congress alotted it and the administration was stalling in providing it.
But exactly the same thing occured when Obama was president.
We know Trump talked to the new president of the Ukraine.
We know there is a whistleblower complaint but we do not actually know about what – thought the speculation that it has something to do with Ukraine is likely true.
We know the IG considers the matter “serious and urgent” – but it is important to understand that is a reference to the allegation itself NOT a conclusion about the truth of the allegation.
DOJ does not appear to consider it serious or urgent – and that appears to be because the whistleblower does not have sufficient access to be able to make the allegation.
We do not know that for a fact – we know nothing about the whistle blower as a fact.
I have even read atleast one story that claims – there is no whistleblower, there is no IG investigation, this is all just an anonymous leak to the press.
We know that Guiliani has asked the Ukrainians to investigate Biden and to investigate the clinton “collusion” with Ukraine during the 2016 election, and the Ukraine efforts to frame Manafort.
We know that Hunter Biden was investigated by the Ukrainian PG.
We know that the company Hunter Biden was a director for was investigated by the same PG.
We know that Biden publicly bragged that he blackmailed the Ukrainians to fire the PG.
We do not know why he wanted the PG fired – meaning there are competing allegations as to why.
We know that the PG was fired.
We know the Ukrainians claim there was no case against Hunter Biden.
We know the Ukrainians claim – Trump did not pressure them or threaten them and there was nothing unusual about the phone call with Trump.
It is probably that there are alot of people lying.
Some of those lies will likely be exposed, but some likely will not.
And once again we will all be free to beleive whatever we want.
The Whistleblower is NOT anonymous. They have a name – the IG knows it.
Though I am dubious about the claim, it still has more credibility because it is a properly made claim by a person who is staking their reputation on what they are saying.
There are qualifiers here – because our “whistleblower” statutes come very close to guaranteeing that the “whistleblower” will not face consequences – possibly ever if this proves false – aside from damage to reputation.
The story has separately been leaked to the press – those leaks are anonymous.
They may be from the whistleblower, but that is unlikely as the leaks have had contradictory facts. the leaks to the press have almost no credibility.
We are guessing if we rely on the reporting on this.
We learned lots of things from the Benghazi investigation – though it was prying teeth to do so. Clinton’s bath tub email server was one of the things we learned.
We also learned that through the night the administration had many opportunities to support those holed up in the compound and did nothing – the options were less than perfect, they might not have worked and therefore they choose to allow people to die.
A handful of people did. We were a few hours away from almost 100 deaths when forces that had been ordered NOT to intervene ignored orders and did so anyway.
We also learned that the administration knowingly lied to us – that Clinton new that this was a planned terrorist attack and knew which group was responsible within a few hours of the start. And yet for days the administration including clinton was saying “spontaneous uprising in reaction to an internet video” – that was false and they knew it.
What did not happen as a result of the investigation was consequences – those are instrumental in avoiding repeating the same mistakes.
We will likely learn what happened here eventually.
Though we can speculate on the worst possible scenario for Trump and it remains less consequential than Biden.
Dave the definition of anonymous is “(of a person) not identified by name; of unknown name.
I.e. “the donor’s wish to remain anonymous” In addition, there are anonymous authors and those making phone calls.
In the first example, only a limited number know the name. In the other, no one knows the name.
In this case, you, I and America does not know the name. They are anonymous to us!!!!! Just like a know benefactor making an anonymous gift!
Websters.
Anonymous: of unknown authorship or origin
While I will acknowledge that it appears that rarely anonymous is used to refer to donors who are known by a small number of people but do not wish to be publicly known,
The most common use of anonymous is UNKNOWN.
Further there are provisions for anonymous ‘whistleblowing”.
This story gets muddier by the day.
The most common reporting of the story has a KNOWN to the IG whistleblower who is NOT known to congress of the public – that would be a normal scenario.
But there is now atleast one claim that there is no IG investigation and no whistleblower.
Normally I would say that is unlikely – but so many strange things have happened
and so many false stories have been reported by the media that who knows.
Dave “Normally I would say that is unlikely – but so many strange things have happened
and so many false stories have been reported by the media that who knows.”
It feeds the beast and keeps people like Jay invigorated by Trump septic fumes.
“It feeds the beast and keeps people like Jay invigorated by Trump septic fumes.”
Jay and Robby are inconsequential regarding almost any of this and the 2020 election.
Probably I am inconsequential too.
Even though I often do not agree with either of you – You and Rick are probably what will determine 2020.
And to be clear – neither of you need to vote for Trump for Trump to win big.
What Trump needs for his “landslide” is for voters like you and Rick to
Not vote democrat.
That is all.
Stay home or vote libertarian – and Trump wins.
This is interesting in light of several recent Judiciary committee hearings.
Pelosi is essentially saying Nadler is out there on his own without a net.
In numerous hearings the House republicans have challenged Nadler’s assorted actions as violating house rules and/or requiring house permission and demanded Nadler take a matter to the house as a whole.
Nadler has refused. When you are watching the parlimentary warfare in clips of Nadler hearings – such as Lownedowsky’s testimony – remember that Nadler is making the rules up as he goes. That the authority of the hearings is Jerry Nadler – not the House or the House intelligence committee.
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand
Robby .
If you wish to address what is factually wrong about 9/11 or fake moon landing conspiracies – we can do so. But those are NOT supported by the facts.
I suspect you know that.
There are not alternate facts, or contradictory facts. If two facts contradict -one is not a fact.
It is that simple.
It may not be simple figuring out which is wrong – for that we use other facts and logic.
Regardless, if facts establish something – then that is the truth.
If you do not like the conclusion the facts lead to, then you need to falsify one of the key facts, or demonstrate a flaw in the logic used to reach the conclusion.
That is how science, philosophy – and every form of the pursuit of truth work.
There is not an alterate approach.
I can decide to disregard a conclusion you reach using verifiable facts and impecable logic – but not with my credibility intact, and the converse is true.
“reasoning based on facts depends on how you use them” is nonsense.
If the facts are true and the logic is correct – the conclusion is true.
All of match and science and all knowledge rest on that.
If anything I say is in error – it is because my facts are wrong or my logic is in error.
Both of those are testable.
There is no, well your facts and logic are correct but I do not like your conclusion and here is an alternate argument that conflicts that is equally valid that I like.
One or the other is false.
Once you establish that facts are valid and the argument is correct – “how you use them” – i.e. the conclusions of the argument ARE CORRECT – period.
This “I gave up long ago – because I know I am right and you are wrong, but I can not establish that using facts and logic” is tautologically equivalent to – I am wrong, or possibly more accurately “I do not know what I am talking about”
If you think I am wrong – you can prove it – either by proving my facts wrong, or my logic flawed.
If you think you are right – you can prove it – using valid facts and proper logic.
No other credible means exists for discovering and verifying truth.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/462479-ukrainian-official-denies-trump-pressured-president
According the the NYT reporter there is serious liability for Biden in the Ukraine story, and she thinks Trump and Guiliani are distracting from it. She claims they have their facts wrong and have made themselves into the story rather than Biden’s conduct.
I agree that Trump/Guliani have made themselves the story.
I do not know the facts, I do not know what the reporter knows, and I do not know whether the reporter actually knows anything useful. Alot of what she says boils down to “Trust Me – Biden is in trouble” – I do not Trust the NYT. So I can not tell if they will do the job, or if Guiliani and Trump are bungling this or helping.
It would be nice if we could actually trust the media.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/more-to-be-told-new-york-times-reporter-says-ukraine-story-a-significant-liability-for-joe-biden
Dramatic video of Government workers cleaning up a toxic waste site in a third world country.
No, That is Los Angles,
and those are conservative volunteers not government.
https://twitter.com/BrooklynRedLeg/status/1173312752456257539
Turley’s piece on this is brilliant. the only nits I would pick is that there really is a difference between Trump going after Biden in the Ukraine and the shenanigans of the Obama administration in 2016.
First there is a legitimate basis for an investigation of Biden. Biden may well be innocent, and is entitled to that presumption. But his own statements rise to the level of probable cause which is MORE than is necescary to investigate.
While The Trump/Russia investigation never reached anywhere near probable cause.
Next, the political corruption with Trump Russia – was NOT HRC and the “dirty dossier”,
It was the actions of CIA NSA, FBI, DOJ, State without sufficient basis that is the “Worse that watergate” Crime
Trump’s actions fall between Clinton’s and the various members of the obama administation.
Trump acted – AS PRESIDENT, but with probable cause, and thus far the evidence is that he did NOT use other parts of the federal government. Guiliani is assisting him privately. He is essentially the equivalent of Perkins Coi.
The Obama administration acted – pretty much as a whole and without probable cause or anything near it.
If he would only keep his mouth shut, he would be a shoe in for reelection.
https://www.ibtimes.com/apple-news-mac-pro-production-moves-texas-dodge-tariffs-2831647
This looks like it has an excellent timeline at the end.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7491335/Whistleblower-DID-NOT-actually-hear-Trump-Ukraine-call.html
But if the “whistle blower never heard the conversation, isn’t that hearsay?
Not if his job was to read/examine the transcript or tape of the conversation.
A forensic fingerprint examiner doesn’t have to be there when the evidence is imprinted –
It is “hearsay” but that is not the issue. Hearsay is a basis to open an investigation.
Though it is NOT sufficient to do more than ask questions which no one is required to answer.
You posit it is the “Whistleblowers” job to review transcripts – possible, but unlikely.
Communications between heads of state are NOT widely distributed. It is unlikely that many people have access to these transcripts.
Your whistleblower would have to be very highly placed.
The bigger problem is with the IG themselves.
If Trump’s actions are a “crime” then it is outside the domain of the IG – this becomes a DOJ issue.
If they are not a “crime” – then they are outside the IG’s domain – because the IG does not investigate the whitehouse.
While all of us would be more comfortable if people we could trust were able to say “there is nothing here” or “there is something here”.
we have so wreaked havoc on “the rule of law” and substituted “feelings” for facts, that there is no one that would be trusted by both you and I.
Neither of us is entitled to review by someone we trust using any criteria at all.
So absent evidence that DOJ – who would be responsible in this instance, is not following the law – DOJ would be the proper body to look at this.
Neither crimes nor the activity of the president are inside the scope of the IG or the IG law.
You think that Trump is acting improperly – criminally. That is hard to tell – given we do not really know what is alleged or what was said – only what those who you do not trust who heard this have said.
I do not think that anything will satisfy you – short of impeaching Trump, and you do not care why.
Which frankly if democrats want – they should go for it.
I would like the law to be followed – by Biden, by Trump, by Obama, by Comey, by the IG and by congress.
From CNN
“The whistleblower didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower’s concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration’s determination that the complaint didn’t fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.”
This is not “hearsay” it is “double hearsay” which is never admissible.
NYT: “President Trump personally ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine in the days before he pressed the new Ukrainian president to investigate the Democrats’ leading presidential candidate, two senior administration officials said Monday.”
See his beady brain turning. Like a sneaky banker canceling a loan payment to a businessman prior to calling him for a ‘friendly’ chat about someone who works there.
Impeach the mother-sucker ….
Jay “Impeach the mother-sucker ….”
Finally you have come to my way of thinking! Good!
If there is anything there, then he is gone. If not, then he is cleared for reelection.
But we both know that is not the dems playbook. Its to keep stirring the septic tank to spread the “smell of corruption” to get (for now) Warren elected.
And to keep you in a tizzy and me saying “WTF, who cares”
But Jay please, cant you find another “creditible ” source instead of the N.Y. Slimes? How about the National Inquirer or Globe?
Be careful what you wish for.
If you want to assure Trump’s re-election and GOP domination of congress impeach Trump.
Even Prof. Turley grasped that a SUCCESSFUL impeachment and removal of Trump will result in tens of millions of incredibly angry Trump supporters, and a backlash that will be large and possibly violent.
I would suggest reading the declaration of indepence. The central premise is that violence against government is justified when the government becomes lawless.
The LEAST consequential effect of “impeachment” would be the likelyhood that no future president finishes their term.
I was highly conflicted over the impeachment of Bill Clinton – there was a clear crime – Clinton lied under oath more than once and induced others to lie under oath. Those were established beyond any doubt at all.
But there was absolutely nothing of consequence that had anything to do with his actions as president.
And all of this was tied to the Paula Jones lawsuit – which though Jones absolutely deserved justice, SCOTUS should not have allowed during Clinton’s presidency.
As a representative or senator I would have voted to impeach or remove.
But Clinton was not removed – and that was actually the right outcome.
Any impeachment of Trump will be clearly political. There is nothing that Trump has done that presidents have not done forever – that Obama did not do. that Obama/Biden did not do to the Ukraine.
I am not happy with some of Trump’s behavior – nor Obama’s, nor Bush’s nor Clinton’s, nor ….
If being unhappy is enough to impeach and remove – as I said – no future president will reach the end of their term.
Dave, if you could promise that the presidents would never finish a term, I will support impeachment 100+%. Maybe then someone will come to their senses and amend the constitution for one 6 year term. If there was one term, everyone would concentrate on the future election and not on the current resident.
If you want to talk about changing the constitution – fine, I can consider your proposals.
But they are not going to fix the problem.
Regardless, I am somewhat happy about this.
Nothing is better for libertarians than massive evidence that government is dysfunctional and untrustworthy.
Go ahead – impeach Trump for conduct that every president since atleast Lincoln has done.
Does anyone think of the consequences ?
The GOP’s ability to pack the courts – came as a result of Democrats nuking the filibuster.
This is shooting the moon.
Unless there is never another republican house and never another democrat as president, this just normalizes impeachment.
And I am fine with that. Lets tie govenrment in knots for as long as possible.
Lets destroy public confidence in government.
Lets do everything possible to drive the country towards libertairans and limited government.
This was well known – long before this allegation.
Congress and the whitehouse have been fighting over money to Ukraine since the Obama administration.
There is significant evidence that a massive portion of the aide we have been providing the Ukraine is being ripped off.
The Obama administration fought to withhold aide until there were assurances that it was actually being used for the purpose it was budgeted for.
Further the Obama administration was in a pissing context with the Congress over what the aide could be used for.
Trump would be holding the Ukraine money even today – but for Sen. Durbin “blackmailing” him to get it released.
Both Biden and Trump are justifying their actions regarding Ukraine as efforts to fight corruption in the Ukraine involving US funds.
There are many plausible scenarios where Trump blocking aide to Ukraine are legitimate, but Biden doing the same are a crime.
There are NONE where the opposite is true.
If you beleive Trump’s conduct here was criminal – then Biden’s was even more so.
And frankly Durbin’s blackmail to get the funds released was also a crime.
At some point you are going to have to directly confront the key question – when is political hardball legitimate and when it is a crime ?
There is no personal interest that I am aware of in Durbin’s efforts to blackmail Trump into releasing funds to Ukraine. Durbin was also following the law.
There is an arguable personal interest regarding Trump’s actions but there are plenty of legitimate reasons.
The executive branch for YEARS has had problems with the aide to Ukraine.
Ukraine has major corruption problems and the aide is inarguably increasing that corruption
There is ZERO debate over the corruption in the Ukraine. Both Obama and Trump administrations have back peddled on aide to ukraine.
Ukraine has a new president – one with no political experience and frankly no management experience. The administration is rightfully concerned by that.
There exists probable cause that VP Biden broke the law in extorting the Ukraine into firing a prosecutor. It is possible that Biden did not commit a crime, but we have far more actual evidence than we have ever had regarding Russian collusion.
There is also probable cause that laws were broken by the clinton campaign and with respect to the Ukraine handling of manafort.
You are going to have to figure out whether a personal interest in the outcome and a personal benefit overcomes an actual basis to ask for an investigation.
Are all political rivals exempt from investigation – because they are political rivals ?
In this instance – as opposed to Obama’s actions regarding Trump, there is probable cause that a crime has been committed. there is sufficient evidence for an investigation, there is sufficient evidence to issue subpeona’s and search warrants.
Are you going to prohibit the president from asking for the assistance of a foreign power because the result might help him ?
I honestly do not care how you answer – so long as you are going to stick to the same standard, that you are going to apply that standard to Durbin and Pelosi, and Obama and Biden and Comey and …..
But you are not.
“See his beady brain turning. Like a sneaky banker canceling a loan payment to a businessman prior to calling him for a ‘friendly’ chat about someone who works there.”
I am trying to make any sense of your analogy.
Bankers do not cancel loan payments – pretty much ever. They loan you money, they expect you to pay them back – period. When you don’t that is default and they are angry.
Bankers do not “sneak arround cancelling loan payments – that would be a fraud on the bank.
If a banker calls you about a loan payment – probably you owe him money – and he is not going to cancel the loan payment. He is going to demand payment – politely at first.
As a businessman the only time I have ever been called up by a banker about an employee – was when the employee forged a check – committed a crime.
That appears to be the only part of your analogy you got close to correct.
Finally – public transactions have no resemblance to private ones.
Private parties rarely give others money – though if they do, it quite often has strings attached.
Private parties who loan money – expect the loan to be repaid with interest.
They do not much care what you do with the money – so long as you repay the loan.
Governments use money as leverage. That is pretty much the only reason that governments give or loan money to others.
I can not think of a time ever where a government gave someone money with the primary purpose of getting repaid with interest.
Whenever government loans money or gives money – they are ALWAYS expecting something aside from their money in return. Often many things.
So aside from pointing out that governments handling of money is radically different from that of private parties – your analogy is near meaningless.
Except that it defames pretty much all the bankers in the world, pretty much none of which act as you seem to think.
Yes, it is hearsay. Though some right wing sites are making an issue of this – hearsay IS sufficient basis to start an investigation, but it will not get you very far. It will not get you a warrant, it will not get you a subpeona, it will not get you beyond asking questions which no one is obligated to answer.
A more serious problem is that the complaint appears to be outside the scope of the IG that is handling it – and infact outside the scope of the IG law.
Again I think some of the right wing sources are interpretting that TOO broadly.
The IG is not permitted to investigate differences in policy or politics.
The IG is also does not conduct investigations of crimes – they have no subpeona power, and can not compel anyone but government employees to talk to them.
This is why Horowitz was refered all the conduct he beleives to the criminal to the DOJ.
These arguments about the specifics of the law – do not alter whether Trumps coduct was right or wrong.
BUT they are very relevant to whether DOJ is acting properly or not.
It strongly appears the IG is acting outside his scope. The IG in question’s powers are limited to specific branches of the Intelligence community – not the whitehouse.
He can only investigate actions that occured within his domain. Anything else he would have to refer to the DOJ or another IG.
And DOJ appears to be completely correct with respect to that.
Absent an allegation that a govenrment employee inside his domain acting at Trump’s direction did something wrong – this IG is rogue.
Dave, as I posted earlier “WTF, Who cares anymore?” Today Nancy Pelosi announces the opening of impeachment proceedings. GREAT, lets put everything out in public, let the house vote and send it to the Senate. Let the fake news, social media propaganda and right wing news spin this and see who has the most impact. ( Somewhere, somehow, a bit if truth may get published).
Trump counters with the complete and un-redacted transcript of the Ukrainian phone call to be released. Great, again,let the various news levels analyze and report.
Now my take ( and Jay will say I am full of $#:+ and paranoid). Democrats will open impeachment now and like all investigations, it will be coming to a head with the report or articles to ge released in December 2020. They dont give a damn what they find, they just want the cloud over Trumps head that Warren can use to deflect attention on her desire to destroy capitalism as we know it and to defect attention from the near socialist SCOTUS she want to put in place.
Ron, I predicted MONTHS AGO that Pelosi would hold off from impeachment proceedings and then initiate them as close to the election as possible. That was a no brainer.
If Republicans don’t want Warren as president they should find suitable replacements for Trump/Pence to run against her. Nimrata ‘Nikki’ Haley would make a strong opposition candidate to any Dem contender. She’d strip away a slice of the Dem Vagina Vote, and as a first generation dark-skinned child of immigrants enable her to maintain tight immigration policies without without being labeled racist. And her tough antiabortion stance and low tax policies – and single marriage history – would assure her vociferous support from the Religious Right.
Plus she’s attractive looking. She’d have a landslide victory over Ugly Elizebeth.
Jay, Love the Nikki Haley twist. She also fits one of my critical criteria. Age. Not one of the senile senior citizens running. There is two main reasons companies have had mandatory retirement age. One is mental acuity and another is finding new ideas, accepting new ideas and implementing those ideas.
But the GOP will ride the Trump train into oblivion before dumping Trump.
I would not bet on the GOP dumping Trump.
I would not bet against Trump winning in 2020.
If anything this increases the odds.
Republicans in the house and senate are going to spend the next year ignoring this, ignoring Trump and focusing on getting elected.
Democrats are going to spend the next year with Trump as an albatross arround their necks.
risking seeing even the moderates get crucified come november.
You do not seem to have read the story of the boy who cried wolf.
There is enough confusion about this pseudo impeachment inquiry that I have no idea what Pelosi is actually doing – even though I know what she said.
And the courts are unlikely to be persuaded either.
Regardless, you have just given the GOP its wish. You have jumped the shark.
There is no Robert Mueller to cover for house dems over the next year plus.
Please go watch Mueller’s testimony or Cohen’s or Lewendowskis.
Ignore – Mueller, Cohen, and Lowendowksi, and ask if people are going to be positively impressed by a year of proceedings that look like that.
If you want to destroy the democratic party – spend the next long year with the country focused on the house judiciary committee.
You can expect very shortly to have every “threat’ that any president has ever made go public and be compared to whatever Trump actually said.
Then you are going to face comparisons of what you beleive Trump tried to do – to what democrats and the obama administration actually did.
If you win this fight – you still lose.
I hope Haley has a bright political future.
What I might suggest that you consider is that there are no pie in the sky outcomes.
I highly doubt that House Democrats are ever going to bring impeachment to a vote.
Pelosi is not stupid – whether she wins or loses, democrats lose.
The problem with this strategy is that it is too transparent.
You have to atleast credibly look like you are serious.
If you are not serious – you damage yourself more than Trump.
In the late 90’s Clinton was impeached having actually committed several serious crimes.
Perjury is extremely serious.
The Republicans were actually serious about impeaching and removing him.
And still Clinton’s support rose through the process and republicans declined.
You have much less than the GOP had on Clinton
Democrats are going to spend the next year+ frothing and fuming and getting nowhere and making a public spectacle of themselves.
My prediction is that there will not be a vote on the house floor to authorize an impeachment inquiry, much less an actual vote to impeach.
That will not happen – because one way or another democrats would not survive it.
Pelosi does not even seem to be able to count democratic votes.
Regardless, Democrats will be out in public naked doing this on their own .
This will look much worse than the GOP in thr 90’s – but go ahead.
It is your funeral.
I still have no clue what Pelosi has done.
I a guessing – but I think this is a head fake to try to survive the priviledge claims of Trump.
She has anounce formal impeachment – but there is no separate impeachment inquiry committee and she says there will not be one.
The only thing “formal” about Pelosi’s offer is that she used the word formal.
I do not think that Pelosi will do a thing that requires a vote – she probably does not have the votes to even begin a formal inquiry.
But I am guessing – and frankly – I do not really care.
If she does not do this properly – seriously – the courts are likely to ignore any claims that there is an actual impeachment proceeding and support claims of executive priviledge.
Further the bigger democrats make their fishing expedition the larger the consequences when they fail.
I personally find this sad. There is not an outcome of this that is good for the country and probably not one good for democrats.
Pelosi has just guaranteed that from now until 2020 Congress will accomplish nothing.
In the meantime trump will continue pretty much everything that he can do unilaterally as president.
Trump likely continues to rack up successes, and democrats have nothing to show going into the election.
Fixating on the Ukraine is near certain to destroy Biden’s campaign.
And moderate democrats either face lots of very very hard votes that risk their seats in November, or they revolt against Pelosi and democrats – pretty much a no win for them.
Jay and Robby can cheer and spew spittle, but I do not think there is a good outcome in any of this for the left.
Even a successful impeachment and removal of Trump has a very high potential of being very bad for democrats.
Try some scenarios – whatever happens democrats win the presidency and the senate in 2020. The economy declines post 2020 – even merely going back to sub 2% growth.
How long do you think that democratic majority will last ?
One of the great lessons of the Obama administration that democrats have not yet taken to heart – is be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
The political consequences of Obama’s election and of PPACA for democrats was gargantuan. Something on the order of 10% of democratic elected offices at all levels throughout the country were lost over the course of 8 years.
Many factors cost Clinton the 2016 election – but one of those was the democrats railing against the tide.
We saw what socialism lite did for us for 16 years. It was a failure.
Alot of us grasped that.
But if Dems wish to try to give us another lesson – go ahead.
A huge part of the ranting about Trump, is ranting that the world just does not work as those on the left want it to.
Getting rid of Trump will not change that.
And getting rid of Trump is one of the less likely but better outcomes for democrats.
Regardless, I am absolutely in favor of giving Nadler and Judiciary and Intelligence committee democrats as much public face time to make idiots of themselves as they want.
Legally obtained videos, audio recordings, and/or verifiably accurate transcripts of those conversations, are regularly admitted as evidence in court under the same legal criteria as photographs submitted as evidence: all are legal ‘exceptions’ to hearsay rules, historically permitted by the courts.
“Legally obtained videos, audio recordings, and/or verifiably accurate transcripts of those conversations, are regularly admitted as evidence in court under the same legal criteria as photographs submitted as evidence: all are legal ‘exceptions’ to hearsay rules, historically permitted by the courts.”
You are off on a tangent.
1). I have not claimed you can not start an investigation based on hearsay.
What I have said is that you can not get very far.
2). The IG is NOT a criminal prosecutor. That is likely part of the reason that Pelosi is pushing forward on this non-impeachment impeachment she is speaking about.
I do not want to get into the rules of evidence – they are pretty much irrelevant.
The IG does not have subpeona power, and he has narrow jurisdiction that in this instance means he is likely going nowhere.
I have no idea whether Trump’s directive to release the transcript will result in anything.
My guess is that it is not going to be released – because doing so would end this.
We saw the same thing with Trump/Russia – the more we knew the less there was.
Now it appears that McCabe kept a memo of the Rosenstein meeting where Rosenstein offered to wear a wire. – and McCabes memo does not portray it as a joke.
About a dozen other people were at that meeting, there are likely other memos.
What we have seen from the start is a massive stonewalling effort by “the swamp” – where your whistleblower comes from to prevent people from understanding there has never been real substance to any of your allegations.
But go ahead – keep this up for another 2 years.
The amount of credibility you burned on Trump/Russia is huge.
You start this fight with Trump at a huge deficit.
This will almost certainly fizzle just like all the other “fake news”,
and even if it does not – you are going to have to regain the interest of the public.
They do not beleive you anymore.
They do not care.
So you tell me – of ordinary people who is actually going to care if you can prove your BEST case scenario – that Trump withheld funds from Ukraine to pressure them into investigating the fact that Biden withheld even more funds from the Ukraine to pressure them to fire the prosecutor investigating his son ?
How do you see that playing out ?
And that BTW presumes that you can prove that Trump did what Biden admitted to.
Trump’s job approval has hit a 2yr High.
Rassmussen has him at 53%,
Emmerson at 48%
The Hill at 47%
RCP at 45%.
This is in the midst of the scandal of the day – and likely the scandal of tomorow whatever that is.
Dave “scandal of tomorrow whatever that is.” 😂😂😂😂😂😂
There is a “Scanal of the week” jar sitting on someones desk at NY Slimes, MSNBC or Washington Post. Weekly, they get together and reach in and pull out the scandal to report that week.
More disingenuous distortion from dhlii
Rasmussen poll again an aberration.
ALL the other polls, including Hill, show his disapproval numbers HIGHER by as much as 12 points. None of the other polls show his approval higher than 45. His numbers have fluctuated within the same range for the last 2 years.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
Jay, Yep. But I love it when the opponent believes bad intelligence. Rasmussen and Dave are quite a handsome couple.
I do not believe its anything real when trump’s disapproval gap periodically grows from 11 to 13 and I don’t believe it when it fades back. When it moves by 5 points either way i will believe its something other than random noise in the data. But Rasmussen, off from the rest by something like 15 points, that sorts of sounds suspicious.
I would suggest comparing the Rassmussen Daily Tracking Poll to the RCP daily average Trend line.
Since Dec 2017 – BOTH are steadily RISING.
Though RCP is still below Rassumussen, Rassmussen has a shallower Trend.
Regardless if you scroll down to the long term graph on the link Jay provided – you will find the “bad intelligence” is YOURS.
Jay claims no one but Rassmussen is above 45 – yet the RCP is 45.3 – and list 2 other polls in the upper 40’s.
Further the RCP has not been above 45 since ….. February 2017 – a long long time ago.
Not only are Trumps numbers rising – slowly, but they have been doing so for a long long time.
I expect they may take a hit at the moment.
But there is no question that a trend exists,
Whether the current nonsense will be another blip or the inflection point Dems have hoped for since Trump was elected remains to be seen.
I would note one thing though.
Since being elected. Trump has managed to run a daily war with the left and the media, deal with an SC investigation as well as a whole raft of carreer government employees who are hostile,
And through that still continuously accomplish things.
Clinton did the same through his presidency – but there is one fundimental difference.
Republicans investigated and impeached Clinton – but they worked with him to govern.
Democrats would vote to impeach Trump if he said the sun should rise in the morning.
Whatever nonsense the democrats bring in the next year+ you can expect that Trump will continue as he has accomplishing things.
There are signs that the immigration issue is abating. Numbers are starting to drop.
The recent SCOTUS decision blessing Trumps rules requiring asylum seekers to do so in the first country they enter are having a big impact.
Put simply – by 2020 Trump will likely be able to claim dramatic changes in illegal immigration.
More and more illegal imigrants are being detained BEFORE they get to the US.
The conditions they are in are far worse than those had they made it to the
“inhuman” CBP facilities in the US. But you do not see media stories on that – as they do not play bad for Trump.
There will be less child separation. Less, ….
By 2020 Trump will be declaring his immigration policies a success and taking credit for it.
Some of that will be hubris and exageration – but it is going to play well to alot of voters.
Further there will be a couple of hundred miles of additional wall.
In this and myriads of other areas Trump will be able to claim he kept campaign promises.
On the left – attempted smear after smear has flopped – of Trump, or Kavanaugh, of ….
Anyone who does not openly loath Trump – you attack and smear.
You think that is playing well ?
I expect that Trump’s list of accomplishments in the next 15 months will match those while Mueller was investigating him.
In 2020 – whatever is better – Trump will be able to claim is entirely his responsibility,
and democrats will have done nothing to be able to credibly challenge that.
Dave, you all are debating insignificant crap. The national polls mean nothing. Its all about MI, PN, WI, NC and maybe one or two others.
So debate the RCP polls showing Biden up by 10 in MI and PN and 7 in NC. Right now they dont mean anything, but mean more than national polling.
“Dave, you all are debating insignificant crap. The national polls mean nothing. Its all about MI, PN, WI, NC and maybe one or two others.”
This is not binary. National polls are LESS meaningful regarding the election outcome.
But Biden must get to the national election. He is down in Iowa and in trouble in most of the early states. And this is just beginning. the bigger a deal that dems make about Trump’s phone call with the Ukraine the worse things will get for Biden.
To weaken Trump D’s must kill Biden, and that appears to be what is happening.
I do not know that is Trump’s “plan” – but I strongly suspect he will be happy to go along.
You are correct that polling becomes more meaningful as time passes.
BUT Trump has until election day to bring his numbers up.
Only ONE democrat – and we do not know which one – has that much time.
Half the field has dropped out already – for them early polls were life and death.
Biden has to survive until those states you think will buoy him.
Another huge factor here is donations. The negative impact on Trump donations of all this is likely to be minor. but who wants to be seen giving money to Biden right now ?
Democrats are claiming Trump acted out of political self interest.
The claim against Biden is of acting out of PERSONAL self interest.
Using the power of government to disadvantage a political opponent is disturbing.
Using it to personally profit is really really bad.
And the facts regarding Hunter Biden are just not good.
He received a 600K/year seat on the board of directors of a Ukrainian company – despite – no knowledge of the Ukraine, no experience in the energy area, not much int he way of business experience, no ties to Ukraine. that is not proof of wrong doing. But is there any doubt at all that he never would have gotten that position but for the fact that Joe Biden was VP ?
Was there an explicit quid pro quo ? possibly not. But this destroy’s Biden’s blue collar everyman image.
And even if Biden survives to the general election – this is a dagger right into the heart of why he is a threat to Trump. Separate Biden from Blue Collar “everyman” democrats – and Trump will mop the floor with him.
We are back reading Tea Leaves, but my prediction is this is the end for Biden.
He is either dead or wounded and in a way he is not coming back from.
I do not think he will make it to the general – but if he does, it is now near certain he loses.
While the polls are starting to turn on Biden – I think the drops in the polls now are the tip of the iceberg, The fact that they have started down so fast is disturbing.
This story will likely hurt Trump, but IT HAS ALREADY HURT BIDEN, and the story is just started.
Dear Dummy – Rasmussen’s numbers DISTORT the RCP average. Duh.
RCP has moved more than 8pts since Dec 2017.
Rassmussen is 7pts off the RCP average and 11pts from the RCP low – and that was set 20 days ago. Rassmussen is only 8pts from the low over the past week.
And only 5pts from two other polls.
There is not a 15pt spread and has not been probably ever. Rassmussen runs higher than the rest, but it follows the same trends, and it was closer on election day 2016 than the rest.
You can call Rassmussen high. But not 15pts.
And ALL the polls have been slowly trending higher – by more than 5pts over the long run.
BTW Rassmussen is NOT the only poll to have Trump in positive job approval. Emerson has Trump at +1.
I am not the one suffering from confirmation bias.
It does not mater what poll you decide is best – ALL show the same trend.
They just have different baselines.
You have to turn everything into a personal accusation of moral failure.
And you wonder why you have no credibility.
Rassmussen has been the most accurate for 3 of the past 5 elections.
I do not think they have ever been off more than 2pts.
Regardless – I cited other polls – most of those are lower than Rassmussen but ALL are trending higher – the RCP average is 45.3 that means approx. half the polls are above 45.
And yes – if you actually bother to actually check – Emerson, Rassmussen and the Hill asll have Trump above 45%.
Atleast one Trump Biden Poll has Trump within 2 pts.
And I beleive there is a Trump warren Poll with Trump winning – and there is more than a year until the election. Things will only improve.
You can spin this information how you please, you can draw whatever conclusions you want – but you can not just Lie about it and pretend it is different than it is.
The FACT is Trump’s numbers have been slowly RISING.
It is probable given the current mess they will fall again – and rise again when this fizzles.
Regardless you have a year before people go to the polls.
In that year if all that happens is more of this carping nonsense, coupled with periodic Trump accomplishments, and the democratic presidential contenders drifting ever leftward,
Brace yourself – because Trump will “win in a landslide”.
And if Pelosi really intends to spend the next year “impeaching Trump”.
Democrats will lose the house.
You seem to think that the mere act of trying to impeach is meaningful.
Absent coming up with goods that people buy as consequential,
you do more harm to yourself.
Further if you attempt or worse succeed in impeaching Trump lightly – you make that the standard in the future.
I would be happy if we could tie up the government permanently in impeachment inquiries.
But is that really what you want ?
If the american people did not buy impeaching Clinton for lying under oath – why is it you think that impeaching Trump for asking Ukraine to reign in corruption – even if that corruption is that of the other political party, given that the very person Trump is asking they investigate, engaged quite brazenly in a larger version of the same extortion – and probably for personal benefit.
You have spent the past 2 years telling us Trump was using the office of the presidency to line his pockets – despite the fact that has not occured and Trump does not need to.
But Biden and Family (as well as the Obama’s, and Sanders and …. ) have all done exactly that.
The current numbers are higher than election day 2016.
At the start of 2017 Trumps numbers were more than 10pts Below Obama’s at the start of 2009. Today they are 5pts HIGHER than Obama’s at this point in 2011.
Obama won in 2012.
Rassmussen has not recorded an approval this high since early March of 2017
And Rassmussen Has Trump 9pts above Obama at this time in 2011.
RCP has not had Trump above 45 since Feb 2017 – i.e. since a few days after inauguration.
Further RCP has had Trump climbing slowly and steadily since his low in Dec. 2017.
Yes, there are fluctuations – but each drop is not as low as the last and each rise a little higher than the one before.
Lots of things can happen between now and november 2020.
But like it or not – the odds favor Trump.
Whatever it is that Pelosi and D’s have just done – it is not exactly clear,
Because calling something “formal impeachment inquiries” does not make them such.
Regardless, that is a big bet. If Dem’s fail to come up with the goods – the long term harm will be to them – not Trump.
I do think this Ukraine thing hurts Trump. But I think it hurts Biden more.
Sufficiently that I think Trump is actually goading the democrats into overstepping.
The more this is in the news – the worse for him – but he will recover, it is also bad for Bidden and I do not think he will recover.
I think Trump wants to run against Warren. At the very least Trump wants Biden out of the running.
It looks like he is going to get what he wants.
I also think Trump wanted House D’s to begin this impeachment nonsense.
I doubt we will see this. We still have not seen the myriads of other things Trump authorized to be declassified and released.
Congress has still not seen the things Trump ordered Declassified and released.
But whether we see this or not, it is make beleive if you think Trump is concerned.
Well then there’s no reason to prohibit the anonymous Govt employee from testifying about it to congress…
“Well then there’s no reason to prohibit the anonymous Govt employee from testifying about it to congress…”
Jay – I did not make the rules – and I do not agree with them.
I am not sure quite where I fall on this.
But I do know where the law falls.
Absent Formal impeachment – and thus far what Pelosi has announced isn’t.
It is highly unlikely the courts are going to stand behind House efforts to breach executive priviledge.
If you get to find out exactly what Trump has said the only reason you will – is because Trump has ordered that the transcripts are released – unredacted.
I would like that. I think it is necescary right now. But I do not expect it.
Because this is not 100% good or 100% evil. Presidents their advisors and foreign leaders need to know that their communications are private.
If you do not want it that way – then change the law or the constitution.
I do not think that is happening – because most of us understand that there really is a basis for “executive priviledge”.
And I am sure we will be having that debate soon enough.
I am not however expecting that these transcripts are going to be released soon, and I do not think they will be unredacted.
We still have not seen the FISA warrant – and myriads of other documents that Trump ordered declassified that do little beyond amplify the corruption of the obama administration and the investigation of Trump.
We are not going to see this soon either.
And I think that is what Democrats want.
It is easier to claim Trump is stonewalling, than to prove miconduct that most of us will agree on.
The Climate school holiday – distracted attention from Protests in Hong Kong – which are more important to you.
PREDICTION:
The WH releases Transcript.
The Anon official testifies to Congress it’s not the same transcript he saw.
OR
Trump as reported rails 8 times about Biden & Son, but doesn’t specifically say he’s withholding promised money until the Biden’s are investigated.
Fox News & Trump Republican enablers & dhlii say, “see, there was no specific quid pro quo, Trump acting within his presidential authority.
If the submitted Transcript is written in Sharpie, should we be suspicious?
No matter what is provided, we already know you are going to be telling us that it is damning.
It is either going to be damning – because Trump’s remarks are troubling – and in Jay world troubling remarks by Trump ware treasonous, or it will be damning – because there is nothing there – and we will have to listen to you telling us that everyone – including possibly the whistleblower has been bought off by Trump.
It is highly unlikely that a transcript will be produced without the signoff of all the intelligence agencies, DOJ and state department.
We STILL have not seen the transcript of Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak.
Why do you expect to see this ?
If you have not figured it out yet – much of the executive branch is ignoring the orders of the president.
I do not beleive the Transcript will be released – or if it is, it will be heavily redacted.
Trump will have little or nothing to do with that. State, CIA, NSA, DNI, all have a voice in release and redactions. Trump has ordered many things released almost a year ago – very few have and those have been heavily redacted.
Coats was likely fired because he was slow pedalling the release of documents Trump ordered released. Purportedly Gina Haspel – a high ranking Obama holdover and a Brennan acolyte has also been active in both the whistle blower thing and stalling document release.
Trump is not getting Transcripts released unless he has his own recording and plays it from the rose garden.
The big deal is not a “quid pro quo” – though you will probably never find clear evidence of one – even though Biden quite explicitly was demanding a quid pro quo.
Quid Pro Quo’s in negotiations – public, private, … are common.
The critical issue is did Trump have a sufficient prima fascia case to ask for an investigation.
The more forcefull Trump was – the stronger the case must be.
The more specific Trump was about Biden – the stronger the case must be.
If Steele had recordings of Trump making promises to Putin in return for election help, no one would be accusing Comey, Mueller McCabe, Obama, …. of political corruption.
The problem with the Trump Russia investigation (also the problem with IRSGATE) is that there was no foundation.
Biden’s public remarks are sufficient to create “probable cause” – the only standard of proof higher is “reasonable doubt”
That is the real burden you must overcome.
And worse for you – you have an absolute clear compare and contrast to Biden’s remarks/actions.
You either have to throw Biden under the bus and claim his successfull blackmail of Ukriane was an abuse of power, or you can not get to Trump.
And even if you do throw biden under the bus – you still will have difficulty getting to Trump.
One of the interesting things about the biden precident is that:
If Biden is not guilty of wrongdoing – neither is Trump.
But the more likely Biden is of being guilty of wrong doing, the less likely Trump is.
You do not seem to grasp how huge a problem Biden is for you in this.
Trump is going to survive this – and probably come out stronger.
Biden probably is not.
Just looking at Biden on this over and over harms Biden.
Every Dollar Biden’s family made reminds us all that Democrats have come after Trump for personal gains as president that are illusory.
Trump (and much of his family) was a billionaire BEFORE the election started.
Biden came from nowhere and he and his family profited enormously from his public service.
Even if they did nothing wrong – the more you look at Biden the worse democrats look.
And the more hypocritical they look.
To be clear on the quid pro quo thing – I do not beleive there was one.
There are lots of reasons to delay providing Ukraine money – just ask Obama.
An explicity quid pro quo would be troubling – but even that is not enough.
I was going to say that to prevail here you have to ….
But there is nothing – you can not prevail here.
So long as there is probable cause to investigate corruption – even Biden’s corruption in the Ukraine, you can not win.
If You can prove that Trump was joyously happy if Ukraine would investigate Biden, if You can prove that Trumps sole motivation was political – that is very disturbing – but so long as there is probable cause with respect to Biden – there is no level of malevolence on the part of Trump that is enough.
To get an actual crime – you must make it so there was not probable cause.
And you can not do that. Even if you subseguently proved that the Biden’s were absolutley innocent.
There was still probable cause of a crime at the time of the phone call.
You can not get rid of that, and so long as that exists you can not “get Trump”
Lets try a hypothetical in the US – to simplify things and to make clear that US laws would apply and to make it clearer that even where Trump had more actual power than with Ukraine – there would sill not be a crime so long as there is probable cause to support his demand for an investigation.
Lets Say Biden appears in Front of the better Business Bureau and brags about getting the Russians to contribute millions to his political campaign.
I will even allow you to assume to tilt the argument your way as much as possible that the “brag” is false – so long as Trump does not KNOW beyond a reasonable doubt that it is false.
So Trump calls up William Barr and says “Have Biden investigated for campaign finance violations or your fired!”.
Troubling – yes, but not a crime – because Biden’s remarks are probable cause to justify an investigation.
Change the facts – Guiliani finds some unnamed Russian spy who says he heard that putin funneled millions to the Biden campaign. Guliani tells Trump – Trump tells Barr investigate or your fired.
NOW you have a crime. an unnamed source through double hearsay is not sufficient basis to demand an investigation. PROBABLY you have a basis to look specifically into the credibility of the party making the allegation. But you do not have enough for wiretaps or subpeona’s until you have something more.
It is not the political nature of the target that matters – as disturbing as that might be,
it is the strength of the allegation that determines whether the demand – even extortion to get an investigation are a crime.
Just to be clear Trump can demand the investigation, but the standards for the investigators would be different.
If Barr as an example was part of the Trump 2020 Campaign – he would have to recuse himself from an investigation of a political opponent that Trump ordered – or probably appoint an SC to investigate Biden.
Political biases are undesirable but tolerable (because they can not be avoided) in those who ask for – even have the power to order investigations – so long as there is a legitimate foundation for the investigation. But they are NOT tolerable in those conducting the investigation.
When we add the fact that the Ukraine is in this – the whole mess gets weaker.
There is absolutely nothing political in this video.
At the same time it has bearing for all of us – even in the context of politics.
Put simply – if something is really important – critical thinking is necessary or you are highly prone to make mistakes.
From what I can tell Pelosi’s “formal impeachment” announcement, isn’t.
It appears that it is little more than words.
She is essentially saying that the assorted house committees are now free to talk about impeachment as part of their oversight.
There are no rigid rules for impeachment, but that is NOT how it has been done in the past.
Every prior impeachment – of presidents, of judges of …. has started with a vote to authorize an impeachment proceding and the creation of a committee empowered to investigate.
The courts have treated the committee conducting an impeachment enquiry differently as a matter of law.
Congress does not get access to Grand Jury materials.
Prior to Nixon they did not even in impeachments.
But Sirrica created an exception for impeachment proceedings.
There is alot of legal scholars that Think Sirricca was wrong – and some claims now that Sirrica was engaged in his own political shenangicans.
But he created the standard we use today. The house judiciary committee is not getting grand jury material. Probably not even with Pelosi’s announcement today.
But if the house votes to begin impeachment proceedings and creates an impeachment committee, there is better than a 50/50 chance the courts will give that committee access to Mueller GJ material. There is much less than 50/50 probability without a vote of the house and the formation of an impeachment committee.
Part of this is that the normal committees of congress are not “legal proceedings” – even though they follow somewhat similar rules. Impeachment is the only quasi law enforcement role the house has.
My Guess is that Pelosi’s announcement today is an effort at word play in the hope of scoring political points and maybe getting some support from the courts.
My guess is that if Pelosi wants the courts to treat the actions of the house as a judicial proceeding, they are going to expect her to vote to begin an impeachment investigation, and to form an impeachment committee.
There are other reasons this is important.
My understanding is there are about 170 Democrats willing to vote to start impeachment proceedings. That means there are 50 democrats voting no. It is highly unlikely that Pelosi has the votes to even start an impeachment investigation.
Despite her role as speaker and Nadlers role as chair of the judiciary – neither are god.
They do not have the power and authority of the house on specific issues without the vote of the members of the house.
If the house does not vote to begin formal impeachment and appoint a committee – the courts are not likely to take them seriously. They are likely to treat this as political.
If the house wants to do serious things they must proceed seriously.
A majority of the majority is sufficient to STOP anything.
It is not sufficient to start anything.
Jay has been totally correct on this one. The transcript is out. It is actually damning.
Let the denials and distortions begin, but the transcript is out and its absolutely clear. All the republicans who are still living in the world of honor will be saying what jay is saying, trump has abused his office (again).
Putting huge pressure on a foreign leader to investigate his political competition, using aid and leverage, involving his own personal lawyer, this is how the POTUS legally acts? No.
Now, I will watch with mixed horror disgust and amusement and trump protectors try to explain how this is nothing.
The GOP world can decide to admit reality this time, Dump trump, run Pence against the crazy democrats, and bring this travesty to an end with some semblance of honor and integrity remaining.
Only, they won’t. They will circle the wagons and claim that trump is innocent.
From Turley:
“The transcript of President Donald Trump’s call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is enough to make Edwin Edwards, the infamous Louisiana governor, blush. Edwards once bragged, “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or live boy.”
Even after the July 24 appearance of Robert Mueller before Congress to discuss his findings as special counsel, Trump felt no qualms about calling President Zelensky the following day to push him to investigate Trump’s main political opponent, Joe Biden, and Biden’s son, Hunter. It is breathtaking to read Trump trying to convince Zelensky to do him a “favor” by going after the Bidens and suggesting meetings with Attorney General Bill Barr and Trump’s personal counsel, Rudy Giuliani.
Yet, for those hoping to find a dead promise or a live Russian in the transcript, they will be disappointed yet again. The transcript lacks a critical element needed for impeachment: evidence of a quid pro quo. Trump never connects the investigation with the receipt of roughly $400 million in military aid. While he discusses the aid, he never suggests that he will not send it. That does not mean a case — for impeachment or criminal prosecution — cannot be made. Unlike myriad prior impeachable offenses suggested by Democratic members, this allegation of self-dealing could be both an impeachable offense and a crime, though neither would be easy to prove….
…If one agrees that Hunter Biden’s windfall contracts were obvious influence-peddling, Trump’s push for an investigation into that possible crime becomes more defensible. It does not, however, make it right. Trump clearly tripped another wire for possible impeachment, immediately after the special counsel made his final report on prior controversies. Congress is clearly justified in investigating, and the transcript is not the entirety of the evidence that might show a corrupt intent or act. All of which is why House Democrats still need to find the quid.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/462969-trumps-ukraine-transcript-unwise-words-but-no-proof-of-a-crime
So in your world it is OK to have foreign powers investigate opposing political candidates – If they are republicans – even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
But it is high crimes and misdemenors to ask a foreign power to investigate when there is probable cause that a crime has actually been committed ?
Have you actually listened to what Biden said ?
Trump’s remarks are tame.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections
Are you prepared to have a discussion about what the law IS, possibly what the law should be – without trying to bend it such that an act by Trump is somehow a crime, while more eggrious acts by Obama, Clinton, Biden are not ?
Even Sen. Murphy(D) actually “threatened” to cut off aide to Ukriane if the DID investigate Biden.
“Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News’s senior judicial analyst, told Fox News host Shepard Smith Tuesday night that President Trump committed a crime when he admitted pushing Ukrainian government leaders to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden.
“It is a crime for the president to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government,” Napolitano told Smith.””
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/462962-foxs-napolitano-trump-already-confessed-to-a-crime
“Federal law prohibits a foreign national from directly or indirectly making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a U.S. election, and prohibits a person from soliciting, accepting or receiving such a contribution or donation from a foreign national. Federal law defines “contribution” to include “any gift … of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” And the FEC by regulation defines “solicit” to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.”
https://www.justsecurity.org/66277/the-quid-is-a-crime-no-need-to-prove-pro-quo-in-ukrainegate/
Not this stupid Trope again.
So when are you prosecuting Clinton ?
Clearly she benefited from the information the Russians provided her ?
Or what about the information Steele Provided her – last I checked Christopher Steele was a “foreign national”.
What about Biden ? Isn’t not prosecuting his son a contribution of value?
What of Obama – didn’t Obama ask and Medved agree to forward a request that Russia chill until after the election ?
How is Trump’s actions different ?
There is ONE simple difference – there is actual probable cause regarding Biden’s actions.
Provided by Biden himself.
Oh God no! Donald Trump said !!!!
“I remember going over (to Ukraine), convincing our team … that we should be providing for loan guarantees. … And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from (then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko) and from (then-Prime Minister Arseniy) Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor (Shokin). And they didn’t. …
“They were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, … we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president.’ … I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
Oops sorry, that is what VP Joe Biden said.
Oh right – Biden got a corrupt prosecutor fired to further Dem election chances, right? Wrong! False equivalency.
That once again you’re playing the whataboutism game – and getting it wrong – speaks volumes about your incoherent moral bearings, and your propensity to boggle the facts:
“Earlier this year, Bloomberg News, citing documents and an interview with a former Ukrainian official, reported the Burisma investigation had been dormant for more than a year by the time Biden called for the crackdown on corruption. The then-Ukrainian prosecutor general told the news agency he found no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden and his son. And PolitiFact reported it found no evidence to “support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son’s interests in mind.”
Additionally, the most recent former prosecutor general of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, told Bloomberg he had no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.
Other investigations into Burisma’s oligarch owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, proceeded, and The New York Times reported Sunday that former associates of the vice president have said Biden did not try to stop them.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/there-s-no-evidence-trump-s-biden-ukraine-accusations-what-n1057851
It is the Ukraine – everyone is corrupt. There is no indication that the PG was any more corrupt than those who replaced him. What is known is that he was investigating Hunter.
Regardless, you are correct – there is no evidence Biden interfered with an election.
The evidence is that he used his position as VP to protect his son from criminal prosecution in a foreign country – that evidence reaches the standard of probably cause – nothing else in this entire furball – reaches Probable cause.
Further the entire mess draws attention to the fact that Biden came from a poor family and made himself and his family incredibly rich from a job as a public servant.
You keep talking about Trump and his family – who could not spend what they have before they all die, becoming richer at the public expense. Biden and his family did not become richer at the public expense – they went from working class to top 1%.
Few are going to believe there was not alot of quid pro quo’s.
Further I am not that familiar with Hunter’s background, but much of what I have heard is that he is unimpressive, has a history of drug problems and no readily apparent skills – and yet keep landing positions that only the best and brightest with a long track record of success manage – as he follows his father arround.
Put simply it stinks.
And the question is why isn’t the media paying attention ?
Oh, and for the record the person who first exposed Biden’s problems to the world, the person who first alleged that Biden was corrupt was ……. Hillary.
Who is also the source of the Obama Birth Certificate thing, the Steele Dossier, as well as sicking the Ukrainians on Manafort.
She comes up in almost everything – like a bad penny.
With respect to the Ukraine investigation of Hunter.
You keep deflecting. While the credibility of the people who responded to Biden’s blackmale and fired the PG regarding the state of the investigation at that time is more than suspect – it is zero, that does not matter. It does not matter if Hunter was innocent of all wrong doing, it does not matter if Burisma was absolutely pure – though it is the Ukraine and we KNOW that is not true. All that matters is that Biden order the Ukrainians to fire a prosecutor who was investigating his son.
If the basis for firing the PG had nothing to do with Biden – then send VP Biden back to the US – get him as far away from the Ukraine as possible and have SOMEONE ELSE do this.
Biden has an absolutely clear conflict of interest – and one that is trivially solveable if the issue is that the PG was corrupt. Have someone else in the administration deal with Ukraine.
In fact – because his Son was a player in Ukraine Biden should have stayed out of Ukraine entirely. Certainly out of anything that MIGHT involve his son.
Regardless, you do not seem to grasp – you can not solve Biden’s problem by proving Hunter or Burisma’s innocence – even if that were both true and possible.
You can not even solve Biden’s problem by proving that Biden did not know his son had business dealings in the Ukraine – which though Biden has claimed there appears to be evidence that is false, and it strains credibility.
What you would have to do to actually destroy “probable cause” is prove that Trump knew that Biden knew that there was no investigation of his son.
Otherwise Trump has “probable cause” to beleive Biden may have done something corrupt, and that is sufficient to use his powers as president to ask others to investigate.
Lets presume this was all inside of the US – for simplicity.
Biden tells the Mayor of Baltimore to fire the Baltimore DA or he will not get Aide from the Federal Government. the Baltimore DA is investigating Hunter Biden for corruption at the time. Would it be improper for Trump to as Barr to investigate ? What about Obama – could Obama ask Lynch to investigate ?
There are very very few instances where the same act by one person would be a crime and not by another.
Biden’s actions in the Ukraine were one of those
Trump’s is the more common scenario – where if it is OK for any other president, it is OK for Trump.
Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin has never said he did not find anything.
“Shokin told me in written answers to questions that, before he was fired as general prosecutor, he had made “specific plans” for the investigation that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.””
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived
His replacements claim the investigation was dormant. Isn’t that what you would do if you were hired to replace some guy who was fired for starting the investigation in the first place ?
Regardless – one of the HUGE problems in this entire mess is that Ukraine is corrupt – deeply corrupt. You can not trust Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. You can not trust his replacement, you can not trust the former president or the current one or pretty much any of these people.
Further the entire US government – Biden, Clinton, Obama, Trump, Even Sen. Murphy have been bribing, bullying and threatening them. Murphy – I beleive publicly, anounced that if Ukraine did not shutdown the investigation they were re-opening that they would not get US aide.
“Although Biden made no mention of his son in his 2018 speech, U.S. and Ukrainian authorities both told me Biden and his office clearly had to know about the general prosecutor’s probe of Burisma and his son’s role. They noted that:
Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board was widely reported in American media;
The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden’s work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor’s case against Burisma;
Great Britain took very public action against Burisma while Joe Biden was working with that government on Ukraine issues;
Biden’s office was quoted, on the record, acknowledging Hunter Biden’s role in Burisma in a New York Times article about the general prosecutor’s Burisma case that appeared four months before Biden forced the firing of Shokin. The vice president’s office suggested in that article that Hunter Biden was a lawyer free to pursue his own private business deals.
President Obama named Biden the administration’s point man on Ukraine in February 2014, after a popular revolution ousted Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych and as Moscow sent military forces into Ukraine’s Crimea territory.
According to Schweizer’s book, Vice President Biden met with Archer in April 2014 right as Archer was named to the board at Burisma. A month later, Hunter Biden was named to the board, to oversee Burisma’s legal team.”
After Biden got Shokin fired – why should he have to worry about other PG’s ?
He fully expected they would clear Hunter – which they did.
I keep hearing this nonsense from Schiff that Trump was talking like a Mafia Don.
No – that was BIDEN.
Napolitano should know better – the standard he is offering is not the law.
That should be obvious – because if it was the law, all you would have to do to avoid ever being prosecuted for a crime would be to run for political office.
Absolutely everyone who can excerise government power should be careful with that power, and double so when their actions can be construed to be in their personal or political interests.
But whether an act by a person in power is a crime or not does not depend on whether there is a personal benefit, but whether the act itself would be legitimate otherwise.
There is a very legitimate basis for Ukraine to be investigating Biden – as well as several other matters that Either Trump or Guiliani have asked for.
We have spent 3 years listening to YOU tell us that absolutely nothing is sufficient basis for The Obama administration to investigate Trump.
Dave, your opinion is not important to me, it hasn’t earned my respect. I’ve skimmed over your word pile, it’s what I expected, denial. That’s your shtick and it’s all you are wired to do. It’s not important to me, it’s your own situation. You are going to go into denial overdrive over this situation and produce a gigantic volume, when all you need is a very few words, no, no, no.
There is a much bigger world for me to concern myself with. It’s the world of people like Romney and Sasse that I am interested in, what will they believe, what will they do, and how many in the GOP world will do the right thing.
Roby,
What I offered regarding Napolitano is NOT an opinion – it is the facts and the law.
If you are unwilling to accept that law exists and that is rests on a foundation that is more than just oppinion – then we are doomed to chaos and anarchy.
This is an absolutely central conflict between us.
Everything is not opinion and all opinions are not equal.
I do not need nor want your respect.
I am interested in the respect of moral people.
Of people who are not constantly accusing others of lying or other moral misconduct.
Who are prepared to back up claims of moral misconduct when they make them.
and who when they have made false accusations do not double down.
Read your own words – you “skimmed” what I wrote – and since the theme is not to your liking – it can not be true.
You have no interest in truth – that is the world we get when everything is an opionion and all opinions are equal – except those you like.
“Doing the right thing” – means following the truth, the facts, and the law.
The current mess is simple – by absolutely any standard consistently applied that even hints of wrongdoing on the part of Trump – then litterally dozens of democrats are criminals.
Impeach Trump – I am prepared to vote for impeachment and removal – but ONLY if whatever standard you chose is the standard for EVERYONE – past and present.
And then we need to start fitting out half the democratic party for Orange suits.
In this whole Ukraine mess the only threat, the only quid pro quo is what Biden has openly admitted to.
Regardless – you have no interest in Truth.
The only thing you care about is whatever spin or misrepresentation can be applied to the facts that is bad for Trump.
Your entire criteria for truth is Bad for Trump = True. Good for Trump = false.
And if Cruz or Bush had been elected in 2016 – instead of Trump – we would be hearing the exact same things from you – maybe a tiny bit more muted.
If Romney had won in 2012 – we would still be hearing from you – that he is a sexist, and elitist.
The problem today is that truth facts law, are actively being dismissed by a significant portion of the body politic.
And YOU are part of that.
Your respect has no value.
That is not an opinion. It is a consequence of your own choices and actions.
You repeatedly make false moral accusations
You repeatedly make significant factual errors.
And your remarks rarely go beyond insulting whoever you disagree with.
Why should anyone care what you think or think of them ?
“Did you know that Donald Trump Jr. was named a director to Ukraine’s largest private gas producer following a Ukrainian visit by President Trump? Trump later threatened to withhold $1 BILLION in U.S. aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire a prosecutor looking into Don Jr.’s company. Just kidding! That was Joe Biden when he was VP, and his son Hunter Biden.”
Bill Barr.. So he told the ODNI to suppress a whistleblower memo about a phone call that implicates Bill Barr in Trump’s ‘request’ to a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent.
I’ll take “Obstruction Of Justice” for $1,000 Alex!
.
Dems have opened an investigation.
GOP says its another witch hunt. MSNBC is pissing all over themselves covering this 24/7
Fox News is finding every shyster available to support the GOP.
Trump is providing fake news to the news media because the transcripts of the call is not “transcripts” of the call, it is from notes taken from others in the room with him when he made the call (according to Stuart Varney, this morning) Transcripts of the call would be the actual and complete words of the call transcribed from a recording, such as one find ion the internet of T.V. news segments..
Although I like the Judge, he has been wrong on many things, including many things during the Mueller investigation.He could also be wrong here.
So, anyone know if the Washington Post is liberal or conservative or somewhere in between? They are owned by the same company that owns the N.Y. Slimes. But this seems to be an interesting article concerning the issue being hashed out between us.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/24/democrats-investigation-might-do-more-hurt-biden-than-trump/
But really, just cutting and pasting others comments, is that really a debate or conversation between us?. Seem lazy to me because I can find that myself. I don’t need others posting it here. I want to know others thought on a subject, not what they find interesting that someone else wrote. Yes, express your thoughts and then document with a cut and paste.
but something this has pointed out to me and this country can save billions going forward. When someone is accused of a crime, lets have the media publish all the information that they choose to publish in the manner the decide to write it. Then lets have everyone interested in the case decide if the person is guilty or innocent and if they believe they are guilty, propose sentencing. These votes will be tabulated and used to decide if that person goes to jail or not. Great idea! Because everyone on the internet knows more than those doing the investigations, right?
WTF, I am f”in sick of the democrats and the republicans.I think its time for a UK form of government where we can have an election every 6 months like they are headed for.
I paste things in sometimes because I am just a guy with no legal training. Although dave seems to believe that the conversation here is some giant deal that will “find the truth” and determine “the facts”, we are just people expressing our opinions. We will settle nothing, we talk, we vent, that is all. So, I think that the weight of the opinions of these people is a better contribution than mine and I have often posted them.
Question: Does anyone in their right mind believe that if trump was a democratic president with a liberal agenda and he did the things he has done since his campaign that Lindsey Graham and all the other republicans and their voters would NOT be calling this a crime and bringing impeachment?
The question is facetious, the answer is that they would have gone the impeachment route long ago.
The democrats have been weighing whether impeachment was politically favorable. Is that that the bar? Politically favorable? The bar is did the POTUS do something so contrary to law that an impeachment is necessary.
Of course same goes for the GOP politicians, they also see all this only in the light of politics and not law or the consequences of letting such behavior become the acceptable standard. Why should anyone but their own team believe them when they claim wrongdoing by the democrats? GOP politicians say what they need to say to save their own hides, that is all.
What a bullshit system we have, the two party system just turns everything into a team sport.
Roby, sorry, I was frustrated. I had just read two cut and paste from Jay without a word why he thought the information was appropriate .
But I seldom see where you just copy a tweet without adding some comment. In fact, those are the ones you and Dave get into your ” personal discussions”
So now we have something to discuss.
I dont know just how far a president can go. Obama and his comment to Putin about being able to do more after the election.
Biden threatening Ukraine
Trump with holding arms money. Etc
But I suspect those in the security agencies hating Trump has created an environment that promotes information releases detrimental to Trump, where in the past it would be held secret.
Yes, the bar is what’s favorable to 1. politicians career, 2. politicians party, 3. politicians corporate sponsors, 4. country. So they look at the issues and say 1. If I push for.impeachment, that is going to separate me from any opponent.. Then its going to make the presidential opponent look like a criminal.. My corporate sponsorship wants a different president and I believe anyone is better for the country that supports my party. But you have to meet the first 3 before considering the 4th.
An impeachment “investigation” shows just how stupid Pelosi believes her supporters to be. An investigation is an investigation. The constitution gives the House Sole Responsibility to begin Impeachment Proceedings.. The first is not the second.
But Pelosi thinks America is so f’ing stupid, that impeachment has begun.
And yes, the GOP is no better. Benghaz and Fadt and Furious are good examples. Investigations to make the opposition look bad with no ramifications.
How far the president can go is how far the law or the congress or the people let him.
We can argue the law – but we can not just make up special Trump law.
If you decide that government can never go after a political competitor – you make it impossible to prosecute crimes committed by politicians.
If you make it too easy – you get the Trump/Russia mess, or IRSGATE,
If Biden knew that his son was the target of the Ukraine PG’s investigation, then Biden should not have had a damn thing to do with the Ukraine. Someone else could have gone.
The same thing is True about taking Hunter to China.
Last Night Guliana looked like the cat who ate the canary.
If you were to judge by his remarks and self confidence – democrats just stepped in it big time.
Guiliani CLAIMED, that he had proof – emails and other communications that Biden KNEW his son was wrapped up in the Ukraine PG investigation.
If that is the case – then Biden’s actions were unquestionably a crime.
But even if you can not prove Biden knew – there is still probable cause.
That is sufficient that Trump’s actions were unquestionably not a crime.
Regardless we should follow the law – the SAME law for Biden, Trump, Obama, Comey, McCabe, Mueller.
The facts of each are slightly different – and that will produce different outcomes, but the law should be the same.
One law, the same law for all.
Do that and to get Trump you have to take down a whole raft of democrats.
Starting with Biden and ending with Obama.
Fast and Furious was legitimate government oversite.
The Obama administration changed the rules and ATF sold weapons to drug dealers that ended up killing a DEA agent.
That is worthy of investigation – and yes, if you do that you SHOULD look bad.
Benghazi was also legitimate oversite. Had the Obama administration not stonewalled it would have been embarrasing but over quickly.
The most damaging thing from Benghazi was the Clinton email server – and it was not until the 4th investigation that came up.
No what the GOP has been doing is NOT the same as the democrats.
Sometimes republicans over reach, but democrats would have to turn arround and go backwards to get to merely overreach.
Robby, the fundimental distinction between me and you – is that you do not give a damn about any distinctions between facts, logic, and oppinions.
Trump has broken the law because “feelings”.
If you wish to disagree with me on the facts or the logic – MAKE YOUR CASE.
But if you are going to pretend that the law – or pretty much ANYTHING regarding the use of force against others is just competing oppinions that we get to choose between based on feelings. You are advocating anarchy – or totalitarianism – or actually both concurrently.
Our central disagreement is one where I and Priscilla and Ron – and hundreds of years of western philosophy. government and law are all in agreement.
What constituties “the Law” is not a question of “oppinion”.
Even court “oppinions” are the analysis of facts and logic and existing law.
If that does not produce the result that the jurist hopes for – an ethical jurist follows the law.
Whatever the issue we debate here – it ultimately boils down to
facts, logic, reason
and “the law”
And it MUST do so, because you can not justifiably use force outside “the law”
That is not the only constraint on the use of force, but it is one of several determinative ones.
If you wish to follow your own “oppinions” – great – but you may not use force AKA government to do so.
When we discuss government – we are morally and ethically obligated to follow the law.
And when we do not like the law – and quite often I do not like the law – then we can change it.
“Question: Does anyone in their right mind believe that if trump was a democratic president with a liberal agenda and he did the things he has done since his campaign that Lindsey Graham and all the other republicans and their voters would NOT be calling this a crime and bringing impeachment?”
I am not a big fan of Lindsey Graham. That said – we have the answer to your question.
Obama did ALL the things Dem’s have accused Trump of and then some.
There was much ranting and raving by Republicans.
Eric Holder was held in Contempt.
There was some muttering by a handful of Republicans – but any effort to impeach Obama would not have gotten a dozen Republican votes – much less 170.
Absolutely Republicans are highly partisan. But Democrats are even more so.
Much of What McConnell has done – would not have been possible 20 years ago.
But all of it was done by Reid FIRST.
If you have not figured it our – there is a pattern – Republicans threaten, but back off.
Then democrats do it, and then Republicans continue whatever democrats have started.
I think that you can expect that the next time a democrats is elected president with a republican house – every single thing you are seeing democrats do today.
If you want out of this FOLLOW THE LAW.
If you do not like the law – move to change it.
In many instances I will help you change the law.
You asked about Lindsey Graham and republicans – and the answer is – no republicans DID NOT do what democrats are doing when they could.
BUT THEY WILL Next time.
Again I do not like Graham much – but his rant in the Kavanaugh hearings was spot on.
Government is breaking down. And if you think that started with Republicans – you are blind.
It is not republicans how are calling half the country “hateful hating haters”.
You are engaged in a holy war against Trump and you are completely unable to consider what happens if you win ?
You asked about Graham and other republicans.
The conduct of future republicans is likely to be exactly like that of Naddler, Schiff, Pelosi.
If you define the conversation Trump had as a crime – no future administration will ever be able to conduct an investigation of anyone in the other party, and possibly anyone.
Absolutely we need to be carefully when someone with power also will gain a personal benefit from their actions.
But if you decide that any action that anyone in power personally benefits from is a crime – you have effectively made government impossible
I am fine with that – so long as we REALLY enforce that – not play this – it was a crime for Trump but OK for a yard long list of Democrats.
You want out of this ? One law, the same for ALL of us.
So when can you use the power of government to go after a political enemy ?
The law says – when there is credible evidence they have committed a crime.
The actual standard is lower than probable cause.
It is not low enough to support the Trump Russia investigation.
Biden/Ukraine – meets probable cause.
That is the current law (it is actually essentially the 4th amendment of the constitution) – if you do not like that – amend the constitution.
If you think I am wrong – provide more than an Oppinion – provide facts and logic to establish that the law is actually different.
And please quit this nonsense of expanding all law to the ends of the earth.
When you read the law broadly – you violate the constitution.
Impeachment is inherently political.
I wish it was otherwise – but the appeal to the judgement of the house is to the Senate and there is no appeal to the determination of the Senate.
Without amending the constitution to impose some oversite on impeachment – house democrats are free to disregard the text of the constitution – or construe it however broadly they please.
I doubt Trump would appeal or the court would hear a challenge to an impeachment proceding at any level.
I think the Democrats are engaged in a gigantic act of self destruction.
But if you and they wish to go forward – that is their free choice.
But there are somethings they MUST do.
The house of representatives has NO authority to conduct a criminal investigation
EXCEPT as part of an impeachment proceeding.
To transform the house into a judical body, to go beyond “oversite” to impose any consequences beyond passing laws. The house must vote in the majority to begin an impeachment proceeding.
If they do not do so – Pelosi can say “Formal impeachment” all she wants.
The house has still not taken the steps to start impeachment.
Jerry Naddler, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi can TALK impeachment all the want.
The house does not have the additional powers the constituion might give it, until it votes to beging an impeachment inquiry.
It may take SCOTUS to check lower courts – but it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS is going to allow Congress the same investigative powers as a prosecutor without a vote to begin impeachment.
So follow the law.
Fish or cut bait.
“What a bullshit system we have, the two party system just turns everything into a team sport.”
Then vote libertarian or green or Social Democrat in 2020.
We do not have a 2 party system – there is nothing in the constitution about parties.
The “two party system” is defacto, not dejure.
The reporting of the procedure regarding phone calls between the president and foreign leaders that was reported today – and purportedly is unchanged from prior presidents, is that
4-5 people in the WH Situation room, listen too and transcribe the phone call in real time.
There is no actual recording made.
After the call the 4-5 people compare their work and produce a “transcript”.
This is done because often the call is not entirely in english and there are intepreters, and even the interpreters make errors.
Those people in the situation room listening and writing down what was said are chosen because of their fluency in the languages that might be spoken.
Dave, thanks. I was unaware of this given all the technology available. But damn, this just gives the Democrats a hole in the evidence provided by Trump one could drive a train through.
They will pound on this one fact and use that to convince their followers and never Trumpers that Trump manipulated the information and should release the actual transcripts,and guess what, this will be all over social media, even though there are no “actual transcrpts” as they define.
I think any future president would want official conversations recorded so this cant happen again or both.parties will be coming up with crap that has no truth at all just before elections. If its this bad now, there is no limit going forward.
Ron,
I do not know this to be true – I just know this is what was reported, and in a way that I THINK it is probably correct. But it is hard to tell today. What gets reported is often false.
HOWEVER this does actually make sense.
What is not grasped is how incredibly unusual providing a transcript is.
DOJ is not happy. I would guess that State and NSA and …. are not either.
My guess is Trump acted quickly and did not tell them what he was up to.
Remember we still have not seen the FISA warrant and that was ordered made public a year ago.
I think it is highly unlikely that these conversations will be recorded in the future.
This specific conversation is a clear example of the reasons for “executive priviledge”
Foreign leaders are less likely to be candid with the president if they beleive they are being recorded. Transcripts are deniable – The Ukraine is denying the very things Trump said that hurt him.
You will never get presidential advisors or world leaders to talk candidly or explore all options if they are always on the record.
Lets presume that there was no Joe Biden or that Hunter was not part of Burisma.
In that case are Biden’s threats to Ukraine acceptable ?
Would you want a record of them ?
Would anyone ?
I think that Trump would have been in trouble had he failed to provide this.
But I think that doing so has hurt the presidency – not Trump, but the actual presidency.
Once the camels nose gets under the tent flap the camel will follow.
I am a big fan of transparency. But not infinite transparency.
The UK is having its own problems with its own form of government right now.
The UK “supreme court” just dealt a blow to Borris Johnson declaring his perogation of the parliment unconstitutional.
This is part of the problem with the british constitution – it is NOT written down.
Johnson did precisely what PM’s have done for centuries.
And the Queen had to actually direct parliment to recess.
Johnson is faging the same kind of spitball nonsense that Trump is – and in the end it is likely to go as badly for Johnson’s enemies.
In the name of “democracy” – Parliment has refused to honor Johnson’s request for a new election – because at the moment he is 10 pts ahead and will likely take commanding control of parliment if there is an election.
The same people have passed a law demanding that he must ask for an extension to the UK’s deadline for a hard Brexit.
I am trying to understand how this works – What happens if Johnson does not do what Parliment has directed ?
He has a referendum which directed him to withdrawl from the EU, and the last extension was approved by Parliment. If Johnson refuses to request an extension – chaos will likely ensue – but the presumption is that the UK is out of the EU.
What are they going to do hang Johnson ? Call a new election – that is what he is after.
As someone else has noted – Johnson can also just resign. Then a new election is forced.
But we have more of people just trying to make up the law and the rules as they go along.
Do we have to keep playing word Games.
Barr reviewed the allegations and established that they were outside of the scope of the National Intelligence IG – which they are.
They are also outside the scope of an IG – the allegations are criminal, the IG does not investigate crimes – hence all of Horowitz’s referals to DOJ.
Barr looked at the substance of the criminal allegation – which is the domain of the AG and determined there was not a basis for investigation – which there is not.
Barr just refused to prosecute Comey for pretty much exactly what you are claiming that Trump did – except that Trump HAS probable cause that Biden committed a crime.
Barr has acted sane in this from the begining.
While there are areas I am not happy with Barr.
He actually know the law – and this is not especially difficult law.
Which is more than most of those posting here and 2/3 of democrats.
You can be outraged by this, You can jump up and down and shout “Argh Trump”.
But if this is a crime – then half the senate, Biden, Obama, Clinton and most of DOJ/CIA have committed crimes either with respect to Trump/Russia or with respect to Ukraine – or both.
If there was the slightest legitimate basis for a complaint against Barr – it would be contempt of congress – not obstruction of Justice.
Congress is not a criminal investigative body – atleast not until they VOTE to authorize an impeachment investigation, and then create a committee to engage in an impeachment inquiry.
AG Holder withheld everythign and the kitchen sink from house republicans – and they eventually held him in contempt. Rosenstein did much the same – and the house threatened but never moved to hold rosenstein in contempt.
If you are going to make accusations – atleast make up the right accusations.
Further it is probably damn near impossible for the AG to obstruct justice – unless he is personally being investigated.
Who said this on the Senate floor in 1999?
“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role,” the politician said. “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
If I were the democrats I would remind the country of Lindsey Graham’s words at every chance although he is running from those words as fast as he can today.
Roby, Lindsay Graham is rom South Carolina.
South Carolina is a red state.
Graham is up for reelection
So, 1 Career. Oppose impeachment and secure votes. Check,
2. Party, Oppose impeachment and it helps party get Trump reelected. Check
3. Oppose impeachment it helps corporate sponsors. Just my guess, but Trumps tax program helps Boeing, BMW and others, so I would say check
Now we have checked off the first three, so is 4, country really important?
And most everyone wonders why I vote libertarian..
,
Ah Ron, all I wanted was a vacation from this wretched mess and I was ready to shut out the news and focus on my own life. Then this!
I wish I could be cryogenically frozen till this is decided and then woken and informed whether democracy worked or whether partisan politics prevailed over what is right.
This is a very dangerous time for this country.
If you want a vacation from all this – then take one.
If you are still watching CNN or MSNBC or paying any attention to almost any democratic politician – then you will get no vacation.
The survival of the democratic party DEPENDS on keeping all of us in a permanent state of outrage.
We are dealing with “the boy who cried wolf” – at some point wise people quit listening to people who constantly lie to them.
We have heard over and over what a big liar Trump is.
And yet on issue after issue where Trump has purportedly lied – no one has been able to prove the lie, and in most they have been able to prove that Trump was telling the truth.
I was briefly fooled yesterday by the media. While I knew that CNN and MSNBC and Schiff and … were lying – I still assumed that the Transcript was more damaging than it actually is.
READ IT. Biden and his son are NOT THE FOCUS. They are a MENTION in a long list of things Trump thinks the Ukraine should investigate.
Further there is ZERO coercion. For two people who barely know each other is reads like best buddies talking. Trump certainly connected with Zelensky the entire transcipt is like a scene from a buddy movie.
There is no “quid pro quo” there is no extortion, there are no threats.
If you have trouble telling that – go read what Biden said – that is what extortion, and threats look like.
They comisserate over the fact that the EU is doing to little.
Trump CORRECTLY notes that aide to the Ukraine is more in the EU’s interest than the US.
The US is aiding a friend and ally. The EU is not doing enough for a country that stands between them and Russian agression.
I do not know what it takes for you to escape the delusional bubble – you actively seek it out.
You do not have to beleive Trump about ANYTHING to have some peace.
All you have to do is quit buying the garbage of the media and the left,
who are OBVIOUSLY and DELIBERATELY trying to paint EVERYHTING as an existential crisis that requires that YOU demand bold and LAWLESS action immeidately
Because we do not have time to follow the law. Because the wolf is coming, the wolf is coming, the wolf is here.
There is no wolf.
I completely aggree with Graham’s remarks.
And I agree that Democrats do not need an actual crime to impeach.
I have no interest in debating whether democrats are allowed to move to impeach – they absolutely are.
And you have no interest in listening to me tell you why it is a bad idea.
So GO AHEAD.
But do not rant and rave if you are not serious actually do it.
And the first step is to vote to begin the process.
Until you do that – you are just talking.
Until you do that the house remains a purely legislative body and its authority is limited to legislation and oversight, it has no judicial power until it votes to give it to itself.
The Ukraine prosecutor Biden wanted fired was a corrupt Russian sympathizer, who undermined other investigations he was supervising, according to NUMEROUS sources. Here’s one. Notice that Prosecutor Shokin also tried to undermine the Burisma case investigation as well.
And Ron, instead of bitching about me pasting RELEVANT excerpts you should be thanking me for taking the time to find and post them – saving you the bother of google searching for them yourself. But you can skip the paste below, and go straight to the link here:
https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html
“Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin’s office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them.
Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine — first Shokin’s predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor — worked to bury it.
“Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case,” Kaleniuk said.
Ukrainian prosecutors have described no evidence indicating that Biden sought to help his son by getting Shokin dismissed — and have suggested that they have not discovered any such evidence.
But there is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired.
They include the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform.
“Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Kyiv-based Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), told RFE/RL that Shokin “dumped important criminal investigations on corruption associated with [former President Viktor] Yanukovych, including the Burisma case.”
Jay,
Shokin is on the record saying Hunter Biden was a target.
To the extent anything about Shokin actually matters, that is the only thing that does.
It is troubling to me that the US is looking to get prosecutors anywhere fired – even purportedly corrupt ones.
But to the extent that it could ever be legitimate – and unfortunately we are not following Washington’s advice and staying out of the affairs of other countries, if demanding Shokin’s removal had a legitimate foundation – Biden could not do it.
Biden’s conflict is personal. It is not about politics or Ukrainian corruption.
All the nonsense you keep coming up with regarding Burisma and Shokin – though much of it is false – is also irrelevant.
Biden was conflicted at the very least. Even if the message was legitimate, Biden was unable to legally deliver it.
Further It would even be irrelevant if it was possible to beyond any doubt absolutely prove that Joe Biden was completely innocent and did nothing wrong.
While that is not possible to prove – because the conflict can not be worked arround.
No matter how corrupt Shokin might have been, nor how snow pure his replacement was,
Biden was still conflicted.
But the big issue is Trump not Biden. So long as Trump could reasonably beleive that Biden engaged in a corrupt act – and the standard is reasonably beleive, then his actions are justified.
You can not alter whether something was justified in the past with future knowledge.
Trumps actions are justified so long as a reasonable person knowing the same facts that TRUMP knew could beleive there was probable cause.
Further Biden was personally conflicted – a problem that can be solved, by using the Sec State. Trump was NOT conflicted. Whether what was just done was allowable does not hinge on Trump. If Pompeo delivered the same message or Barr, or ….
The issue would still be exactly the same – is there probable cause (actually the standard would be reasonable suspicion which is lower), and the answer is yes.
Absent reasonable suspicion – anyone in government – Guilinia could still do this no matter what – would be guilty of misconduct and probably abuse of power,
With reasonable suspicion – anyone would be able to justifiably not merely query the Ukrainians, but actually put the screws to them.
Reasonable suspicion and probable cause (like beyond a reasonable doubt) are legal terms. They do not mean whatever you want them to
It is debateable whether the Obama administration ever had reasonable suspicion regarding Trump/Russia – but Reasonable suspicion is a very low bar. It is the barr that enables starting an investigation. BUT Probable cause is what is required to:
Get a warrant, to spy on someone to make anythign beyond voluntary record requests.
There has never been Probable Cause with Trump/Russia.
There has been probable cause since the moment Biden talked about having Shokin removed.
What the IMF etc wanted was corruption in the Ukraine cleaned up.
To this day that has not happened.
Regardless, you still do not get this – it does not matter if the whole rest of the world wanted Shokin removed.
Biden could not do it.
IMF was free to, Probably Obama was free to, Probably Kerry was free to.
This is not about Shokin – though an awful lot of the Shokin stories are problematic.
You seem to forget that Biden’s extortion of the Ukraine is NOT the first or last effort,
It is well know that Clinton received all kinds of help from the Ukraine in 2016 – including the dirt that got manafort fired.
Almost nothing coming from the Ukraine is credible.
I could be claiming right now that the Ukrainian president (and ambassador) claims they were not threatened by Trump and did not take this as a quid pro quo or extortion.
That would be making the same lousy arguments you are.
What they SAY does not matter – the US has been twisting the Ukraine so much that they will say whatever keeps them out of trouble with however they think is the threat of the moment.
Schiff and democrats were trying to make Ukraine into some great ally Trump abandoned in the fight against Russia.
But the bottom line is the US does not give a crap about Ukraine.
Pretty much everything we do in Ukraine – including providing them aid – is about Russia, not the Ukraine.
And as of this moment nobody knows if the copy of transcript presented to us is complete or if it has been adumbrated. Did the White House spin it? Let’s see if the Whistle Blower confirms that’s the version on which he based his complaint.
Trump is a cancer.
He needs to be removed from office.
This democrat (and your) fixation on “the whistleblower” is idiocy.
They did not hear the conversation. they can not confirm the accuracy of the transcript.
The entire whistle blower complaint is “double hearsay” – which would never get into a court of law.
I am honesty surprised that we have seen a transcript at all this quickly and that when we saw it it was not redacted to blackness.
The Intelligence community does not think the rest of us are entitled to know anything.
The fact that we are seeing this at all is because Trump ignored the rest of the executive branch.
We already know that Barr opposed releasing this. It is near certain if they were asked state and intelligence would have done so to – atleast not without months of review, and massive redactions.
As to its accuracy – my understanding is that the protocol that has been in place for decades is no recordings. Unless that is in error – the best you are likely to do is find the notes of the other “transcribers”. And they may well no longer exist.
But I do not think this is edited. If Trump wanted it edited – it would have nothing even troubling. There is alot he could easily remove.
To beleive that Trump had it edited, you have to beleive that he carefully figured out exactly what degree of damning would be credible but not get him impeached or lose the election.
AND that not a single person involved in the editing would come forward.
Not a single person who actually heard the conversation would come forward.
The transcript is likely accurate, and the probability of getting something else is small.
But I could be wrong.
I am surprised we got this at all. I am betting that NSA, DOJ, CIA are having a hissy fit.
Dave, Dave, Dave. Was Biden acting in his own personal interests when he made his threat? No he wasn’t. Biden was acting in the interest of US policy there is a clear case for that. Might have been better appearance wise if his son was not working in Ukraine for that company, it might have been better for the Obama administration to be sensitive to that appearance and send someone else. But, all the the trump administration has is innuendo that anything else was going on with his son. There is no evidence at all. You think anyone is going to find some smoking gun on that? Give me a break.
Trump was acting in his own interest, what the hell does US foreign policy have to do with a firing a corrupt prosecutor back in the Obama administration? Why is trump bothering with this matter? Has it got the slightest thing to do with US foreign policy interests today? No, nothing. You cannot begin to make a case that this old matter is of any importance to our foreign policy, and certainly not of such importance that our president needs to call their president to ask a “favor.” Why is it a “favor? Because it helps him.” He clearly put this pressure on Ukraine to get dirt on Biden to further his own personal interests. That ought to stink out loud to you but as expected Dave, you and the GOP world are bending yourselves into pretzels trying to excuse this abuse of power and shift the blame to Biden.
See the difference?
No, Roby, he doesn’t see, understand, appreciate the difference.
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”
The difference – Trump – speck of sawdust, Biden, Obama plank.
The diffence between probable case and MAYBE reasonable suspicion.
The difference between political interest and personal interest,
The difference between letting someone else do a task you can’t.
and doing a task that everyone has a conflict, but must be done.
Nor did I expect him to. He is not important, we all understand this special wiring. It’s GOP nation as a whole that is important.
First, trump must be impeached, whether the political consequences work out well for the impeachers or not. It the only moral thing to do at this point.
Romney and Sasse, how far will they go and who in the GOP will discover their moral compass and open their minds.
I really do not want to believe that nearly everyone in the GOP is going to defend this, I want to believe that in the end they are going to be able to be bigger.
History will be unkind to Trump’s enablers.
Read the transcript. Then go read the Andrew McCarthy story, then go read the John Solomon story. Then read the findings of the Ukrainian Court.
Neither McCarthy nor Solomon are right wing loons.
McCarthy was a “never trumper” at one point.
Regardless, you are so fixated on Trump – you are unable to grasp reality.
There is a really big mess here – that has absolutely nothing to do with Trump.
Trump’s sole role with regard to the Ukraine is trying to bring it to public attention.
There is no “Trump/Ukraine” stuff from 2016 that Trump is trying to hide.
But there is ALOT regarding the Ukraine during the Obama administration that has been only lightly examined and is much more serious than Trump/Russia.
And more important that was a part of the foundation of Trump/Russia and because of its very early start – pulls the rung out from under the entire Trump/Russia mess.
More and more evidence is demonstrating that Simpson. Clinton, Obama – and even Biden were engaged in political corruption in the Ukraine for a long time.
Trump was not looking to take out Biden. Biden is collateral damage of Trump’s efforts to go after those who went after him as well as many many others in order to F’ up the 2016 election.
Not only does the Ukraine mess undermine Trump/Russia – it undermines the who russian influence in 2016 garbage.
It makes it perfectly clear that Obama was doing precisely what you are are accusing Trump of attempting – of using Ukraine as a political tool to mess with US elections and he was doing so as president of the untied states.
Trumps Target is not Biden – it is Obama – and to a lessor extent Clinton and the DNC.
And if one tenth of what he is talking about is true – and most of it is True – there is a very very serious problem.
This morning Trump went on the offensive.
He released the Whistleblower complaint to the gang of eight – I am sure the rest of us will hear more of it soon enough.
I am sure Jay is busy tapping at his keys now as if every allegation that we have not even heard yet is true and proof of that Trump is evil and all powerful.
Trump can not even get a key trusted secretary to refrain from making inappropriate off the record remarks about his family.
And we are all expected to beleive that Trump has constructed a fake transcript and burried the real one where no one will find it (in the rose garden ?)
And that the entire whitehouse as well as the DNI and DOJ are all risking their reputations their freedom to protect Trump ?
This entire mess fails Occams razzor – multiple times and badly.
Further DNI Adm. Maguire is/has testified before congress on the complaint.
Maguire has made it clear that he supports his staff, that he does not think the whislteblower complaint is improper – but that it was extremely unusual and complicated, and that required consulting with DOJ and that the complaint was about actions that took place entirely involving whitehouse people and was all 2nd hand and therefore the DOJ was correct it was outside his – and the Intelligence IG’s domain.
That proper procedure was followed and that it continues to be followed.
And finally that despite the fact that he views the complaint as proper, that is NOT the same as the complaint being correct, That is it a collection of allegations of which there is no first hand knowledge, and nothing that brings it into his scope.
“Dave, Dave, Dave. Was Biden acting in his own personal interests when he made his threat?”
It is possible he was not. It is not possible to know. It is reasonable to assume that he was acting in his own interest, and that is what you need for probable cause.
And that is entirely the end.
“Biden was acting in the interest of US policy”
One of the differences between “personal” and “political” interests, is that a personal interest is an absolute conflict – it can not be overcome by some other interest – like US policy.
BTW this US policy argument is stupid – because it works perfectly fine for Trump. US policy is that Ukraine should not have corrupt relations with americans – so US policy would be to investigate Biden.
It is also stupid because guess who determines “US Policy” ? The President.
If “US policy” is your criteria, Trump can decide US policy is to “get Biden” and then he is justified. Just to be clear – I am not arguing that. Just that “US Policy” is a non starter argument.
Political interest rather than personal interest makes some actions troubling but it is not an absolute bar so long as they are otherwise justifiable.
There was probable cause of corruption in Biden’s actions. Trump’s request – no matter how otherwise self serving, is still troubling but legal.
Conversely Biden’s personal conflict means that it is irrelevant whether his actions are otherwise justifiable.
One of the things about a personal conflict is that it is personal.
US Policy can be explained to the Ukraine by a janitor in the state department given the power to do so. Only Biden had a personal conflict.
Political conflicts are NOT individual – it is presumably in the interests of Barr and Pompeo
that Trump is re-elected. The entire executive has the same conflict Trump does.
We are not going to protect all politicians from prosecution because the entire executive would be conflicted from prosecuting.
Political conflicts should be avoided. Trump handled this badly.
But there is an absolutely valid basis to ask the Ukraine to look into Biden.
You are not protected from investigation solely by virtue of political conflicts.
Personal conflicts are always individual – someone else can seek justice – if that is actually what you are doing, where there is a personal conflict.
“might have been better for the Obama administration to be sensitive to that appearance and send someone else.”
No it was a requirement.
“But, all the the trump administration has is innuendo that anything else was going on with his son. There is no evidence at all. You think anyone is going to find some smoking gun on that? Give me a break.”
You do not seem to understand – Hunter’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant.
Biden was conflicted because his son was being investigated.
You can not have a police office investigate a murder in which his son is a suspect – not even if it is likely that the son is innocent.
The conflict is personal and you can not work arround it.
All that is necescary is for Biden to APPEAR to be thwarting an investigation of his son.
It does not matter if Hunter was guilty of anything, it does not matter if Shokin was actually investigating – though Shokin has said that he was. What matters is the appearance of PERSONAL conflict.
“Trump was acting in his own interest”
POLITICAL interest – not self interest, not personal interest.
“what the hell does US foreign policy have to do with a firing a corrupt prosecutor back in the Obama administration?”
Exactly the same thing that it did had Obama(rather than Biden) sought to fire the prosecutor – dispelling real corrupotion or even the appearance of corruption.
Robby – you can not escape the problem that the Ukraine is corrupt.
If that was a justification for Obama 4 years ago it remains as compelling a justification today.
“Why is trump bothering with this matter? Has it got the slightest thing to do with US foreign policy interests today?”
The exact same thing it did in 2015 when Bidden demanded the firing of the PG.
It is no more or less in US interests.
We have focused on Biden – but this is far from the only instance of the US meddling in the Ukraine. There is plenty of evidence that Hillary and the Obama administration drove the Ukraine to investigate Manafort.
“No, nothing. You cannot begin to make a case that this old matter is of any importance to our foreign policy,”
I just did, Trivially. It matters exactly as must as it did when Bidden meddled in the Ukrainian justice system.
And asking to start and investigation is ALWAYS less troubling than asking to end one.
“and certainly not of such importance that our president needs to call their president to ask a “favor.” Why is it a “favor? Because it helps him.”
Irrelevant. So long as there is probable cause and no personal conflict – Trump can ask.
If there is a personal conflict – someone else can ask.
We are Troubled, we do not like it when people derive political benefits from acts of government – especially when they are making decisions that affect those.
But we can not grant immunity from prosecution because there is a political benefit to the prosecution.
We should HIGHLY scrutinize the prosecution.
This is the BIG DEAL about not telling the FISA court about Clinton’s involvement in the Steele Dossier. That avoided scrutiny where scrutiny was needed.
“He clearly put this pressure on Ukraine to get dirt on Biden to further his own personal interests. That ought to stink out loud to you but as expected Dave, you and the GOP world are bending yourselves into pretzels trying to excuse this abuse of power and shift the blame to Biden.
See the difference?”
I see lots of differences. You do not.
Biden has a big problem here PERIOD. Whether Trump has a problem, so does Biden.
Worse still though there is a criminal problem in this particular instance, there is a bigger stink problem in that Bidens entire family has profited at the public trough.
I do not think Biden survives this. And that is appropriate and good for democrats.
With this arround his neck He was going to lose to Trump – badly.
Trump asked the Ukraine to conduct a criminal investigation.
If as you have asserted – there is no dirt – Trump would GET NO DIRT.
Trump’s “personal” interests are only furthered if,
Biden is dirty – in which case Trump is clearly justified.
Or the mere existance of an investigation is damaging – in which case we are back to the fact that the entire Trump/Russia mess was WORSE.
Robby – you have no way out of this box.
Even if you were to persuade me that Trump’s acts were corrupt, criminal, …..
That argument would require prosecuting half the obama administration.
Quiet simply Trump has probable cause to justify the “political dirty deed”.
Obama, Comey, etc. did not.
To get Trump – you must apply the same standard to alot of others.
and by that standard – you reach them FIRST.
All of us have listened to all of you carping that Obama and Companies investigation of Trump was justified. Trump;s request to have Biden investigated is MORE justified.
To the extent they are different – Trump’s is less of a problem.
ABC News:
“NEW: Ukrainian officials understood discussion of Biden probe was a condition for any phone call between Pres. Trump and Ukrainian Pres. Zelenskiy, an adviser to Zelenskiy tells @ABC News. abcn.ws/2l68fiy from @Reevellp and @lcbruggeman”
Impeachable!
Aparently you think that all american foreign policy is unconditional – atleast so long as the president is Trump.
While your story is garbage – “understood” is not a word that ever should appear in straight news.
A news reporter is supposed to report facts – things that are KNOWN – not things that are conjecture, opinion interpretation.
I beleive it is “understood” that Biden is crooked – does that make it straight news ?
I was on the road yesterday. I found out the transcript was released watching MSNBC in a burger King. Most everywhere I went – CNN or MSNBC had some democrat on going oh my god this is awful, I listened to Adam Schiff saying Trump was speaking like a Mafia Don.
It worked. Though I fully understood that CNN and MSNBC and every democrat they put on was lying. I still presumed that some part of what they were saying was true.
I presumed that even if what Trump said was weaker then their claims and even if it was mild enough to actually be legal – that it was just going to be seriously disturbing.
I beleived the WSJ story from the day before that – though there was no quid pro quo Trump brought up biden 6-8 times.
I responded here on those assumptions – until fairly late when I said lets just bite the bullet and read what Trump said.
That proved harder than I thought. Iclicked through five “news” stories that claimed they had the transcript – but just offered snipits – with lots of their own analysis.
Clearly the media does not beleive any of us can think for ourselves.
Neither does Jay – who seems to beleive that we should all just be sheep and accept as gospel whatever pundit he is offering at the moment.
Again – straight news is supposed to be facts – as Joe Friday said “Just the facts ma’am”
We get to form our own oppinions. If we want help with that THEN we consult op eds.
But straight news was never that.
Anyway, after several attempts – I finally found the full 5 page transcript.
I would encourage everyone to read the whole thing.
First is falsifies a great deal of the news.
Biden was mentioned briefly ONCE, Hunter ONCE.
Zelensky brought up corruption and investigations.
The conversation was a free exchange between the two of them – it was quite clear that Zelensky modeled himself after Trump.
The only misconduct in this entire broad mess has been by democrats and the press – who both during the Obama administration and have FOSTERED corruption in the Ukraine.
Absence this becoming public. Absent the call between Zelensky and Trump – it is likely that Zelensky would have “drained the swamp” – HIS WORDS. Without any impetus from Trump.
Too many here seem to forget that the Ukrainian courts found in 2018 that Clinton and Company corrupted Ukrainian politics and worked with Ukraine to corrupt american politics.
This was not the result of Trump or his influence on Zelensky – this was the Ukrainians on their own before Zelensky and part of what got Zelensky elected.
If you read the actual transcript – Trump covers all kinds of corruption in the Ukraine – The Bidens are a tiny part of that. Nor does Trump claim all of what he talks about is TRUE, only that there is enough crap floating arround that the Ukraine needs to clear it up.
The transcript was not merely underwhelming – if you read it it bears zero relationship to what the media was reporting or what many here were posting.
After that I read Andrew McCarthy’s article on the Ukraine – not specifically the Trump Zelensky conversation.
Democrats and the media are selling this narative that The Ukraine WAS corrupt and that Biden cleaned it up and then when the guys with the white hats came in they foudn Biden and son had done nothing wrong – and that Shokin was a crook and all was well and now Trump is fighting against the tide, that he is looking to bring corruption in the Ukraine back.
But the truth is pretty much the exact opposite – to some extent there are plenty of clues for all of us.
Zelensky was elected to replace the people the press is claiming are “the guys in the white hats” – on an anti-corruption platform.
This claim that Trump “withheld money”.
It appears that in the last few weeks before the phone Call Trump MIGHT have told his own staff – lets wait until after I talk to Zelensky – though there is little direct evidence of that.
But the actual hold up is that – CAREER people in State, DoD – and through government have serious concerns about Ukraine. They have had those concerns for years.
The carreer executive has consistently – while Obama was president and while Trump was sought to stall, delay limit or stop aide to Ukraine. Congress – in interestingly bipartisan fashion overrode them, and Obama/Biden had their own game going that was different from that of either the carreer people or Congress – that seemed to be little more than how can we most use Ukraine to our political advantage.
The more I learn about the Obama/Biden administration the more disgusted I am.
If Half of what John Solomon and Andrew McCarthy are reporting is true – Obama should have been impeached several times over. And I doubt that anything they are reporting is in error.
Frankly the Obama administration F’d up disasterously in the Ukraine from the very begining.
It should never have surprised anyone that the US – thousands of miles away was NEVER going to be able to protect the Ukraine from “the big bad russians”.
From the collapse of the USSR Ukrainian politics was intertwined – in bad but unfixable ways with that of Russia. Absolutely Manafort was backing Russian pawns – who did not listen to him and that partly resulted in their ouster.
But the big mess was created by Clinton – who fomented a revolution in the Ukraine that was certain to provoke Russian action and that the US was not going to be able to do a damn thing about.
Absolutely Ukraine was a mess – But Clinton Obama and Biden incontrovertably made it worse. It is highly unlikely that the corruption in the Ukraine is limited to the long list of items that Trump raised with Zelensky – almost all of which had to do with Obama, Clinton and the 2016 election – NOT the Biden’s. Biden’s corruption in the Ukraine is just a small side story.
Regardless put simply this narative the press and the left have concocted is absolutely a LIE.
The Ukraine is a mess – it has been a corrupt mess for a long long time. Obama did not clean it up – he made it worse. It is hard to tell if Shokin was a good guy or a bad guy – probably a little of both – it is the Ukraine. But he was a thorn int he side of the Obama administration – and they got rid of him. Beyond that their actions universally made things int he Ukraine WORSE not better.
It is highly unlikely that Selensky can fix the mess that is the Ukraine.
But he MIGHT be able to make it better.
Unmentioned in the phone call is that the Ukraine is ultimately going to have to work out some kind of accomodation with their powerful nuclear armed neighbor – Russia.
Because neither the US nor the EU nor anyone else is going to protect Ukraine from russian depredations.
In the meantime Zelensky and Trump seem to be on the same page.
And have many of the same problems – they are presidents coming from the outside, taking over governments with deep corruption problems.
And that is actually what the transcript shows.
Trump and Zelensky appear to be somewhat kindred spirits.
The Intel Community IG concluded there was reason to believe POTUS may have solicited an illegal campaign contribution: impeachable!
That would be entirely outside the province of the intel IG.
The whitehouse is outside the scope of the intel IG,
Elections are outside the scope of the intel IG.
Crimes are outside the scope of the intel IG.
And can we drop this nonsense of trying to broadly interpret laws.
This is really simple – if a law actually is so broad as you claim – than it is unconstitutionally overboard.
I do not aggree with SCOTUS’s recent decisions on what constitutes improper contributions – I beleive the case is macdonald where they decided “gifts” of expensive watches to a governor were NOT illegal campaign contributions.
But that is the state of the law.
And even the more narrow state where Rolex’s WOULD be illegal contributions – a prosecution where there is probable cause would NEVER be.
When you argue overly broad claims – you destroy your own credibilty.
Breathing is not a crime – even if Trump does it.
Even if he breaths air in Russia and therefore does not die while there.
ANOTHER impeachment holdout, @RepGonzalez, announces in a statement that he backs the formal impeachment inquiry.
Impeach his flabby ass!
Go For It!!!!!
Absolutely!!!!
If you really want to destroy the democratic party – impeach away.
How well did Mueller go for you ?
Lewendosky ?
Cohen ?
Democrats can not even handle Candice Owens.
Little is more damaging to the democratic party than the members of the house judiciary committee frothing and foaming because witnesses can not be tricked into saying what Dems want.
“IT WASN’T JUST ONE CALL: During an April phone call, TRUMP urged @ZelenskyyUa to coordinate with RUDY GIULIANI, & to pursue investigations into “corruption,” which ZELENSKY’s aides have come to see as euphemism for Trump’s push to investigate BIDEN & 2016.”
@kenvogel
I suggest you read the Andrew McCarthy article.
There is alot of “corruption” in Ukraine. Getting rid of Shokin made it worse if anything.
Regardless, it made it clear to the Ukrainians that they were in bed with Obama (and Biden, and Clinton) and they had better get used to it.
Regardless, you can read McCarthy for plenty of evidence of political corruption in the Ukriane – involving the Obama administration, or you can read John Solomon.
Or you can read the findings of the Ukrainian courts.
If you actually bothered to read the Zelensky Trump Transcript:
Biden was only one of many areas of Corruption that Trump wanted Zelensky to look into.
All the rest involved the Obama administration use of the Ukriane to fuel the Trump/Russia witchhunt.
Put simply – Biden was not near the top of Trump’s hitlist. But the rest of the Obama administration WAS.
As McCarthy and serveral other pointed out – this call was not about Biden.
This call was about exposing how the Ukraine was used to foment the Trump Russia witchunt.
You can rant about the fact that Trump is looking to catch those who went after him,
but it has little to do with Biden or 2020 – except that exposing the perfidity of 2016 will hurt dems in 2020.
In separate news while DOJ denies there have been any talks with Guiliania or Trump regarding the Ukraine, it has absolutely been confirmed that the Ukraine is a significant area of investigation in the Durham investigation of the investigation.
To the extent that Trump made a mistake here, it is that had he done nothing – it appears that Durham and Barr are independently doing what he wants – because that is where the evidence leads.
It is possible that biggest damage of Trump’s phone call is not this impeachment idiocy.
It is weakening Barr/Durham and the ukraine investigation that Trump was not aware of.
Zelensky ran on a “drain the swamp” platform.
Zelensky introduced into the conversation ukrainian efforts to dig into corruption.
The only mention of money at all is the failure of the EU to pony up a reasonable share something both Zelensky and Trump agree on.
There is not a quid pro quo here. There is not even a quid.
Biden is barely mentioned. Crowdstrike gets as much attention as Biden.
Absolutely Trump wants the Ukraine digging into corruption. but almost entirely past efforts by Obama and Clinton to go after Trump.
1) So ? Read the transcript – there is very very little about Biden. Almost all of it is about getting rid of an ambassador who really wishes that Clinton had won the election, and about Merkel and the EU and about lots of other Ukraininan corruption – most of which involve the DNC, Clinton and Obama – and is all about 2016 – not 2020.
2). Dunham and Barr without any coordination and communications with Trump or Guliani are digging into the connections between 2016 and the Ukraine.
Of course the left is scared and outraged. This Trump nonsense is a ruse to try to thwart an actual investigation into the corrupt mess that the Obama made of the Ukraine.
You should not be so fixated on the past phone calls – you should be worried about the ones that are coming.
Get a clue – THERE IS A REAL PROBLEM. Ukraine played a large supporting role in the Trump/Russia collusion witch hunt.
Further the Ukraine mess is very dangerous to Dems because it starts in 2015.
It starts BEFORE Steele was hired, but it has all the same players.
The big problem with the Clinton Obama Ukraine connection is that it completely destroys the nonsense that there was some legitimate foundation to Trump/Russia – because it is way way too early.
Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) penned the letter on May 4, 2018, to Yuriy Lutsenko, the general prosecutor of Ukraine asking him to investigate Trump.
Impeach !!!! Now!!!!
“At least one Democrat tried pressuring Zelensky not to open an investigation into Biden.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told the New York Times that he spoke with Zelensky and told him not to listen to Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani about the possible probe, warning the president that if his country investigated Biden it could threaten America’s support for Ukraine.
It would be “disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations,” Murphy said. He said he was not interfering in Ukrainian politics.”
Impeach!!! Now!!!!
“Interference in Ukrainian politics spans as far back as March 2016, when a contractor for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Alexandra Chalupa, pressured Valeriy Chaly, the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, to provide any information that would reflect negatively on Trump or his campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
“We were surprised to see Alexandra’s interest in Mr. Paul Manafort’s case. It was her own cause,” Chaly’s office told The Hill. “The Embassy representatives unambiguously refused to get involved in any way, as we were convinced that this is a strictly U.S. domestic matter.”
Impeach!!! Now!!!!
So here is Wapo and PBS explaining why the Intel IG did not report this to congress – because the president is not part of the Intel community, and why there is no criminal investigation – because several offices of the DOJ examined this and concluded there was no crime. While Barr was aware of this – he had absolutley NOTHING to do with the decision.
This was not decided by one person, it was not even decided by one office in DOJ. several different divisions examined this and found the same thing – no crime.
Rather than talk about this phone call in the abstract and repeat all kinds of things about what other people say it said – how about if WE actually read the transcript.
It is only 5 pages long.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uyWKAGgHIqDEORgjOyo0uq7JOXzhxOQf/preview
Compare that to
So here is Andrew McCarthy on what has been going on in Ukraine since 2015.
McCarthy tends to get his facts actually straight – and none of this sounds like the crap that I have been hearing.
I have no idea whether Shokin was crooked – but it certainly appears that after Biden’s threat and Shokin’s firing Ukraine got DIRTIER not cleaner.
But that’s ok because the new crooks were cooperating with Obama.
I would further note that the Ukraine has already investigated this and found corruption – by pretty much the people who everyone else here keeps saying were cleaning the corruption.
The Ukriane found that members of their own government conspired to interfere in the US election assisting Clinton.
I would further note that though most of us will not know the ukrainian names, all the americans who appear in this corrupt pile of excrement are well known to us.
Glenn Simpson. Greg Craig, John Podesta, Hillary, Obama, Biden, and unnamed ranking members of DOJ, FBI, State, CIA who were working with Ukrainians to go after Manafort – early in 2016 – that is almost 6 months BEFORE the purported start of the Trump investigation, That was BEFORE the DNC hack.
Oh, and lets not ignore the fact that maybe Biden was entirely ignorant of Hunters actions and the investigations, but their actions sure look coordinated. Biden is getting IMF to loan the Ukrainians 17.5B and at the same time Hunter is getting hired to direct Burisma one of the beneficiaries is paying Hunter $3M.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-manafort-obama-clinton-ukraine
Ron forgive me but I am going to paste in these comments by ROmney because I think he has described the situation with partisan reactions very very well, very objective.
I’d have Romney in a heartbeat as president.
“Romney sidestepped a question at The Atlantic Festival about whether he saw the implication of a quid pro quo in the call summary.
The Utah senator explained he “wasn’t as focused” on the potential quid pro quo aspect of the call as others, but added: “If the President of the United States asks or presses the leader of a foreign country to carry out an investigation of a political nature that’s troubling, and I feel that.”
To underscore his point, the Utah senator pointed to the extraordinary power of the presidency, as well as the House and the Senate.
“I think it’s very natural for people to look at circumstances and see them in the light that’s most amenable to maintaining their power and doing things to preserve their power,” Romney said when asked by the moderator why he was virtually alone among GOP officials in highlighting the seriousness of the potential offense by the President.
Perhaps as a way of explaining Trump’s motivation for talking to Zelensky about Biden and his son — and his party’s inclination to defend the President, Romney noted that both parties feel deeply that if the opposing party were in charge “terrible things would happen for the country … and it’s critical for them to hold on to their leadership.”
“I think it’s just in human nature to see things in a way that is consistent with your own world view and your sense of what’s necessary for the preservation of your position of power,” Romney said. “I don’t know why I’m not afflicted to the same degree as perhaps others are in that regard. Maybe it’s because I’m old and have done other things.”
I will throw in the Comments of Sen. Sasse as well:
“Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, a Republican up for election in 2020, echoed those thoughts after reading the complaint on Wednesday evening.
“This (is) going to take a long time but there’s obviously some very troubling things here. But I think the partisan tribalism that’s always insta-certain is a terrible idea. There are real troubling things here. Republicans ought not just circle the wagons and Democrats ought not be using words like ‘impeach’ before they knew anything about the actual substance.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/mitt-romney-impeachment-trump-ukraine/index.html
Personally I do not think trumps actions are “troubling.” I think they are damning and merit impeachment. But I have full respect for the few brave GOP voices that are willing to go against the current, no matter if it is, as of now, in a very reserved and restrained way. The most interesting thing about this story to me is where such people will go. GOP voters will not support any criticism of trump, of that I am sure. They will be 100% solid in saying that trump did nothing very wrong. So, GOP politicians will have to be very very ballsy to speak out at all.
I wonder what George Will is going to write about this after it has unfolded good and proper? GOP voters have turned off the sound on the conservatives who strongly criticize trump. It is interesting to me to observe where opinions like Will’s are going to be seen in the fullness of time, that is, how long will it take for people like him to have influence again, if that happens at all.
“Personally I do not think trumps actions are “troubling.” I think they are damning and merit impeachment.”
Why ? make your argument using facts logic, reason.
“But I have full respect for the few brave GOP voices that are willing to go against the current, no matter if it is, as of now, in a very reserved and restrained way.”
Going against the current deserves respect WHEN YOU ARE RIGHT.
When you are not it just reflects bad judgement or poor character.
Al Capone “went against the current”
“The most interesting thing about this story to me is where such people will go. GOP voters will not support any criticism of trump, of that I am sure. ”
The issue is not “criticism” I am critical of Trump all the time.
The problem is LYING.
We have debated this exchange with Zelensky for almost a week.
As of yesterday morning we have facts rather than double hearsay.
Pretty much everything that we were told by the left and the media is FALSE.
It was a LIE.
Anyone that “supports” lying about others – does not have my respect.
“They will be 100% solid in saying that trump did nothing very wrong. So, GOP politicians will have to be very very ballsy to speak out at all.”
Again – who has been LYING ? We have been told numerous things for a week.
We were told this was a clear effort to extort Zelensky and the Ukraine.
We were told that Zelensky was threatened.
We were told Trump PRESSED Zelensky to investigate Biden 8 times.
We were told this was clearly about the 2020 election.
Each of those things as well as numerous others were FALSE. Lies.
I know right and wrong when I see it. THIS is CLEARLY WRONG
It is just short of proof of a crime.
“They were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, … we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president.’ … I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
You have the Transcript – Find remarks by Trump that are as unequivocally wrong ?
Find remarks by Trump that do not REQUIRE myriads of assumptions beyond the text to interpret as you do ?
I am with George Washington – we should stay out of the affairs of foreign nations.
By that standard Trump’s remarks are WRONG.
By that standard every single president since Washington has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
Whether I like it or not – that is NOT the standard that our country operates under.
It is also not the law.
Trump used the full force of his office as president to secure the release of Warmbier from North Korea.
I have zero doubt that Trump made promises and threats to do so.
I have little doubt there was a quid pro quo.
I have no doubt that what Trump did to secure Warmbier’s release fell outside of Washington’s and my model of the powers of the president.
But I am not aware of anyone claiming that Trump acted criminally in getting Warmbier released.
Inarguably – every act of Trump as president – impacts the 2020 election.
Inarguably – every action that any foreign government takes in response to Trump has an impact on the 2020 election.
Everytime Trump gets what he wants from any foreign leader on any issue – that is a “thing of value” in the 2020 election.
This is one of the many problems with these nonsensically overbroad legal claims.
If as is argued – a violation of campaign finance law exists here – then governing is impossible and our campaign finance laws are unconstitutional – and they are.
But for the moment they are the law – and they only survive as law because they are understood NARROWLY.
I am prepared to impeach Trump for his remarks to Zelenesky – but if and only if we decide that past and future – that is the actual law of the country.
I am not interested in this “Argh! Trump!” nonsense.
The same law, with the same meaning and the same limits – whether you are republican or democrat – past and future.
If that is what you want – fine. Start measuring congress, and most of the Obama administration for orange jump suits – because whateve the law is, it is the same law for everyone.
The full Whistleblowers letter:
(Notice the 3 prominent names listed for scrutiny: Trump, Rudy, Barr)-
Click to access 20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf
NOTE on Call Transcript: “The White House released this document on Wednesday, showing a July call between President Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine. The document warned its contents were “not a verbatim transcript.””
IT WAS ASSEMBLED by the White House, from other transcripts of numerous transcribers and interpreters who were monitoring the call.
This has been addressed.
There is no actual recording made of the call.
I am sure if that is incorrect – we will hear about it soon.
There are approximately 5 people who are in the white house situation room and listen in to the call while it is occuring . They are chosen for their expertise in the languages that may be spoken – independent of them – both sides of the conversation have translators.
Or sometimes both sides speak english.
This is the norm.
Each makes their own independent transcription
The Transcription released was compiled from the several independent transcriptions that were made.
At this time there are probably several dozen people – who either heard the call or have read one or more of the transcripts.
You are correct – it is entirely possible that Trump has persuaded several dozen people to remain silent about a carefully constructed fraudulent transcription.
Of course if Trump was going to release a fraud and get others to lie about it – you would think he would just white wash the entire thing.
Is there anyone who did not expect that the democrats response to this was not going to be – it is a fraud, it has been altered ?
The Ukrainian ambassador – BEFORE the transcript was released – confirmed there was nothing inappropriate, no quid pro quo etc.
Zelensky also confirmed that.
But of course – they are lying too.
Everyone – except democrats is lying to protect Trump.
Half the whitehouse is lying.
The president of Ukraine is lying.
The Ukrainian ambassador is lying.
But a whistleblower who did not hear the call or read the transcription is NOT lying ?
One of the more amazing things about all of this is the unbeleivable amount of power that you think Trump has.
He is somehow able to get the entire republican party, half the people in the country, numerous foreign leaders and ambassadors all to lie for him.
Successfully conspiracies are rare. to the extent they exist at all they only exist among True beleivers – people who are so sure that they are on the side of what is right and holy that the law is not an impediment to what they are doing.
That is the only conspiracy that can act and avoid being uncovered.
You can not pay people enough, you can not threaten people enough to keep secrets they do not want to – not on the scale you are talking.
Absolutley no one beleives manafort is a true beleiver.
He would rat out Trump in a second – if he had anything to actually say.
Cohen despite claims to the contrary ratted Trump out the moment the stakes because to high. Only – he fizzled – because there was no grand criminal conspiracy that he could expose. Even he was forced ultimately to testify in favor of Trump.
Absolutely he called Trump names and impugned his character – but he had no facts, no evidence – because there wasn’t any.
Gates ratted out Manafort – but still was a total dud beyond that.
Papadoulis is now die on your sword true beleiver. Nor is Carter page – if anything they harm trump – because these are just not the guys you would pick as “foreign policy advisors”.
Regardless, Mueller put the screws to them well beyond what prosecutors ever should be allowed – and got NOTHING.
Mueller threatened Flynn and his family. And was able to coerce a confession that is a self evident lie, that Flynn is probably going to successfully back out of – but nothing on Trump.
Stone and several fellow political hacks have turned one each other as a result of Mueller’s blackmail – but in the end – mueller got nothing from them.
These are self evidently NOT people who will fall on their swords – very very few people are.
But if you really want to beleive the transcripts are a fraud – do you want to buy the brooklyn bridge – cheap ?
Can’t you read!?!
I said the released report was assembled from numerous individual transcripts of the actual call. Someone (we don’t know who) assembled those individual transcripts into the released report. Was that person or persons objective, or a Trump-sucker like you? Did that person or persons skew the individual transcripts to make Trump look better?
Trump is an unconscionable blot on the presidency.
And by the way, go #@&* yourself
Yes, you have said that the standard way that this is handled (there is no standard way to make a public transcript) is somehow nefarious.
You are also presuming that dozens of people have all conspired to distort the transcript and lie to you.
And I and several others – predicted this is what you would say – a couple of days ago.
Is there an actual source one of the two dozen or so people who would know that claims the published trancript is in error ?
BTW – why do you presume you are entitled to know everyone who was involved in the production of the transcript ?
For me this is pretty simple – even if Trump did NOT alter it – lots of people are going to say he did.
But an actual deliberate alteration of consequence is highly unlikely. too many people would know. And you can not keep large numbers of people quiet.
If the numbers are large enough you can not keep atleast one from lying about it.
Further the transcript has ZERO discrepancies with the whistleblower complaint.
If Trump redacted out the part where he and Zelensky plotted to butt F the pope – I am OK with that. It was not part of the whistleblower allegation.
You seem to think you are entitled to be a fly on the wall for everything.
You provided the whistleblower complaint – I do not know what Trump released the transcript.
There is nothing of substance to the whistleblower complaint.
Just lots of innuendo that things he did not like or agree with must be evidence of crimes.
You can expect that Trump is going to work as much as possible OUTSIDE the main body of the executive branch – OUTSIDE the intelligence community and the state department and …
Because it has been clear from day one that he can not trust those people.
That they will misrepresent and lie, and they will back stab and sabatoge.
One Trump apointee noted that they got an incredible amount done during the shutdown.
All the permanent staff of departments was at home. the people who were left were focused on doing their jobs – and did not have lots of people objecting or interfering.
The federal govenrment needs less than 1/4 the current number of people – to do the way beyond constitutional job it has been doing. And less than 1/20th if it reduced itself to something close to what the constitution allows.
Tillerson got ride of 1/3 of the top staff at State – and more was accomplished during his tenure than Pompeo’s.
I am sorry Tillerson could not work with Trump. I think they were a good team. I think Pompeo is more of a “yes man”, but he has rebloated the state department and is another of these who thinks the number of people you have reporting to you is a measure of your importance.
The Trump’s ran their businesses with a very small number of trusted people at the top.
If you want to get something done – that is what works. Whether it is Trump Enterprises, or BOA or the federal government.
According to several corporate studies 61% of middle management is completely counter productive – they are a cost, and provide no value. and that is in private business.
Government is probably 5 times worse.
You need people to make decisions and you need people to produce. that is it.
Every other incentive regulation, etc is provided by the fact that if you do not get it right – you FAIL.
I learned in business there were two types of decisions you had to make:
Those that you needed to make NOW and that it mattered less whether you were right than whether you had moved quickly, and those that you were better off never making at all.
Obviously you do better if the decisions you make are of better quality.
But acting quickly when you need to is much more important than acting best.
And a business can survive lots of mistakes. It can not survive inaction.
“You are also presuming that dozens of people have all conspired to distort the transcript and lie to you.”
What an absurd conclusion.
You must have a distorted brain processing malfunction.
If a dozen different transcribers made notes, the same transcribers didn’t assemble the notes into the report that was released: that’s done by someone else who decides how to compile it.
We don’t know what that someone else included or excluded or spun.
The original transcribers need to speak out if any of their transcriptions were altered thusly. Oh, wait: Trump will threaten to charge them as spies, as he has just charged the whistle-blower & confidents.
Fuck trump.
Same for those who continue to sit back and allow him to sit his flaccid ass inside the Oval Office.
I had presumed that English was your first language.
Conspire does not mean transcribe.
If the released transcript does not accurately reflect what occured and no one who heard the actual exchange speaks out about the inaccuracy – that is a very large conspiracy.
Either the transcript has no significant errors – or these is a large conspiracy.
The details of how the transcript were produced are irrelevant.
There is alot we do not know about the process – but there is one thing that we DO KNOW.
Either the result sufficiently reflects what those who heard the exchange recall that they feel no need to go public about any discrepancy, or they have ALL conspired to misrepresent the exchange.
There is not a 3rd alternative and the process by which the released transcript is produced is irrelevant.
There are no “original transcribers”. Regardless you are correct that if there is a significant discrepancy between what was released and what each witness recalls (or wrote down) then they have an obligation for come forward.
All in all probably atleast two dozen people would have an obligation to come forward if there is a significant error.
Thus far no one has done so. Anything is possible in this bizarre environment – just read the whistleblowers complaint, DOJ was absolutely correct to conclude the whistleblower was reporting a disagreement on policy as if it was a legal issue.
Absent anyone coming forward – you have either an impossibly large conspiracy or you must conclude the transcript has no consequential errors.
Maybe this is difficult for you – it is logic.
What you do not have is – your the transcript is some significant spin job without a massive conspiracy – a highly improbable scenario.
Absolutely Trump is prone to stupid rhetorical flourishes.
Absent something I have yet to see – the “whistleblower” is not a “whistleblower” then are conflating the policy consequences of losing an election with criminal misconduct.
As such they are not fit for the job they hold – whatever that is.
But they are not “spies” – if Trump actually said that. Nor have I heard that they or any one else is being investigated for “spying”.
We did have some real spies – Halper was a spy, Turk was a spy, it is highly likely that Mifsud was a spy.
But they incredibly exagerated rhetoric – with people lobbing words like treason arround casually is idiotic – no matter who is doing it – Trump included.
Trump is the legitimately elected president – his “flacid ass – legitimately occupies the seat at the desk in the oval office. If you do not like that – work within the law and the constitution to change that. Manufacturing crimes from thin air is not acceptable. Whatever illegitimate means you use to dispose of Trump will haunt you when it is used against those you favor.
I have said before – “impeach” – go ahead – just follow the law.
And remember – I have told you that there are consequences for hurling false moral accusations – this comes at the cost of the respect of others, your credibility, your honor.
these are no easily repaired when you toss them aside lightly.
Maybe I am wrong about the coming elections – I hope not. Not because I am some huge fan of Trump. But because the consequences of a world in which false moral accusations can be tossed about without penalty is ultimately chaos. Nothing functions properly when honor, credibility and respect become entitlements and are not earned.
One thing I heard today gives a good picture of Washington today.
Queen Nancy said during her press conference that Trump was ” moving up” conversations in classification to hide wrong doing and that was corrupt ( or something to that effect)
A couple hours hefore, I also heard an interview with someone familiar with NSA issues and other issues that people in the “spook agencies” had been leaking Trump info since his administration began, so he and his administration has been “up-classifing” meeting and telephone transcripts to make it more difficult for any info to be leaked.
So Trump haters have something to latch onto.
Trump lovers have something to latch onto.
For those like me, would any president that had enemies in the spook agencies leaking info not do the same thing if the leaker(s) could not be found? This is not like Nixon erasing tapes, the government has the transcripts, but they are withheld to keep the media from getting it. Everyone know Shiff’s going to leak it if it gets to the house.
Truman’s original idea of the CIA was one directional – they provided information about the world that the president wanted to know. That was it.
In 1963 Truman was interviewed and said the CIA had become too powerful and it should be ended. It is far more powerful today – and it is not alone.
I have seen little evidence in my lifetime that our intelligence services are useful.
They have gotten pretty much everything important wrong.
I really do not care if Trump – or any other president cuts them out nearly entirely and goes it on his own. We live in the internet era – the president can do just as well with a web browser as with the CIA.
I have heard claims today that Trump has been freezing out the intelligence services in other ways. They stabbed him in the back in 2016 and he has zero trust in them – for good reason.
Again – this does not bother me.
But it bothers them. The leaker has purportedly been “identified” as a CIA analyst formerly attached to the whitehouse.
Schumer was only partly right about the intelligence services.
If Trump completely freezes them out – they have nothing to work with.
As noted before – Trump is used to working intimately with a small number of people that he trusts.
It is not likely he needs the intelligence services – and it is much harder for them to screw him if he freezes them out.
And yes – I expect that whitehouse security will increase the longer Trump is president and the more leaks there are. I suspect Haspel has already been told that CIA access to the whitehouse is going to be significantly reduced.
What I found most damning about the whistleblowers complaint – is that there was no substance.
The left, the media, the democrat promised serious dirt.
The comments about biden – both in the transcript and in the whistleblower complaint were BOTH more of an afterthought.
One sugestion I have heard is that people in the CIA – and other intelligence services KNOW Trump is after them for their role in 2016. They KNOW that Durham and Barr are grinding their axes. That this entire whistleblower things is a pre-emptive strike in the hope of knocking Trump out – before he gets several of them.
Both the whislteblower and Trump fixate on Ukraines role in the 2016 election – and the americans who were involved in that. Again Biden is an afterthought.
Trump is more interested in those who spied on him – his campaign.
This is likely to get even nastier. But my words to Shumer – Trump is coming out ahead.
Purportedly this was a bad week for Trump and a good week for democrats.
Really ?
I do not doubt that Trump has been damaged – but Trump will recover.
Shiff’s stunt on on the intell committee was surreal. His Trump immitation was disturbing – not for what he tried to say about Trump, but for what it said about Shiff.
Pelosi has gotten bitch slapped by everybody – by Trump, by the media, by the left,
She does not have control of the house.
She can not call a vote on impeachment – without truly screwing the moderates, and if she does not, she may have a revolt on the left.
Whatever damage has been done to Trump – Biden is likely out of the race.
It is impossible for even the left to go after Trump on this – without getting entangled in Biden.
For those who keep fixating on Trump’s negatives – remember the story about the two guys running from a bear. The one stops to put on his sneakers. The other goes – your crazy you can not out run a bear. The first responds – yes, but I only have to outrun you.
Trump beat Clinton not be being the candidate everyone loved, but by making sure everyone hated Clinton more.
2020 will be different – because there is no democrat that is as corrupt as Clinton.
But Trump is unlikely to have much trouble making each of the rest look bad – in their own unique way – and each is providing Trump with the ammunition.
John Solomon of the Hill just dumped over 400 documents that he has obtained regarding the Biden-Burisma Ukraine investigation
First lets dispell the notion that Biden was ignorant of his son’s involvment with Burisma and that his son was being investigated by Skokin.
The investigation of Biden’s son was reported in the NYT a few months before Biden STARTED demanded that the firing of Shokin and the NYT reporter informed VP Biden of this in preparing the story. The story Joe Biden has told publicly is false. He did not ask the Ukraines to fire Shokin on day out of the blue – he had been demanding it – starting shortly after he became aware his son was being investigated and continued until he was able to blackmail the ukrainians into doing so.
There are now publicly available documents asserting that the campaign to portray Shokin as corrupt was manufactured by the US government in order to get him removed.
Next Shokin has recently testified under oath that he was told that he was fired specifically because he was investigating Hunter Biden and that VP Biden and the united states were not happy about that.
There is also information that Shokin was within a week of bringing Hunter Biden in to be interviewed at the time he was fired, and that he reviewed the Burisma/Biden case with his successor before leaving.
Aparently there is alot more, purportedly tying Clinton to this as well as Soros.
And if you want the documents are all posted online.
We can all fight over the details.
But the FACT still is that Trump had plenty of very good reasons to be addressing Zelensky regarding the misconduct of not just Biden, but of State, DOJ and FBI with respect to the Ukraine during the Obama administration.
I want to point out some things – there are claims that the Biden matter was resolved – and Hunter Biden was unequivocally cleared.
There are claims that Biden did not know Hunter was being investigated,
There are claims that Shokin was dirty.
Some or all of these MIGHT be true. I personally doubt ANY of them are true.
But it does not matter.
The question of whether Trumps requests of Zelensky are legitimate or corrupt DOES NOT rest on the absolute truth of any of these (and many other) things.
Whether Trump’s call was corrupt depends on what TRUMP beleived at the time of the call.
If there was reasonable suspicion that something was fishy – Trump is justified – even in DEMANDING an investigation.
Conversely there is almost no likely circumstance in which VP Biden would have been justified in demanding the removal of a prosecutor – even if his son was NOT being investigated.
The standard for Trump’s phone call to be completely legitimate – is low – reasonable suspicion.
But it is possible (probable) as this progresses, that we will learn that Joe Biden – not merely used the power of his office to threaten the Ukrainians to obstruct an investigation into his son, but that he used the FBI to manufacture false claims of corruption against Shokin to get him fired. If that is true – that is bad – really bad. It is not merely bad for Biden – it amplifies the pattern of corruption in the Obama administration. The framing of Trump the whitewashing of Clinton, the framing of Shokin fast and Furious,. IRSGate, Uranium One, The revolving door between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department are all just symptoms of what is starting to look like the most corrupt administration ever.
And had the left Trump well enough alone it likely never would have been uncovered.
My prediction is that this is the end of any attempt to parlay this phone call into an impeachment.
he house is NOT a judicial body without starting impeachment procedings, but it is when it does, and when it acts as a judical body it is now subject to the actual rules for judicial proceedings and this includes the REQUIREMENT that exculpatory evidence must be admitted in any proceeding.
Democrats control the various committees of the house right now and can do so in a way to make it extrermely difficult for any message they do not wish to hear to be presented.
That will NOT be the case in an impeachment inquiry.
Biden’s campaign will fail – his money is likely to dry up fast, Regardless democrats will want him out of the race. The house will continue with its “fake” investigations – though it will stay away from the Ukriane. The media will ignore the fact that once again they have either been caught in lies or bought into a story being sold them by the obama administration and holdovers. Unfortunately they will not publicly come clean and the majority of americans will be left – atleast for a while with the misperception that Trump got lucky and narrowly avoided impeachment – when the Truth is that democrats got lucky and narrowly avoided starting an impeachment investigation that was going to blow up in their faces.
Lots of things were done under Kelley to make leaks more difficult.
That is inside the legitimate power of the president.
Pelosi’s claim if True is weird.
Increasing the level of classification of something limits the number of people in the executive who can access something. Trump is absolutely completely free to do exactly that.
What he can not do is deny Congress things they have legitamate access to.
Conversations between the president and pretty much anyone are covered by executive priviledge. Congress can not access those – absent an impeachment inquiry no matter what.
And if the issue is the level of classification – that is NOT an impediment to congressional access.
It would not surprise me if Kelley changed the classification criteria within the whitehouse.
That sounds like quite a reasonable approach to dealing with a permanent executive that is engaged in pervasis political leaking.
But Kelley could just as legally implimented a completely different system of rules limiting access to whitehouse communications
This is nothing.
If we were actually following the law – the “whistleblower” is not a whistleblower and is NOT subject to the protections of the whistleblower law.
The first reason – is that everything they have reported is “hearsay” – it is actually double hearsay – “I heard from someone who heard trump say”
For Jay:
Hearsay is NOT generally admissible.
Double Hearsay is never admissible.
The whistleblower laws provide protection to people who come forward with first hand knowledge of a problem.
It does not apply to “double hearsay” – or even hearsay where what is said is not itself the basis of the complaint.
There are reasons for this – double hearsay is little more than “gossip” and we do not start IG investigations or criminal investigations based on gossip. The government would grind to a halt.
Has Zelensky said the Transcript is in accurate ?
Has anyone with first hand knowledge of the call ?
Is there anything in the whistleblower complaint about the call that is not in the transcript ?
Absent that you are expecting that everyone will buy your claim that Trump must be lying. – even though if he was he would near certain get caught.
Logic is not your forte.
But implausible conspiracy theories are.
A slur is not an argument.
“It was assembled in the whitehouse”
Yes, that is where the call took place, that is where the transcribers and interpreters were.
I do not understand why this “complaint” was ever taken seriously.
Despite lots of inneundo it NEVER asserts anything that constitutes actual misconduct.
It is full of claims that amount to:
The president is persuing policies I do not like.
That opinion is shared by others like me.
I am worried that the Ukrainians might actually be persuaded to investigate the past misconduct and interferance in the 2016 election.
The president is going about implimenting his policies outside of the channels that I and others who think like me are part of and therefore I have no power to influence or interfere with those policies.
——
To be clear – of everything that has been alleged here one and only one thing is even slightly troubling – that is the matters involving Biden.
It is clear from BOTH Trumps transcript and the whistleblowers complaint that Trump’s focus and the Compalints focus were NOT Biden.
Biden is in one sentence in a 7 page complaint and one phrase in a 5 page transcript.
The focus – both of Trump;s actions, and of the whistleblowers concern is in Trump’s interest in seeing 2016 election interference and collusion involving the ukraine government and americans.
Now who here is prepared to say that Trump can not legitimately explore that ?
Though Trump did NOT do this. If Biden can clearly unequivocally threaten and (or Obama to eliminate the personal conflict) demand the firing of a Ukraine PG and demand investigating corruption in the Ukraine involving americans – why is it Trump can not do the same ?
As best I can tell the argument in this complaint – and that of those defending it is that only republicans actions can be investigated.
Did Trump ask Zelensky to work with Barr and Guiliani to investigate a LONG LIST of corruption and misconduct in the past that ALL is entirely releated to the misdeads of the Obama administration and Clinton Campaign during and prior to the 2016 election ?
Absolutely!!!! You got me there. Trump is asking Zelensky to investigate credible allegations of past corruption.
He is asking Zelensky to investigate things that the Ukraine Courts have ALREADY found occured.
He is asking Zelensky to cooperate with Barr and Guliani in an ungoing US investigation into 2016 political corruption – that John Durham is already investigating where portions of that miconduct involved prior ukrainian administrations – administartions that Zelensky was elected because he vowed to clean up.
Absolutely Trump mentions Barr and Gulliani.
Are you saying that DOJ can not investigate the Obama administration and Clinton Campaigns misconduct and foreign corruption in the 2016 campaign ?
We have just had 3 years of ‘witch hunt” as a consequence of that malfeasance.
Are you saying that we can not look into the perpitrators ?
Honestly I can not grasp what you are saying.
You spent the past 3 years telling me we could investigate Trump/Russia collusion
despite no foundation for the allegation – even to this day.
Yet we have LOTS of evidence of misconduct by those behind the Trump Russia lie,
and we now know they started BEFORE Trump was a candidate.
We know that this Russian influence nonsense was going to rear its ugly head no matter what Republican won the nomination.
Have you actually read this ?
Nearly all the allegations – if true – are … nothing.
Can you please explain to me how Trump asking the Ukriane to investigate credible allegations involving the 2016 election is a violation of ANYTHING ?
Even if Trump is entirely wrong about the facts – and there is a great deal of evidence that there is a credible basis for ALL the allegations Trump asserted – or the whistleblower alleges, it is STILL not misconduct or a crime.
The whistleblower seems to beleive that it is improper for Trump to express support for the existing Ukraine PG.
Again how is that a crime ?
The vast majority of this “allegation” appears to consist of the angst the author imputes to many others in the executive branch at the possibility that Ukraine might seriously dig into the misconduct of the prior administration.
I suspect there is a great deal of angst – the consequences for many could be significant.
Regardless, the only allegation the “whistleblower” makes that has anything at all to do with the 2020 election is that regarding Biden.
Trump has no ability to time travel. He can not interfere with the 2016 election by making deeper investigation of it a priority.
Further the whistleblowers assumption that there is anything inappropriate in Trump asking – even demanding Ukraine look into past misconduct is inherently political not criminal.
The whistleblower spends a massive amount of time fixating on Lutsenko.
What has that got to do with anything ?
Lutsenko is the existing Ukriane PG – his actions might be legitimate, or corrupt.
They might be the business of the US Intelligence community, but they have absolutley nothing to do with a US whistleblower complaint.
Lutsenko is Ukrainian. We can support what he is doing. We can oppose it.
But he is not a US actor regardless.
With respect to Guliani.
John Kerry is pretty much as we speak behaving as using the british terminology the “shadow secretary of state” he is running arround the world trying to thwart Trump’s foreign policy and preserve Obama’s as if Obama were still president.
That is actually illegal – it clearly violates the logan act. But no one is doing anything – because – except as it applies to republicans – like Manafort and Flynn we all know that the logan act is horibly unconstitutional.
Regardless, there is no world in which Kerry’s actions are legal and Guilianis are not.
Absolutely Guiliani is engaged in limited diplomacy outside the confines of normal channels.
I am sure that pisses off large portions of the permanent executive branch. Their perogatives are being squelched.
But it is not illegal, it is not even unusual. Presidents have constantly sent private emissaries to do their bidding with foreign powers.
In fact it is a very common tool – it BOTH provided more direct communication between world leaders AND deniability that is often useful.
Guiliani both does and does NOT represent the US government concurrently.
Nothing he does is official or binding, and at the same time he clearly has the favor and ear and may even be the mouthpeice of the president.
Figures such as Jimmy Carter have done exactly as Guiliani is doing.
As I recall Cater was sent by Obama to NK to strike a deal – which he succeeded at, and then the administration disavowed the deal.
All perfectly legal.
Then the whistleblower goes on to essantially assert a legal doctrine that does not exist.
That the president is OBLIGATED to ignore allegations against political rivals.
If that is true – didn’t Obama as well as DOJ FBI,,, CIA egregiously violate that law that does not exist ?
Despicable bullshit from enabling Trump ass smooching dunce.
http://ronstadt.proboards.com/thread/5383/trumpoodles-ass-kissers
I guess now we know your source for information.
Once again – a slur is not an argument.
Further – why do you beleive it is either moral or effective to accomplish whatever your goals are by slandering and insulting everyone who disagrees with you ?
John Solomon on Biden and the Ukraine.
Probably everything you think you know is a lie.
‘
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story
Ah, I hve been in the Outer Banks all week (down in your beautiful state, Ron), and taking a break from politics.
And, I return to see that all hell has broken lose. The Democrats have declared all-out political civil war, and I don’t see how there is any turning back at this point. They’ve apparently decided that Biden is a goner, and that Warren cannot beat Trump, unless he is under impeachment, and they can kneecap his administration and his campaign, by digging up crap like that perfectly acceptable phone call with the Ukrainian president, ad spinning it as an “impeachable offense,” to keep the drama and slander going right up to November 2020.
They are using the constitutional remedy for treason and high crimes as a political weapon to try and destroy, yet again, a president who has committed no crime at all. It’s like the death penalty for a jaywalker…or maybe a litterer.
And it looks like Hillary Clinton (surprise,surprise!!) may be preparing to jump in, if the Democrat prospects get too bad. She’ll be all over tv this weekend.
I’d actually prefer Michael Bloomberg. A very good mayor, with some bad ideas (anti-gun, very nanny-state), but better than Clinton.
If Trump has to drop out (which I don’t think he will), I think that Nikki Haley will get in, as well as the disappointing Mitt Romney, in a desperate bit to fulfill his presidential ambitions. He would lose badly, just as he did in 2012.
I think that the Democrats are pursuing a very dangerous and horribly divisive path, which will irreparably harm the country, far more than Trump would or could ever do. But, I don’t see them backing down now. They finally got Queen Nancy (hat tip to Ron) to cave on impeachment, and they are full speed ahead.
John Solomon has been following the Ukraine story for years. He has reported repeatedly that things stunk regarding Biden, Clinton, Obama and the Ukriane.
But last night he dumped 500 documents that pretty much destroy every single defense that is made of VP Biden’s actions.
Additionally they build a firm foundation for the charge that – the issues in the Ukraine are not just about Biden – that The Ukraine was “ground zero” for the Obama/Clinton efforts to rig the 2016 election.
There are incredible parallels between the Ukraine story and other stories.
The first story about Hunter Biden’s problems was sourced to the Clinton’s (just like the initial Obama birth certificate story started with Sidney Blumenthal – a Clinton hack).
The purpose was to prevent Biden from thinking about entering the 2016 campaign.
But after that we start seeing mostly the same players as we see in Trump/Russia – and even the Clinton email scandal.
Fusion GPS and Perkins Coi show up in the Ukraine story.
Many of the same people as in Trump Russia from CIA, NSA, FBI show up in the Ukraine story.
There is atleast one story that this whole thing is a pre-emptive strike at Trump by the IC – particularly the CIA – because they were ass deep in political interference in 2016 – and Barr and Durham are digging into that and there are lots of heads in CIA, NSA, FBI, … that could be on the chopping block or even face potentially criminal charges.
Apparently Durham and Barr have had an active investigation of the Ukraine running for a long time – but it has THUS FAR been confined to the US side – the CIA operatives, the US attorney’s and companies, and FBI agents, and State Department people who were involved.
Purportedly Barr and Durham were just getting ready to start talking to people in the Ukraine when this blew up.
This is more than devisive – it is STUPID.
If everything (in terms of facts) that Dems claim is true and absolutely nothing damaging to Biden or Dems ever emerges from Ukraine – this is STILL a bad idea for Democrats.
The transcript is just not “shocking”.
It is perfectly reasonable for the president of the united states to ask the president of another country to cooperate in investigations into criminal and political corruption that may have taken place in their country.
It ONLY is problematic – with respect to a political rival WHERE THERE IS NOT reasonable suspiscion that a crime has been committed.
Unfortunately the vast majority of americans are not capable of grasping that there is more than reasonable suspicion regarding allegations of corruption by biden and election interferance by the Obama administration, but that there has never been reasonable suspicion that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
HOWEVER, they are capable of grasping that there is not much difference between the Trump/Russia investigation and the Ukraine election interferance and corruption campaign.
Put simply, it may not be possible for Republicans to convince the public that starting the Trump Russia investigation was politically corrupt.
But it will be impossible for democrats to convince people that much the same conduct by Trump is somehow a crime.
There are soundbites out the wahzoo saying that we absolutely positively had to investigate Trump for collusion with Russia.
Those are likely to get played over and over as they go after Trump
What Trump is doing is NOT the same – probable cause exists regarding Biden.
But even if most people can not grasp that, they can grasp that if Obama was free to investigate Trump – Trump is free to investigate Biden.
But what should be clear from both the whistleblower complaint and the transcript is that:
Biden is NOT Trump’s target – he is collateral damage.
The “target” is all those – many currently inside the administration, who particulated in Trump/Russia.
Trump’s objective is not to drive Biden out of the race but to go after those who illegitimately went after him.
The whistleblower is NOT surprising – Trump is after the US Intelligence community for political meddling – and they are scarred, and cornered and dangerous.
Democrats in the house are tools in this fight and they are setting themselves up to be collateral damage.
Alot is made that there is some pattern from the Clinton impeachment – that going after Trump will cost democrats the house because that is what happened in 1998.
But there are two huge differences.
Trump is not Clinton. He plays the game completely differently.
Everyone keeps playing this gigantic game of “chicken” with trump and seems to think they are going to win.
Their not. And the loser of a game of chicken usually DIES.
Trump is also not guilty of anything. But others are. Trump has not lied under oath or asked others to do so. What he has done is sought to punish people who illegally targeted him.
He has an EXCELLENT defense.
Ha, if one actually believes Rassmussen polls then trump has lost ten points in 3 days.
53-45 on the 23rd and 48-50 as of the 26th.
Republican senators have entered no comment mode.
Yes, both parties as well as the deep state that you don’t believe in, have generally hated Trump. They see a possible opportunity to destroy him.
The difference is that most Republicans realize that he is supported by over 90% of GOP voters, so they have to be careful when dealing with this.
Biden is the dirty politician, but none of the D.C. establishment will publicly say so, because he is part of their tribe.
I’m pretty sure that your glee over Trump’s demise is a bit premature. I think that it’s open warfare now, not bloody, but, the gloves are off. Trump doesn’t generally cave under this kind of pressure, so I anticipate serious and lasting damage to our system. It has started with the Democrats, but Trump’s defense will do damage as well. Call me any name you want, Roby, but I’m not cheering on what’s coming down the pike.
Trump haters will cheer anything, even the destruction of our system, if they think the Democrats will be able to win back full power.
One of the reasons for the strength of Trump’s core support – is that the left has been insulting these people for decades.
Look at Jay’s post – he can not seem to grasp there is a gigantic moral gulf between insulting Trump and insulting everyone who does not share his views of Trump.
A very large portion of “trump supporter” are people who do not agree with Trump on many things, but are tired of being called hateful hating haters – because they do not disagree with him on everything – or because the do not beleive that his offensive style requires impeachment.
If you wish to “win over” people who are between the “trump can do no wrong” and the “trump can do no right” camp – insulting them is probably not the way to go.
It is certainly not the moral way to go.
But this is what you get when you ideology adopts “the ends justifies the means”.
Having won the “culture war” over issues like womens, rights, gay rights, …. the left is going even further, and creating a new holy war – and if you do not agree with them – you are evil.
Ah its the democrats fault, they are dirty, they did it first. Bullshit. No one knows who did it first, it goes way way back. But of course loyalists have their dead certainties that it was the other side that started it and is to blame for everything. Which is why loyalists of either side give me a rash or worse. Loyalists are the problem. That is youu.
Do I think trumps demise is at hand? Did I say that? trump could get reelected, absolutely. This could help him or hurt him, who knows, its a long story. My “glee” is in fact directed at his being exposed red handed doing his godfather routine and watching the discomfort of the GOP trying to say its a nothingburger.
The democrats are nuts, I wish there was a sane republican with Romney Sasse flavor I could turn to for protection from the progressives. If Romney was the GOP candidate I’d send him money.
But the idiotic partisan story that there is nothing in this whistleblower business and that its all a democratic plot, its tripe from brainwashed people, of whom there is no shortage. Pelosi really did not want to do this, and many democrats where with her. They did not create the whistleblower, he forced their hand towards impeachment.
The fact is you have been 100% blind to the destructive things trump has done since the 2016 campaign got going in earnest and have been in 100% enabler mode. That has really surprised me, but you are a lost soul. Go back to your chorus of “its the dirty democrats they are destroying everything.” trump has been destroying the integrity of the system since his campaign, he is an escalation of every previous level of wretchedness. The other side is to blame is a child’s excuse for the trump GOP.
Dave represents nothing but himself. He is programmed to do what he does. I can tune him out, the poor bugger cannot change his programming. You on the other hand represent something real, large, and very destructive, blind, totally blind, partisan loyalists. History will damn trump and his loyalists.
Cain did it first and I am pretty sure he was a democrat and Able was a republican.
Regardless, while there is alot of blame to go arround – the blame is NOT equal.
Political correctness, calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist or mysogynist or homophobe. Conflating victimhood with virtue, conflating words with violence, trying to silence those who do not agree with you.
These and all similar efforts to use force without first justifying it, and to resolve debates over the use of force with anything except – facts, logic, reason are all wrong, and in many cases evil.
They are all wrong – no matter who practices them.
But lets not pretend that at this moment in time there is some parity in immoral conduct.
The sides are not equally wrong – even though both sides are wrong.
“Dave represents nothing but himself” – absolutely correct – and Robby represents nothing but himself and Jay represents nothing but himself.
Robby “I am programmed” to deal with the world LOGICALLY.
I have no idea if I could change that. I have absolutely no desire to.
I can not understand why anyone would want to address the world in any other way.
Regardless, we are all free to deal within our own lives however we please.
And I do – inside my own life sometimes deliberately make decisions using factors besides logic.
I know you think this is some kind of programming, or broken record stuff.
It is not. It is the foundation of western civilization – it is the foundation of the social contract. it is central to the distinction between man and all other animals.
YOU MAY NOT USE FORCE WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION!
If you wish to return humans to the state of nature – to life as wolves or apes or ants – then we can dispense with that and use force however we please.
But actually think about it – a man who kills another man for personal gain is immoral – evil.
A lion, a bear, a wolf who kills another for individual gain – is doing what animals in nature do.
There is nothing moral or immoral about it.
No animal besides man makes moral choices.
It is that which distinguishes man from all other animals, and that which is why humans have thrived in a way that no other species ever has – other species – like dinosaurs have proliferated and dominated. But none raised their standard of living.
Fish and bears and wolfs live with nearly the same conditions they did millions of years go.
Only man has freed himself a fixed relationship with nature. Only man has raised his standard of living.
Only man can be moral or immoral.
Only man is morally constrained in using force against others.
Only man has government, and the purpose of that government is the use of force to protect the liberty of its citizens.
Without returning to nature – that is the only legitimate use of force.
That is not “my programming” that is the entirety of western (and possibly nearly all) human thought in a nutshell.
“The fact is you have been 100% blind to the destructive things trump has done”
I am highly receptive to proof, to valid arguments, to facts, logic, reason.
Regardless, I do not think anyone thinks Trump is perfect.
I suspect I could create a longer list of ACTUAL faults of Trump than you can,
That would be things that are supported by facts, rather that feelings.
If perfection is the standard – hang them all – every single one, from Washington to Trump,
Presidents, Congress, …
Inarguably, we are doing better today than from 2009-2016.
Whatever Trump’s faults – his net is greater than his two predecessors.
I will bet that you – and many on the left would Trade Trump for 4 more years of Obama in a heart beat.
And that should make it clear what our differences are.
Absolutely the Obama presidency was quieter than Trumps.
There are a long long list of differences – most of which favor Obama.
But all americans have had their standard of living rise 50% faster under Trump than Obama.
Trump is not that good a president – Clinton out performed him, Reagan out performed him.
But he is also not that bad – he has outperformed Bush and Obama.
And yes standard of living is what matters.
Standard of living is NOT the measure or – your values – or my values.
Standard of living measure the extent to which every single one of us is able to secure each of our individual values.
It rises when you get more of what you want, and I get more of what I want – even if we want different things, and it falls as we each get less of what we want.
The fact that standard of living is rising 50% better under Trump means that weighing ALL the positives and negatives Trump is about 50% better a president than Obama.
He would be better still – if he corrected many of the flaws that you or I could list
and if he did that standard of living would rise even faster.
“since the 2016 campaign got going in earnest and have been in 100% enabler mode.”
False on multple counts.
You CONSTANTLY pretend everything is binary.
Either you support trump or you hate him. There is nothing between.
It should be obvious that is a stupid argument and position to be in.
If you are determined to make Trump a wedge issue – a litmus test – then you are going to lose – and not just me, but most everyone who is doing better than they were, most eeryone who likes some things and hates others.
“That has really surprised me, but you are a lost soul.”
Do you EVER make an argument ?
What the HELL does that even mean ? The only thing I can tell for certain is that you are ONCE AGAIN making moral judgement of others.
And in this instance without any foundation.
Have I committed adultery ? Have I murdered someone ?
Have I raped someone ?
You are condemning my soul, but unwilling to identify any transgression – aside from not sharing in your fact free ideology.
“Go back to your chorus of “its the dirty democrats they are destroying everything.”
If I have slipped and said “the dirty democrats” – I apologize, that was an error.
The most destructive force today is the LEFT. Not democrats, not liberals.
And the further left the more destructive.
Absolutely the right is not made up of saints. Both in the past, and probably the future – it could be the right that is our most significant threat.
But RIGHT NOW, the big threat is from the left.
We had a gigantic spitball fight here over Charlottesville.
We are 2 years out – what are there – 3 white supremecists in the entire country ?
Absolutely 100 years ago – the KKK was one of the most serious internal threats in the country – maybe in another 100 years they will be again. But TODAY – the KKK or Neo Nazi’s or all the things you rant about – including Trump are not existential threats.
The left is.
Demonizing everyone who disagree’s with you – will end up in DESTRUCTION.
There are multiple possible ways – but none are good.
The left can prevail – those of us not on the left will be burned at the stake – or whatever the modern equivalent is – I beleive the left and the chinese are talking about a “social capital” system -where if you profer the correct words you are allowed to succeed, and if you do not you will end up homeless and starving.
The left can succeed in destroying Trump – and find themselves facing SuperTrump next,
Some modern actual equivalent of Hitler. We tend to choose actual fascists as leaders when the left brings about chaos.
The left can fail – which is where my bet is at the moment – maybe because that is the least horrible outcome I see. And we get 4 more years of Trump – probably with less constraining him.
There are a variety of other possible outcomes. But there is no good one short of a shift of the overly large bulge at the far left moving significantly towards the center.
But if you see a good outcome – please enligthen me ?
Do you think that If Trump was gone – that the left would not be calling half the country racist ?
Do you actually think that Racism is in the top 20 problems that people in this country face ?
BTW the “data” – you know facts, prove that racism is a small factor in an individuals success today.
Do you think that the 65m people who voted for Trump are going away ? Are going to magically shift left anytime soon ?
Trump flipped millions of votes republican to win the election.
But he did so by realizing they were barely attached to Democrats anymore.
Depending on who runs in 2020 you might get some of them back,
but absent a shift in the balance of power in the democratic party – you are ultimately losing them – and then some.
The ideology of the left alienates people – it is DESIGNED that way.
Marxism was premised on the expectation that tensions in society would reach the point where the proletariate would violently overthrow the borguese. Post Modernism substitutes race, gender, and other measures of victimhood for class – but the core ideology is the same.
Post modernists will prevail – either through politics or if that does not work through violence.
When you decide the ends justifies the means – violence is inevitable.
” trump has been destroying the integrity of the system since his campaign, he is an escalation of every previous level of wretchedness.”
How so ? All the frothing and foaming – all the intolerance and actual hatred, all the efforts to silence are coming from the left – not Trump.
Trump has made a few half hearted remarks about silencing people – but he has not actually done so.
The only people actively moving to silence others today are from the left.
You speak of integrity – Biden’s family got rich at the public trough.
Please show me the slightest evidence that Biden or anyone in his family had any skills – beyond membership in the political class that would lead to wealth.
And you think Trump has destroyed the integrity of the system ?
Trump is not the one who ran the “witch hunt”.
Trump did not claim that evidence existed that still has not been demonstrated.
Trump has not cried wolf.
That is all on you.
Maybe you should look out for your own “soul” – mine is fine.
I do not doubt that Trump’s numbers have dropped int he past several days – so have Biden’s
And I beleive even Warrens purportedly – though not by much and I do not understand why.
It takes a while for people to figure out who is lying.
Further we have this nonstop fusilade of garbage by the media.
There must be 6 stories claiming Biden has been exhonerated – at the same time more and more damning stuff about Biden comes out.
I do not think there will be alot of talk from GOP senators – atleast not until house democrats figure out what the hell they are doing.
If they try to go forward with this non-impeachment, impeachment – they are in deep shit.
If they actually take a vote to start impeachment – they may lose.
If they win and can not deliver real evidence – moderate dems are going to get massacred in 2020.
The fact is no one – except the media and the extreme left has figured out what they are doing.
The media is happy as a clam – this is ratings and money – no matter what the outcome.
Last I checked – 53-48=5
And he is still 3pts higher than Obama at this point in his presidency.
Utter otherworldly propaganda Priscilla. You need to read yourself some George Will. Now, I know you are not going to change and will continue to believe in herr trump and believe his opponents are mounting a witch hunt till the bitter end. Anyhow have an excerpt of the most recent George Will column which seems to be addressed completely to people like yourself who see nothing, hear nothing, speak nothing against trump. Will is not arguing for impeachment, but his eyes are wide open regarding trump’s nature and the wrongness and of his actions as well as the disgraceful actions of his enablers:
WASHINGTON — If Donald Trump were to tweet that 9 is a prime number, that Minneapolis is in Idaho, and that the sun revolves around the Earth — “Make Earth Great Again!” — would even five Republican senators publicly disagree with even one of the tweets? This matters in assessing the wisdom of beginning an impeachment process against the president. If every senator in the Democratic caucus were to vote to convict Trump in an impeachment trial concerning articles voted by the House, 20 Republicans would have to join them to remove him from office. So, the likelihood that he will not finish his term is vanishingly small.
What, then, can be accomplished by the impeachment inquiry that was announced just 406 days before the next presidential election? Three things.
First, and not least important, it would augment the public stock of useful information and harmless pleasure to make Senate Republicans stop silently squirming and start taking audible responsibility for the president who they evidently think they exist to enable. Second, it would affirm Congress’ primacy….
…Third, articles of impeachment might concern his general stonewalling of congressional inquiries. This obduracy vitiates Congress’ role in the system of checks and balances, one purpose of which is to restrain rampant presidents. An impeachment proceeding could strengthen institutional muscles that Congress has allowed to atrophy….
This might be a moment in this nation’s life when worse is better: The squalor of the president’s behavior regarding Ukraine, following so much other repulsive behavior, is giving many Americans second thoughts about presidential power, which has waxed as Congress has allowed, often eagerly, its power to wane. Impeachment, however dubious, might at least be a leading indicator of an overdue recalibration of our institutional equilibrium.
Nevertheless, the best antidote for a bad election is a better election. The election the nation needs in 400 days would remove the nation’s most recent mistake and inflict instructive carnage — the incumbent mistake likes this noun — on his abjectly obedient party.
https://www.journalnow.com/opinion/columnists/george-will-the-best-antidote-for-a-bad-election-is/article_93aff830-e08b-11e9-8711-c7764bd611e5.html
Oh, I read George Will. I read everything on all sides, trust me. That’s why I know that the tribal divide right now is pretty much as wide as it can be, without people shooting as each other.
If Trump had committed an impeachable offiense, that is, committed a crime, or betrayed his oath of office, I would want him impeached and Mike Pence to take over as POTUS.
I am waiting for you or Jay to make the case for impeachment. Name a specific act that is criminal or a gross abuse of power…if you choose an abuse of power, make sure it is a “high crime,” that is worse, say, than asking an ally to look into corruption charges that have been out there for years.
I am not looking to make this a mudslinging event with you or Jay. I’m looking to talk facts here. Convince me that Trump has done something impeachable. Be specific. If I think you make the case, I’ll say so.
But no bs like Stormy, or Russian collusion, or mean tweets or bad hair. Criminal behavior, or outrageous abuse of office.
And quit slurring those of us who expect you to PROVE your arguments.
If your idea of how to get your way is to insult anyone who does not jump immediately to agree with you – then you are wrong. You are immoral, you are acting like a 4 year old,
and you are destroying the foundations of civil society.
I do not know that this ends with guns – but that is going to become ever more likely.
We can play dueling appeals to authority forever – there are a large number of moderate democrats who are screaming “put the f’ing brakes one – you are headed for hell”
Are you paying any attention to any of them ?
But rather than play dueling pundits – lets try FACTS.
Is there a substantive difference between the whistleblowers complaint and Trumps transcript ?
If so – what is it ?
If not – what is the actual allegation of a crime ?
Neither the transcript nor the whistlerblower focus on Biden.
The whistleblower complaint fundimentally is that Trump can not ask anyone to investigate anything about the 2016 election.
If you do not agree with that characterization – then please offer a different one that you can support.
Regardless, separating out Biden, are you going to claim that any of the rest of what Trump asked for in the communication is a crime ? Is even improper ?
And please explain why ? And while you are at it why more egregious and less justified actions by the Obama administration were not crimes.
Much of the WB allegation appears to be that – while the executive branch has the authority to seek investigations from foreign powers – the president does not.
That is ludicrously stupid – there is absolutely no power that exists within the executive branch that does not constitutionally belong to the president.
CIA and State department employees unhappy that they are being removed from the loop, is just not a crime. Nor is it immoral and unethical.
It is a left wing nut theory of government that does not exist.
With regard to Will.
31 house democrats joined republicans to impeach Bill Clinton – who inarguably lied under oath TWICE and inarguably obstructed justice by asking another (lewinsky) to do so – and she did.
Not a single senate democrat voted to remove Clinton.
Personally – if a senator – I would have voted to remove Clinton.
At the same time – I do not think Scotus should have allowed the Paula Jones case to proceed while Clinton was president, and I think that the votes on Clinton are just about right.
With respect to Trump – like it or not, there is no crime here. There is an allegation, but to actually be a crime we would need additional facts that are just not going to materialize.
Trump asking Zelensky to investigate almost anything related to the 2016 election is fully inside the legitimate powers of the executive branch. It would be legitimate even if – as Biden did, Trump threatened to cut off funding.
The critical facts – that honestly we already know – but we can discuss if you wish are:
Did the obama administration have “reasonable suspicion” to investigate or seek investigations in the Ukraine in 2015/2016. If they did not – then the actions of the administration are an abuse of power. The evidence seems to be emerging is that the Obama administration manufactured the allegations that it then asked the Ukraine to investigate. We do need more information – which is why there needs to be an investigation,
but it appears that all the claims that Shokin was “corrupt’ originated withing the US government – state FBI, CIA. That the US sought to force Shokin out to stop Shokin’s investigations that were leading to Biden, AND to get their own people in so that they could use the Ukraine to investigate Manafort – and eventually Trump
That is not proven at this time – but there is a growing body of pretty damning evidence.
Regardless – we have a clear test to determine legitimacy that would apply to both Obama and to Trump.
Whether those of you rushing to impeach like it or not – Trump did not create the basis to ask Selensky for investigations. There is plenty of evidence that there was lots of misconduct involving the US and Ukraine during the 2016 election – further outside the specific allegation regarding Biden, none of the rest of it targets a political rival. Clinton and Obama are not running – nor is Brennan, or Comey, or McCabe, or …
There is no theory of political corruption that precludes Trump from asking for investigation of their PAST acts – asuming that there is reasonable suspicion – and you have to be blind to think there is not.
Outside of Biden – the entire rest of this is the US IC fighting against having its own actions investigated – that is actually corruption.
So we come to Biden. If Biden had the slightest inkling that Hunter or businesses he was involved in were being investigated by Shokin – regardless of whether Shokin was an angel or devil at the very least Biden needed to remove himself ENTIRELY from matters involving the Ukraine. Instead he was the POINT person for Ukraine.
There exists evidence that strongly sugests that Biden knew Shokin was investigating Hunter – as noted before – the NYT ran a story on the investigation of Burisma and of Hunter long before Biden sought Shokin’s removal – in fact the allegations that Shokin was corrupt started AFTER the NYT story. It has also been alleged that the NYT reporter contacted VP Biden for comment before running the story – one would presume that an NYT reporter would do that.
Put simply it is reasonable to beleive that Biden knew Shokin was investigating his son.
That requires Biden to remove himself from all matters pertaining to Shokin and that investigation. and it means that Biden’s blackmail of the Ukraine to remove Shokin is a crime. Every bit of nonsense that the left has claimed on this – that Hunter was exonerated, that Shokin was corrupt – is both irrelevant and likely false.
Ukraine was continuing to investigate Hunter in 2018 – and may still be investigating him today. But what matters is not Hunter’s guilt or innocence, or whether Shokin was corrupt or not, or whether the investigation was active or dormant. What matters is whether it is reasonable to beleive that Biden could have known Shokin was investigating his son.
So long as Biden could have known – Trump’s request to look at Biden is legitimate.
And that is where this entire thing dies.
Priscilla, the internet works at the Outer Banks also. You did not need to take a vacation from us. Hope you had a good time
McConnell set a bar on divisive politics when he decided to block most of Obama’s agenda anyway possible. And then added he was going to make him a one term president. However, like everything political, the progressives are masters of taking something and perfecting it. Maybe not perfect yet, but the divisiveness that exist now is getting close to perfect.
Alan Dershowitz, who is anything but conservative, said this countries constitution was designed to provide for a strong president with equal powers as the other two divisions. Unlike other countries where the leader can be removed by “no confidence” votes, ours can only be removed by impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. He stated (although I can not find this fact) that Andrew Jackson faced impeachment for using Treasury funds to pay extortion to another. Jackson provided documentation to congress that the funds were his and not US treasury funds and avoided impeachment because the personal payment of extortion funds did not meet the high crimes level the founders had created. He went on to say that in the current environment that the constitution was being weaponized by those that had removal of the president under any circumstances as their primary agenda.
The democrats are right. Trump is a destroying our country as we know it, not because of what he is doing, but because of the reaction of the opposition to him.
I have always believed, and I have been proven right more times than wrong, that when the bar is set to a certain level, no one ever lowers that bar in the future. That becomes the floor for behavior, not the ceiling. So the next president could face something far worse than what Trump is facing today with the constitution being the weapon used to destroy those in that position.
And again, why should I not vote Libertarian where we believe limited government is the best government?
Yes, I know that the internet follows us everywhere. But, I was deertmined to have a politics-free vacation, and I did. Great weather, and no hint of hurricanes! Thanks.
I agree with the table has been set for this political civil war, but I think that it is the fault of both parties. Harry Reid and his elimination of the filibuster for most court appointments, the ramming through of partisan health care, the reliance by both parties on personal character assassination and identity politics, party-line votes on everything. But, “opposition” has never descended into the outright weaponization of every aspect of our system. Obama had 8 years to pack the administrative state with supporters and partisans, and deployed them during the 2016 election, so that Hillary would win. After Trump won, they continued to use the IC to undermine him. No surprise that the “whistleblower” is CIA.
I think that a multi-party system will change our system forever, and may undermine our republic. But, at this point, I would rather have a party that I could vote for with pride. So, I can’t blame anyone for voting Libertarian. If a good conservatarian-populist party emerges, I’m in.
If you look at the Libertarian agenda, they are really the “conservative-populist ” party. Conservative in terms of limited government and reduced spending.
Populist in the maximizing the powers of citizens while reducing the powers of the government.
Anyone who thinks the G.O.P. is a conservative party has their head in the crapper drunk on the fumes. If they were conservative, we would not have a $22T debt and $1T deficit.
The problem with the Libertarian party is letting the extreme elements control it, much like the G.O.P. and Democrats. If the sensible Libertarians want to progress into federal positions, they have to do what Ron and Rand Paul did, become Republicans.
So everyone can continue voting the idiots into office “because a third party cant win” and get what they give you.
Totally incompetent or politically unacceptable candidates that promise anything and everything to their voters and driving this country into the dump.
The assorted tacticle mistakes that you list – of both parties – are all good points – and you are correct – those are mostly balanced – and they have been going on for a long time – so long it is impossible to say “who started it” – beyond that – they are dead now.
And absolutely we should do better on that.
I absolutely positively want the most difficult possible rules in the house and the senate.
I want it to be impossible to accomplish anything with a simple majority.
I want small minorities – regardless of ideology to be able to thwart the expansion of govenrment powers, and durable super majorities to be required to sustain any expansion of government.
I want congress to take back its legislative function – I do not beleive that congress should ever have been constitutionally allowed to delegate any of its power to the executive.
That means more than just this – but at the minimum it means that the executive should never have the power to regulate. Recomend – maybe, but every law or regulation must be approved by the house the senate and signed by the president.
I am not going to get what I want – but any steps back towards sanity would be very wise.
While the tit for tat has been balanced tactically, the more fundimental problem is strategic not tactical.
Partisanship – tit for tat politics has existed all my life.
But the extent to which ONE side of all argumets today will silence the other – is illiberal – in all the best senses of the world liberal, and it is in this time almost entirely the domain of the left.
What the left HATES the most about Trump is that he has read “Alynsky’s rules for radicals” and is using that same strategy – extremely effectively against them.
Alynsky’s rules only work when decisions are driven by emotions not reason.
Alynsky’s rules are immoral – because they seek to use force without justification. by appealing to emotion rather than reason.
Absolutely at other times in our history – we can find these immoral strategies being followed by all sides. The free speach movement – an effort to secure liberty, came from the left.
As laudable as fighting communism and socialism were/are – Joe McCarthy’s approach was morally repugnant – the ends DO NOT justify the means – no matter what side you are on.
Today the McCarthites are almost all on the left.
Partity is tactical stupidity is not the same as moral (or immoral) partity.
Further the tactical mistakes of both parties – though problematic are not the root of our problem.
Robby’s recent post – I will not deign to make my argument – because I know ahead of time that you will not listen and your counter arguments will be false.
That is the moral(immoral) root of our problem.
You may not use force against others without justification. PERIOD.
You do not get to say – this is the true, or this is a lie, or this is evil, but I am not going to provide the facts and logic to back that up – because you will not agree, and I already know I am right, and so I am going to impose my will on you by force.
I am not a McConnell Fan.
Absolutely politics has become more and more divisive – there is a tit for tat process that has been going on – atleast since LBJ ran the “Daisy” commerical
Actually – much longer – the handbills from the first US elections are more bitter and brutal than anything today.
Most of us accept as legitimate the efforts by one party to block the agenda of the other.
That is politics – McConnell and Republicans were not elected to kowtow to Obama and today’s Democrats were not elected to “kiss Trump’s ass”.
Obama was elected to accomplish his agenda, and McConnell to thwart it.
That is actually how it is supposed to be – and I specifically want as large a possible of impediments to expanding government power whether it is republicans seeking it or democrats.
The attacks on Trump are different.
To some extent politics always has personal elements – but they have gotten worse.
Only a few fringe republicans ever called for Obama’s impeachment – though today I could create a long list of impeachable offenses.
Last I heard there are 200 democrats prepared to vote for an impeachment inquiry.
I am fully prepared to impose a law that presidents can not interfere with investigations in foreign countries.
But we have no such law, and it is done all the time.
Further as should be obvious from the current mess – it is NOT always wrong.
The situation regarding Biden as well as other possible administration misconduct from 2016
stinks – or put differently there is “probable cause” that crimes were committed.
I am prepared to severely limit the ability of the executive to investigate rivals – it is really really sketchy.
But I will not support an absolute bar – that is wrong. That essentially says that if you are an office holder of the opposing party – you can not be investigated for anything.
I think there should be a higher standard to push an investigation of political rivals.
And the current scenario meets that higher bar. While Trump russia never did.
Regardless, I do not care whether politicians “get along” I do not care whether they thwart each others agenda. All of that is between them and voters.
I do care when they go outside the bounds of the constitution.
“The democrats are right. Trump is a destroying our country as we know it, not because of what he is doing, but because of the reaction of the opposition to him.”
NO!.
Whether I agree or not – democrats are entitled to oppose Trumps agenda.
It is not their opposition to Trump’s policies that is our problem.
It is their opposition to not getting their way on everything.
Way to much of the Trump hatred is because he thwarted the lefts hoped for extended reign – Obama followed by Clinton.
They are angry because something that they thought was impossible – happened.
They are angry because their agenda is totally stalled and Trump’s is moving forward.
They are angry – because they lost – and in their world view they are not allowed to lose – ever, and that can only occur through malfeasance.
Absolutely Trump fans their flames.
But the flames are still theirs – and the responsibility lies with THEM not trump.
The consequences for the future of what is occuring right now – are absolutely disasterous.
If the left miraculously gets what it wants – even if we end up with a dual standard – one in which republicans are culpable for conduct that is accpetable for democrats – the long term consequences are disasterous.
If they do not get what they want – we have still lowered the bar regarding politics.
And you are correct – it is not getting raised again.
Lindsey Graham correctly chided democrats in the Kavanaugh hearing.
But missing is that whatever democrats are doing now – will be fair game for republicans in the future.
There is not a result of this that is good for the country.
I do not want future republicans behaving like democrats now – but I would be surprised if they do not.
I expect to here that guns sales are spiking shortly – particularly “assault rifles”.
When Government behaves lawlessly – and I do not mean Trump, people are justified in preparing to change government – by force if needed.
That is only one of many bad paths we are on.
there is not a good one.
And this is what happens when we embrace lawlessness.
When feelings trump facts logic, reason.
When arguments are decided by who hurls the best insults.
More crystal ball time.
This dies – relatively quickly.
It already appears to have peaked.
Indications are Pelosi will not call a vote on anything related to this and Schiff and Nadler will continue to try to call the crap they are already doing “impeachment inquiries”.
It will likely take the courts telling the house that – no you can not breach executive priviledge, or GJ material just because you want to – that to the very limited extent those might be allowed in an impeachment inquiry – you would actually have to have a real impeachment inquiry first.
Impeachment is a legitimate perogative of the house of representatives.
It is NOT a power of the speaker of the house, or of the chairs of intelligence or judicial committees.
Impeachment is the ONLY instance in which the house takes on powers that normally belong to criminal investigations and courts. But those powers come with responsibilities – like due process – which is NOT a normal requirement of congressional hearings.
And it is highly unlikely the courts are going to allow nadler or Pelosi to vest themselves with those powers without an actual vote.
Next this increasing looks like a US IC Setup.
The Whistleblower complaint form – until very recently said that any complaint not based on 1st hand information would be rejected. Sometime between May 2018 and Aug 2019 – notice was eliminated – on the Intelligence Community Whistle Blower form.
The form used by the current “whistleblower” was produced in Aug 2019. It is looking increasingly likely that the form was revised specifically to allow this complaint to go forward.
Assuming that is the case – then THAT is actual political corruption.
At the same time I do not want to make a huge deal out of the whistleblower complaint.
I do not think the fundimental problem is with the form or its motivation.
I do not mostly care what the motivation of a whistleblower is.
I do not care if they are dutiful public servants or blatantly partisan hacks.
I also do not mostly care about the fact that the complaint is actually outside of the domain of the NI IG.
What I care about is:
Do they make an allegation that is investigatable ?
If it alleges an actual crime – then responsibility for investigating it falls to DOJ.
If it alleges waste of other infractions that are the domain of an IG.
Despite all the hoohah I do not see anything here.
If Obama had Putin telling Trump – do X or I am going to release the pee tape – there would be a basis for the entire “which hunt”. But there is to this day NOTHING that constitutes evidence that rises to the level of reasonable suspicion that is required to begin an investigation and certainly nothing rising to the level of probable cause that the CONSTITUTION requires for a warrant.
No one would be calling the Trump/Russia investigation a “Witch Hunt” if there was a public record of some statement similar to that made by Biden from Trump – or any of his surrogates, or From Putin or any of his surogates.
Conversely the Biden statement does NOT prove Biden committed a crime – though it comes damn close to it, and it would have absolutely no problem getting admitted as evidence – as a confession in a court.
BTW Biden’s statement is also hearsay – but it meets the statements against ones own interest exception (confessions are an exception to the rule against hearsay).
Regardless, hearsay – even hearsay that would not be admissible CAN be used to open an investigation – but it MUST allege a crime and it MUST be credible.
The Whistleblower complaint is credible – and Trumps released transcript makes it even more credible.
But despite all the hoohah – it does NOT allege a crime.
As stated before – nearly the entire complaint alleges that Trump asking the Ukrainians to investigate interferance in the 2016 election is some kind of political crime.
It just plain is not.
And the issue that is glossed over in both the transcript and the whistleblower complaint,
Biden – probable case exists, and that is the end of that.
If Biden is guilty of those charges, let’s impeach him and remove him from office!
Oh, wait – he’s not presently in office.
So let’s elect him as president, and then impeach him.
But Trump is NOW guilty of offenses requiring impeachment (numerous).
So let’s impeach him NOW!
If that’s done before the 2020 election, under the constitution judgement in cases of impeachment “shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”
Yes, Republicans and other Trump despicables can rightly claim it’s obvious that the office no longer requires honor or trust – though with Trump’s businesses profiting from hotel, golf, and other taxpayer dollars lining his pockets they may have problems with the latter.
“But Trump is NOW guilty of offenses requiring impeachment (numerous).
So let’s impeach him NOW!”
What are they?
Hey, a thought just crossed my mind. (Yep it burnt a few brain cells in creating that thought)
The progressive wing of the D party does not want Biden as the nominee. They would prefer Warren or Sanders.
Biden is tightly woven into the Ukrainian issue with Trump, his son, military funds, etc.
So how best to get rid of Biden before the primaries begin?
How about opening an investigation into Trump and kill two birds with one stone. Biden goes down before the primaries and the investigation severely harms Trump, making Warren/Sanders road easier.
That thought has been offered before.
It is near certainly at play – but MANY things are at play at once.
And entirely independent faccett of this is that the US IC KNOWS that they are a Trump target – Barr and Durham are investigating them. They are feeling the pressure and this is their retaliation.
I keep people saying that the WB complaint is damning but the Trancript is not and why the difference.
I see very little difference between the two.
Further BOTH tell the same story – for Trump and the whistleblower, this is not about Biden.
This is about investigating the people – mostly still in government who were part of the effort to “get Trump” in 2020.
They know Trump is coming for them – and they are out to get him first.
In that particular game – the democratic party – is tertiarry.
Except that they have bet on the US IC – and if they lose that bet – they will be paying a steep price.
If you want to be respected and credible – misrepresenting other peoples arguments is a poor and immoral choice.
There is a quesiton as to why Biden was NOT impeached when he did these things.
But the current question is not whether biden shoudl be impeached – no one is so stupid as to suggest that (except you). It is whether there is sufficient basis to ask for an investigation into Biden’s conduct.
Shokin studiously refuses to say that Hunter Biden is guilty of anything – only that his investigation had a legitimate foundation and was ongoing when he was fired.
John Solomon is not saying that either Biden is guilty of anything – only that there is a lot of pretty damning evidence that justifies investigatiing.
Trump – atleast to Selensky, has not said Biden was guilty of anything. I do not recall Trump ever saying Biden was guilty of something – though it is Trump and I am not betting my reputation on that. Regardless, in the conversation with Zelensky and most conversations I have heard Trump said that this needs to be investigated.
Barr and Durham are reportedly actually investigating.
I have not said that Either Biden was guilty of anything – only that there is a basis to investigate.
I am sure there are some – but I am not aware of any republicans who have said either Biden is guilty – only that we should investigate.
Conversely all of the left and 3/4 of the democratic party and much of the media tells me that Trump is guilty of many things every day. They rarely specify guilty of WHAT though.
“But Trump is NOW guilty of offenses requiring impeachment (numerous).
So let’s impeach him NOW!”
If that is true – you should be able to specify specifically what it is that he has done that requires impeachment.
And you will be able to specific the elements of that offense – and the evidence that you have for each element,
And you will be able to distinguish Trump’s actions from those of other presidents or elected officials who have conducted themselves similarly and most specifically why you seek to impeach Trump and not those others.
“If that’s done before the 2020 election”
only raising another problem for you.
I am not really sure what Democrats are doing right now – no one is – purportedly they are impeaching Trump – but they are not following any of the procedures normally involved in doing so.
To be clear – I fully support the power of Congress to impeach for any reason or non at all.
But I will notes that voters are highly unlikely to be happy over an impeachment inquiry that never gets past the political.
You continually claim that Trump needs removed for reasons like Honor,
that is a perogative of voters. If Congress acts to deprive voters of their right to choose – there likely will be hell to pay in 2020
One of the excellent and damning points being made – that YOU have made for Republicans and Trump quite well yourself, is that Calls for Trump’s impeachement started the day he was elected – if not earlier.
I would say that you the left, the media have waited for Trump to do something – anything that you could claim was the basis for impeachment – but you have not waited. You have frothed and foamed and insulted everyone who did not fully agree with you from the start.
You START with a huge credibility problem. Any house hearings – if they even occur are going to be much like the Lewondowsky hearing. All posturing and no evidence.
Absolutely at this moment you have swung a number of voters to your side.
But you are likely mistaken if you think they are staying if you do not deliver more than you currently have.
The Trump hotels nonsense has been addressed many times.
Trump Enterprises is voluntarily contributing all profits from Diplomats or government officials stays at Trump fascilities to the IRS.
The only politician who has self evidently profited from public service – has been the Biden’s.
This should not be surprising.
Like it or not – Most of us grasp Trump did not become president to get rich – he and his family already are extremely rich.
They can not be bribed.
That does not appear to be the case for Biden.
You’re as full of $@#t as ever.
First, those are the ‘alleged’ profits from FOREIGN governments. And there’s no independent monitoring of those ‘foreign profits’ – that’s done by Trump people. And it doesn’t include the vast amounts of non-governmental visits by foreign private corporations and business trying to curry favor by staying at his properties
And it doesn’t include the vast amounts of taxpayer money our government spends to protect him and his entourage at properties his family still owns. Or the millions of dollars of some 30 GOP fundraiser events spent at Trump properties.
You make alot of assertions – but provide no facts.
If you were correct – Trump’s profits should have skyrocketed.
Yet according to Dailly Caller Trump’s net worth has declined as president.
They could be wrong – but your claims are pure conjecture – they have no foundation at all.
Something is not true – just because you made it up and like it.
The assertions I made are documented and true.
If you beleive that Trump enterprises are lying – prove it.
As to your other nonsensical claims – do you think that the state department or the NSA or DoD are validating hotel receipts of foreign companies and lobbiests ?
Don;t you think that if ANYONE anywhere in the current administration was ASKING what hotel some lobbyiest or government contractor stayed at – that the mother of all whistleblower complaints would be in front of congress ?
You have weird ideas about the world – that people are able to conspire with thousands of people to corruption – without leaving evidence and with no one noticing anything – not even the media who pounce if Trump mangles an adverb.
You are precisely why I criticize Ron’s value of common sense.
This kind of nonsense from you – is probably viewed as common sense by many.
But it does not survive cursory examination.
Made up guesses are not facts.
Further – quite often we can not measure something directly – like Trump’s networth or his taxes or the profits of his hotels, or how many foreign companies have shifted to his properties. But we can measure them indirectly – and often quite well.
Or we can falsify such claims – not because we can directly disprove them, but because we can prove they would have side effects that could not be hidden.
According to Forbes Trump’s networth has declined by 1.4B – almost 25% since annoucing his run for president. He has dropped 138 spots on the Forbes 400.
I the real world – networth does not drop if profits rise.
“And it doesn’t include the vast amounts of taxpayer money our government spends to protect him and his entourage”
I would have absolutely no problem with dramatically scaling back the Secret Service.
So change the law.
As to the “fundraisers” – again – his net worth droped by 1.4B – that means he LOST month – about 400M/year each of the past 3 years.
Even the anti-left pro-lifer Matt Walsh recognizes Donnie has to be stopped from spoiling himself daily…
“Trump is not helping his case by having this mental breakdown on Twitter. And I can only suspect that his supporters who encourage it are leftists in disguise. That’s the only way to explain them applauding while Trump self-immolates.”
Why do I care what “Matt Walsh” thinks ?
The only people who pay attention to what Trump (or almost anyone) says on twitter are those desparately looking to be offended.
Twitter is a cesspool of mostly leftist intolerance and nonsense.
It is where smart people I respect go to say the absolutely stupidest things.
It is a place that makes Trump look like “a very stable genius”.
I have been hearing this Show me what trump did business from Dave and now Priscilla. I will attempt to show you guys nothing because that would require your honest eye opened participation, which has not existed up till now and is not going to ever exist. TNM discussions solve nothing. For me I get to vent that is all. This will be decided on the big stage. I am not wasting my time trying to convince blind fanatics. No one could do that I and I have wood to stack.
Sheesh, if you think that Dave has not presented facts and documentation for his opinions, I can’t imagine that you even read his comments! Most of the time, he’s not even ideological.
If you are not willing to present a case and discuss this impeachment effort, fine. I get the not wanting to “bang your head against a brick wall,” since I often feel the same when trying to start a dialogue here.
Enjoy chopping wood. Sounds like a good way to expend energy.
Thank you Priscilla
Your response demonstrates quite well why I say the real problem is exclusively on one side.
I have disagreed with you – and Ron on many issues.
I think I have repeatedly made it clear that I support “open borders” – openly and proudly.
That should put me solidly with the “left”.
But supporting a concept does NOT mean supporting any old stupid implimentation of it.
Open borders is “the right” thing to do. but it is not the “easy” thing do to.
It comes with consequences – LOGICAL consequences.
It is not compatible with the board social safetynet we have.
As we are seeing in europe – it is not compatible with social democracy either.
I am extremely “liberal” on immigration. Unlike Robby or Pelosi, I am willing to OWN supporting open boarders. But good ends are NOT compatible with all means.
Without at the very least eliminating access to the social safetynet for non-citizens
Open Borders – and otherwise good idea that will make this country a much BETTER place, will instead destroy it.
You and Ron and I can disagree over Trade, or immigration or ….
And the worst that happens is we call each others ideas stupid.
While I can agree with Robby on a large part of some idea – but because we disagree on how to impliment it – the argument becomes slurs and insults.
While I have named Robby – the problem is not Robby, it is that the entire ideology of the modern left has become that way.
They are right – in their own minds about everything 0 in every detail and anyone who disagrees – even over minutia, is immoral – and a hateful hating hater.
Trump sometimes employs the same tactics – and I am not happy with that.
But he is not the source of the problem.
That predates him by decades. The modern left is a slow growing perversion of the old liberal left, that has reached critical mass and will either destroy itself or the country.
20 years of Trump would not destroy the country.
20 years of Bill Clinton would not have destroyed the country.
“I have been hearing this Show me what trump did business from Dave and now Priscilla. I will attempt to show you guys nothing”
Then you are not credible and as you are making a moral accusation – you are not moral.
“because”
There is no room for a “because”.
You make allegations against people – you are obligated to support those allegations.
If you do not think you will be beleived – that merely speaks to your own lack of faith in your evidence or arguments.
I am very very good with logic – it is my profession. but no one – not even someone 1000 times as good as I am can prove what is false or prove false what is true using the rules of logic.
If someone with an IQ of 80 makes a valid argument – one that starts with true premises and where each step in the argument conforms to a valid rule of logic, then the conclusion of the argument is correct – regardless of the skill level or intelligence of the person making it.
I keep getting compared to some kind of automata – that I am “programmed” some way.
While that is bunk, the verification of a logical argument – is a rule based rote process.
There is no question of “honesty” – just questions of facts, logic, reason.
If your premises – asserted facts, are true, and you logic conforms to the rules of logic, then your conclusions are correct.
If either of those conditions are not correct – your conclusions do not follow.
PERIOD.
The requirement for honesty – the burden of PROOF rests with those making a moral (or criminal) allegation against another.
“eye opened” the requirement for credible evidence – rests with those making the allegation.
If your “evidence” is not compelling – your argument fails.
Your failure to convince me – or anyone else – rests with you.
We bump into this nonsense from “the left” all the time.
Facts are not determined by concensus, guilt is not determined by consensus.
In most of the country a criminal conviction requires 12 of 12 jurors – unanimity to be accepted, Anything less is presumed innocence.
Removal from office requires 2/3 of the senators – because important truth – where the consequences are serious, has a very high standard of proof.
“which has not existed up till now”
In all the time I have been at TNM – actual arguments by you have been near as rare as hens teeth – and several of the rare occasions you have made real arguments using facts and logic if have agreed with them.
So your assertion is doubly false.
Regardless, when you make a moral or criminal allegation – you do not get to say – but I am not going to provide evidence because it will not be honestly evaluated.
I would further suggest that you BADLY need to make your case – in writing listing the actual specifics – the evidence and supporting it – because I do not beleive that you have done so – even just for yourself.
I beleive that there is a strong probablity that if you tried to list out all the facts and actual evidence – that there is a reasonable chance you would fall short of convincing YOURSELF.
I do not think it is lack of honesty you fear – but brutal honesty – both your own, and that of others.
John Stuart Mills did a much better job of addressing your comments than I have.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
It is especially important that you hear the counter arguments of those that you do not think have their eyes opened or are “honest”.
And it is exponentially more important when you are making moral or criminal allegations.
When you do so – you bet your own reputation.
But if you really want to outsource the defense of your reputation to Adam Schiff – that is your perogative.
(Priscilla – 2nd try at posting this)
Explaining it to you is like trying to explain to a deaf and blind person why Roseanne Barr’s shrieking crotch-grabbing National Anthem performance was disgustingly disrespectful- when it comes to El Douche your perceptive facilities to judge him objectively have been obliterated.
Not so for 300 former U.S. national security and foreign policy officials who have signed a statement warning that Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine are a “profound national security concern” and supporting an impeachment inquiry to determine “the facts.”
“Career diplomats also include William Burns, former assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, undersecretary for policy and ambassador to Russia under Bush, and deputy secretary under Obama; Nancy McEldowney, former Bush ambassador to Bulgaria and deputy chief of mission to Turkey; and Jeffrey Feltman, who served in senior State Department positions beginning in the George H.W. Bush administration and for nearly six years as undersecretary general at the United Nations until his 2018 retirement.
Former officials from the intelligence community, the Defense Department, the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security also signed the statement.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/nearly-300-former-officials-call-trumps-actions-concerning-ukraine-profound-national-security-concern/2019/09/27/254c09ac-e09e-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html
Add Fox’s Chris Wallace to the list, who says, “The spinning that has been done by the president’s defenders over the last 24 hours … it is astonishing and deeply misleading.”
Your continued defense of this idiot is sad and troubling and inane, Priscilla. For the remainder of your life you will be on wrong side of the divide between objectivity and fallacious misjudgment, like Southerners who continued defending slavery as righteous during the Civil War.
WP ate my first reply.
Read your first couple of sentences.
If you start by accusing those who do not agree with your of being stupid or evil – YOU are the problem.
Do I really need to point out the incredibly long list of failures of the US IC or State Department over – pretty much forever.
America is Great – but US foreign policy and the US Intelligence community are historically either evil or stupid or both.
You might as well have added the long list of neo-cons – ne War Mongers who support your arguments.
Below is one of myriads of articles demonstrating why experts almost always get it wrong.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/02/19/why-experts-always-seem-to-get-it-wrong/#5994e6273a36
In another context I have noted that trained psychologists are no better at predicting whether a criminal seeking parole will re-offend.
With specific respect to the Ukraine – to the extent Trump’s actions regarding the Ukraine constitute a harm – that harm is small compared to the Harm inflicted by Biden and Obama.
There is just absolutely no way in the world that the naked blackmail, extortion and corruption reflected by Biden does not dwarf any harm done by Trump.
Even if Shokin was actually corrupt and even if Biden did not know he was investigating his son – Biden’s actions were still far more brutal real politik than anything Trump has done, and far more damage our reputation with the world.
If Trump’s remarks were a venial Sin – Bidens were a mortal sin.
If you want to be treated credibly – WHERE WERE YOU when Biden was bragging about extorting the Ukraine ?
I would need to know more about what Wallace meant to comment.
Several republicans have attacked the “whistleblower”.
While there are lots of issues with the whistleblower complaint – and more evidence of the same collusion by the permanent executive to determine who they will allow to nominally lead them,
Fundimentally – depiste the bias and procedural violations and the self evident conspiracy
I find no consequential difference between the Whislteblowers complaint and the Transcript.
They are NOT as some republicans have suggested – significantly different.
The only difference is that the Whistleblower laces his prose with anxiety.
Strip out the adjectives and reduce the complaint to facts and there are no significant differences.
There is also no crime. Nor a basis for a complaint.
The Whistleblower and IC’s disagreement with Trump over US foreign policy or is not the basis for impeachment, and it is not a crime.
And neither the state department nor the intelligence community have a track record that merits weighing their oppinions higher than Trump.
I would prefer we got the F out of the internal affairs of Ukraine or any other country.
But that shoe dropped long ago. At the bare minimum we were inextricably tied into Ukraine when we persuaed they to give up Soviet Nukes that they wanted to keep to deter Russia, or when we provoke the coup that lead Russia to invade.
Trump had nothing to do with either of those failures.
Obama is responsible for one. No one has done squat to investigate that.
Slurrs and insults are not arguments.
Telling others that they are either to stupid, to hateful or too evil to accept your arguments – is both a logical fallacy and a moral failure on your part.
It is precisely that approach that is destroying the country – not Trump.
Appeals to authority are not arguments either.
Galleleo was not persuaded that the sun orbited the earth by hundreds of the purported best minds of his time.
Facts, logic, reason.
Not fallacies and appeals to authority.
I agree with George Will ALOT – but not always.
I probably agree with alot of what he says about Trump – but for one thing.
All the problems with Trump are deminimus compared to the left.
But addressing your ‘appeal to authority”
The US Intelligence community ? Really ?
These are the people who botched Iran repeatedly starting alteast in the late 40’s and continued F;ing up until we had an islamic fundimentalist theocracy.
Skipping decades of intelligence failures – you are old enough to remember the pentagon papers and the church commission, these are the people who missed the collapse of the USSR, Missed that Saddam was going to invade Kuwait, Missed 9/11 Botched the Anthrax investigation. Botched the Iranian WMD issue Missed that Russia was going to invade Gerogia, botched a coup in the Ukraine that lead to a Russian invasion.
I can go on and on and on.
So why is it that I am supposed to trust these people ?
I agree, slurs/insults are not arguments.
I don’t use them to prove logical arguments.
They are rude descriptive tags, often course and impolite: but that doesn’t reduce the validity of their assertion.
If the shoe fits too tightly, change the shoes or suffer the consequences.
“I agree, slurs/insults are not arguments.
I don’t use them to prove logical arguments.
They are rude descriptive tags, often course and impolite:”
See there are things we agree on.
“but that doesn’t reduce the validity of their assertion.”
Actually it does – assertion – particularly moral assertions require proof.
As I have said repeatedly – if you impugn someone else, if you make moral claims about them and you do not back those claims up – then the moral failure is YOURS.
A false accusation – of being a theif, a liar, a pervert, ….
is NOT the same as asserting without proving that someone is wrong about a fact.
A false accusation of factual error has consequenses for you credibility
A false accusation of immorality has consequences for your integrity.
“the shoe fits too tightly, change the shoes or suffer the consequences.”
When you either fail or do not try to support a moral accusation
“the shoe is on the other foot”.
The single most repugnant thing about Trump is that he frequently engages in character assassination.
But with few exceptions – he does not start it.
And more broadly political debate by character assassination TODAY is almost entirely a left technique.
My response to your verbal flatulence can be summed up thusly in regard to DiNero on Trump:
Still a slur and not an argument.
You and deniro got one vote in 2016, and will get another in 2020.
That is the absolute limit of the power that you have to impose personal views by force on the rest of us.
Beyond that – you must persuade – which is best done with facts, logic and reason.
And to be a moral basis for the use of force – it MUST be done only with facts, logic and reason.
That is true regardless of the issue – whether it is Trump or Obama or …
If I say X is true – and you say no X is false,
The subsequent legitimate debate would normally be evidence to establish whether X is true or not.
If you response is “your a liar”.
The actual debate ends and discussion descends to vitriol.
When you resort to slurr and insult rather than argument it is nearly impossible to continue rational discussion.
When you resort to slurr and insult – you are saying “I am right and anyone who disagrees is evil, and there is no reason for discussion, and I do not have to support my arguments”
There is near universal acceptance of the fact that our public debate has become bitter polarized and unproductive.
The reasons for that are trivial.
When you substitute slurr and insult for argument – further discussion is not possible.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=at+long+last+have+you+no+shame&t=canonical&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=oc6Yo3A7CC8
This is really getting interesting. I was in my freshman year in college when JFK was assassinated, and even though Lee Harvey Oswald was identified as the shooter, until this day there are conspiracy theories that the CIA was behind that shooting. That theory is the Central Intelligence Agency may have played a role in his death. The motive? The CIA was upset about the changes being made within the agency after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. The CIA also did not want Kennedy to discharge CIA agents for disagreeing with him. Other theories pin the assassination on a rogue cell of the CIA or an agency contract killer gone rogue.The theory of forensic historian Patrick Nolan, whose book CIA Rogues and the Killing of the Kennedys asserts four high-level agents planned the shooting and three fired four shots in Dallas that day.
Now the last part of that has been proven false when forensics have tested multiple shooters. And I never paid much attention to the other part until the last few days.This article in the Federalist lends credence to the CIA wanting Trump out of office and that they most likely had a part in JFK’s death for the reasons stated concerning agents being removed.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/
What other reason would they change a form that required first hand knowledge? Why allow third party information that can not be confirmed. Since it is near impossible to assassinate a president today and keep anything secret, would this not be a way for the intelligence community to plant evidence and then allow third party whistle blower complaints?
I have no idea, but this sure opens up a crapper full of problems if this is happening. It is close to the point the CIA can manipulate their own leader into the Whitehouse and get decisions that they direct him/her to support.
And for those that think Trump is a danger to this country, when the intelligence community begins manipulating who is in office rises to another level that should be of concern for everyone.
You do not need to speculate over the CIA role in the JFK assassination, to know that:
The CIA, and the intelligence community more broadly have been failing up since their creation.
The list of known failures is monumental.
The list of accomplishments is nill.
As I noted before – Truman who created the CIA had decided by 1963 that they were a mistake.
Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex.
Field of dreams taught us
“if you build it, they will come”.
We have this massive defense intelligence segment to the federal government.
During the Clinton years we talked about the “peace dividend” – yet subsequently we find more and more reasons to start or involve ourselves in wars.
Gen. Flynn was fired because he thought the IC had become bloated and unfocused and was not providing meaningful intelligence.
When Trump was elected the expectation was that he was coming in to clean house.
So it was essential to remove Flynn.
There is much there we still have not gotten to the bottom of.
There is pretty much no way they transcript of Flynn’s conversation with Kisylak should have leaked.
Before Trump the only time I can recall the private exchanges between governments being leaked – EVER was when wikileaks managed to crack the encyption on State department communiques and dumped Hillary Clinton’s exchanges with world leaders.
Yet in the Trump administration – starting with the leak of Flynn’s exchange with Kislyak through the present – the intelligence community leaks like a sieve.
While I think there was an organized conspiracy to “get Trump” – I do not think that was all that broad. There is however a vast number of people within government how beleive that Trump is such an abomination that the rules and the law no longer apply.
I do not as an example think that there was collusion between the whistleblower and those reducing the standards for complaints.
But I do think the standards were reduced with the expectation that it would create more complaints and more opportunities to “investigate Trump”.
We are ranting because Trump asked the Ukraine to “investigate Biden” – where the basis is public bragging by Biden – not secret leaks.
Yet non of those of you on the left care that from the start of this through today the holy war against Trump has been based not merely on leaks of information that has never been leaked before, but in nearly all cases FALSE Leaks.
For a long time it was presumed that the Flynn/Kislyak leak came because communications with Kislyak are always monitored. But more recently it has been found that Flynn was one of those being surveiled.
Once again you have government investigating without a basis and creating a crime from thin air.
And the Biden story that is emerging form Solomon’s material is quite interesting.
Contra the media narrative that Hunter Biden was exonerated prior to Joe’s blackmail,
The US setup a Ukraine “task force” lead by Joe Biden after the NYT story on Hunter Biden.
It is that task force that created the narative that Shokin was “corrupt” and then sold it to the Ukraine and IMF. Put simply it looks not only like Biden blackmailed the Ukrainians to fire the prosecutor investigating his son, but that Biden used the US government to manufacure the claim to get rid of him.
I do not know that is true – but I know that there is more than enough evidence to investigate.
From the start of the Trump administration to the present allegations of malfeasance have been lobbed all over.
Thus far the only ones that have been proven are those of govenrment misconduct.
In 2017 When Trump claimed he had been spied on – who would have believed that actual operatives from CIA or FBI had been deployed against an american political candidate with no elucable basis ?
There is ZERO doubt at this instance that the US government through Joe Biden blackmailed the Ukrainian government.
The only question – is was that done so legitimately – there is more than enough evidence that it was not to have a deep and thorough investigation.
I love spy novels and stories.
But in the real world I do not beleive that our intelligence community does much of anything of actual value with respect to our defense or national security.
They continue to exist because:
Both parties benefit from their existance.
Because it is trivial to be afraid that things would be worse without them – even though there is no evidence.
I think if you asked anyone that follows politics much at all if they think this investigation will end up differently than the Mueller investigation, I think they would say no.
They want to do the same with this the same as what the Mueller investigation did for 2018. Weaken Trump to the benefit of Democrats.
How much would anyone wager in Vegas if betting was allowed on this fact, ” 2-1 odds on the impeachment investigation being active in November 2020. ” Not that an impeachment proceeding is taking place, just they are actively gathering evidence for possible impeachment.
As I said many times with Mueller, get off the pot and make a decision. I still believe Mueller could have completed his investigation much quicker and this should be determined by December recess if evidence is sufficient to impeach. But I also dont believe that is the most beneficial for the Democrats, so piss on the country and extend it for the benefit of the Democrats in 2020.
Jay/Roby, so if what I think is going to happen, we have another 13 months before the election to vent our anger. Yours against Trump, mine against politicians from both parties.
Soon as Ding Bat Donnie is gone I’ll vent anger at whatever stupidities are spouted from the next Prez – as I did for Obama’s dumb moves.
This in today’s NYT for your edification:
“President Trump met on Friday with Wayne LaPierre, the chief executive of the National Rifle Association, to discuss how the N.R.A. could provide financial support for the president’s defense as he faces political headwinds, including impeachment, according to two people familiar with the meeting.”
Ha. Two weasels in head-to-head mutual interest discussion.
So, Ron – you think Trump is going to keep his word to to back gun control legislation?
If True – I do not care.
but it is the NYT – so it is not True.
Clinton spent about $2M on the Paula Jones case and impeachment.
Based on Forbes’s estimates of Trump’s net worth – that is about what he loses every day as president.
McCabe has a multi-million dollar go fund me campaign.
I doubt Trump will have any problem defending himself.
One of the things that the left seems to completely ignore is that unlike the SC investigation,
Impeachment actually follows due process rules – there is a right to present a defense, and democrats are just not going to like that at all.
I think Trump is looking forward to democrats behaving stupid.
“Jay/Roby, so if what I think is going to happen, we have another 13 months before the election to vent our anger. Yours against Trump, mine against politicians from both parties.”
Now Ron, jeez I think you know me better. I haven’t expressed my disgust with the democrats in full color? I think I have. But, if you like I can make my apparently secret desires more explicit. I wish a lightening bolt would strike Bernie Sanders and Warren would wash out to sea. Now, as to what I wish for trump, well two lightning bolts would be fine by me. I’m a pretty equal opportunity angry old man.
The irish do take bets on these things.
The odds are better than even that trump is re-elected – and about the same that he is impeached before the election.
I guess both are possible.
This is not going to be the same as Mueller.
Whether he deserved it or not Mueller had credibility and a presumption that he was not biased.
Democrats do not.
All the antics during the Mueller investigation and the failure to deliver as they promised leaves them with little credibility.
I do not know how long it will take democrats to give up,
but this will fizzle and probably fast.
Time for a sanity break:
Chef John’s recipe for Southern Baked Banana Pudding
https://foodwishes.blogspot.com/search?q=Baked+banana+pudding
This whole whistleblower thing may be a scam. Which would mean that it was a set-up. If so, it explains why Pelosi announced impeachment, before she even knew what was in the transcript.
Some facts:
1. Weeks before the whistleblower complaint was even sent to Congress, Adam Schiff “randomly” tweeted:
” Trump is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent. It doesn’t take a stable genius to see the magnitude of this conflict. Or how destructive it is to our national security.”
Tweet sent on 8/29. Schiff *supposedly* knew nothing about the complaint until 9/17, although a copy of the complaint, dated 8/12 and addressed to Schiff and Richard Burr, is dated 8/12. There may be an innocent explanation, but it’s super suspicious.
2. “In the months leading up to a CIA whistleblower’s hearsay complaint about President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the US intelligence community quietly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers must provide first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings….A previous version of the document provided by the ICIG and DNI until recently declared that whistleblower complaints must only contain first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing – and made clear that hearsay, gossip or rumor would be rejected.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/intel-community-quietly-scrapped-requirement-first-hand-knowledge-cia-rumorblower-relied
3. POTUS/foreign leader phone transcripts have been securely but separately stored on a known server for over 2 years, because of the leaks of many Trump phone convos in the early months of the administration. It is not a “secret server,” as has been reported, and transcripts go through an official chain of custody. This was reported by the NYT yesterday.
4. The whole quid pro quo thing is bogus. As of July (when the phone call happened). the Ukrainians did even not know that military aid was being withheld ~ this is even mentioned in the whistleblower complaint. A report by ABC that the Ukrainian foreign minister said that “a Biden investigation had to be on the table for us to get military aid” was strongly denied by the foreign minister, who claimed, on the record, that he said nothing of the sort. No quid. No pro.
#5 is not yet a fact, but is being reported. And since the whistleblower wants to testify, we’ll find out soon enough:
5. The “whistleblower” is said to be a CIA agent named Michael Barry, who worked directly under John Brennan, and who was once detailed to the White House in 2017. He was part of HR McMaster’s circle, and was let go by John Bolton. He’s now back at the CIA.
The conspiracy part of the allegations regarding the whistleblower interest me because they are at the very least a firing offense and probably a crime.
No one in the executive branch – not even the CIA may act to thwart the policy objectives of the elected president. Nor can they use the process to political advantage – what Trump is being accused of.
Elected members of government – and SOME political appointments – under circumstances defined by law can engage in politics.
The remainder of civil servants can not inside their jobs.
Only congress or the courts can interfere with the policies of the elected president.
Ha, Jay, didn’t intend for this to end up as a reply to your banana pudding recipe. 🤔
Have you made it, btw?
The untrustworthy scuzz hides conversations with Putin and Saudi Frown Prince murderer from scrutiny.
But Dave & Priscilla know in their hearts Trump would never say anything sneaky, illegal, or creepy to them in private he wouldn’t say in a public media covered event.
They’re not at all wary of his association with those goniff mobster rulers.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/white-house-restricted-trump-calls-putin-saudi/index.html
Washington Post:
Trump told Russians he was OK with their election meddling…
Are you OK with John Oliver’s election meddling ?
If so – then you are either a hypocrite or you are OK With Putin’s.
As well as VOA.
Yes, the calls of any president to foreign leaders should be subject to very limited if any scrutiny.
There is absolutely nothing that a president can do or say on a phone call with a foriegn leader that does not result in ACTION that is anyone else’s business.
You constantly make this stupid argument that what people say is of consequence – no!
It is what they DO that matters.
“But Dave & Priscilla know in their hearts Trump would never say anything sneaky, illegal, or creepy to them in private he wouldn’t say in a public media covered event.”
This is just stupidly antagonistic, Jay. You don’t ever seem to grasp that Dave and I have both acknowledged, dozens of times, that Trump has flaws, some serious ones. Or maybe you do grasp it, but you just don’t give a damn, because you have no valid arguments to come back with. You have become so self-righteous and sanctimonious, that you feel justified in telling me that I am the equivalent of a slavery supporter.
Democrats, whose behavior has become so degraded and hateful, so based on lies and fabricated outrage, often deserve to be condemned for their unrestrained and dangerous actions. It’s impossible to ignore the fact that both parties have gotten us to this point, but that, since Trump’s election, the Democrats have descended into an anti-Trump mob. Even if Trump were as evil and lawless as they say, Dems would easily equal him in evil and lawlessness.
In other words, you appear to have lost any ability to look at all sides.
If we had even a slightly honest media, one that would look at both sides and try to report the unbiased “who,what,when, where and why” of a story, it might be possible for you and I to have an open debate. But the corporate news model is based on division, and journalists are no longer taught to report a story, but to create a narrative. You believe the media’s anti-Trump narrative, I don’t. That doesn’t mean that I couldn’t be swayed by facts, it’s just that the narrative rarely presents any…
“Dave and I have both acknowledged, dozens of times, that Trump has flaws, some serious ones”
And yet you are not LOUDLY calling for the GOP to replace him in 2020 with a more suitable human. Your deafening silence on that just emphasizes your hypocrisy.
This is no longer a Red vrs Blue issue.
It’s a right vrs wrong issue.
Allowing an idiot like Trump from either party to control the presidency is WRONG.
What part of that assertion escapes you?
The part where I don’t agree that he has done anything to disqualify himself as POTUS.
Does it bother you at all that the Democrats have controlled the house for a year, and have done nothing but harass the president and pursue his impeachment?
Seems to me, they are more disqualified for their jobs than he is for his.
Priscilla, I know you directed this to Jay, but I have to get involved in that question.
Nope, not at all. If they don’t do anything, they can’t screw anything up.
We need to find another issue to discuss that if you want that subject because this one already has over 1000 comments and its taking too much time to load and post on this one.
Democrats in the house have done absolutely nothing to make themselves look attractive in 2020, and if they want to go ahead with this they will just amplify that perception.
Democrats have much more to lose from impeachment in 2019 than Republicans in 1998.
Conservatives do not promise activist government – if government does nothing – they have kept most of their promises. If government wastes a year on impeachment – they have kept their promises.
Democrats on the other hand promise accomplishments – more government.
That is difficult without impeachment.
Regardless, I think it is necescary for this to play out.
Democrats have been upping the ante on a gigantic game of chicken with Trump since he was elected. It should have ended long ago.
This keeps driving the democratic party further to crazy.
Lets have impeachment hearings – see if they go better than the Lewendowsky hearings or the Kavanaugh hearings or the Barr hearings or the Cohen hearings, or …
The contrast between republicans and democrats at these hearings is enormous.
So lets let the entire country watch Nadller and Schiff and Cummings and the rest of them.
Jay, hate it that Roby has left again. Sometimes you need to ignore those that you don’t want to discuss things with, but stay in the conversation with those that might be a good discussion partner. Hope you stick around.
So can you do something here. You state: “This is no longer a Red vrs Blue issue.
It’s a right vrs wrong issue.
Allowing an idiot like Trump from either party to control the presidency is WRONG.
What part of that assertion escapes you?”
Before my question, I have stated any numbers of times that I thought the mueller investigation was politically motivated in that it took much longer than it should have. Maybe it took that long to dig hard enough to not find anything damaging that would lead to impeachment, but thats for another discussion.
i am now saying I don’t think anything will come of this either. And if they do this investigation, it should be done quickly and if anything is found, then to begin impeachment immediately. However, i believe this one is also politically motivated, that there is nothing there, it will be strung out and is going to be spun to make Trump look bad for election purposes. for instance, Trump discussing Biden with Ukrainian president. Are we so damn dumb to think Trump is the first president to ask another country to cooperate with an investigate an American in their country. Maybe I am the insane one thinking that has happened before. What I object to more than his comments about Biden is the fact that his negative comments about Germany and the E.U. not doing enough for Ukraine may have negative responses in the future when we want something from them. I’m not sure releasing those statements were in our best interest.
Anyway, you keep saying this “Allowing an idiot like Trump from either party to control the presidency is WRONG” in different ways, but you don’t give us your thoughts on removal.
If Trump is found not to have committed anything wrong that warrants removal this time as with Mueller investigation, what do you want done?
More investigations until impeachment?
Impeachment without a legal basis?
G.O.P. declaring Trump mentally unstable and unable to continue in the position?
Other than putting up with Trump for 15 more months and letting the voters decide, what is your alternative?
My alternative is to impeach if there is anything substantial and shut the “f” up about corruption and begin discussing differences in political policy so voters can decide what direction economically and domestically they want this country to move in if there is nothing there.
The one thing good that is happening today with all these investigations is congress is doing nothing, so they are not screwing up the country with their actions.
The fundimental question regarfing Mueller, Or the investigation of Trump that preceeded it
AND Trump’s call to Zelensky is NOT what the motivation was.
It is damn near impossible to root personal and political motivations out of our actions.
The absolutely fundimental question is:
Was there evidence that reached the level of “reasonable suspicion” to begin the investigation, and was there evidence that reached “probable cause” to get warrants and subpeona’s.
Whether we are talking Trump/Russia – Biden/Ukraine or Obama/Ukraine or Trump/Ukraine
The question is exactly the same.
We do not allow innocent people to be investigated because they are on the opposite side of a political issue.
We do not allow quilty people to go free – because those who would prosecute them have a political motive to do so.
We rarely know at the moment an allegation is made that the allegation is true.
So we can not know whether we are persuing someone innocent or someone guilty.
The legitimacy of the conduct of those looking to start an investigation does NOT depend on their motives. But on the evidence – AT THAT TIME.
I have argued here over and over and over again – we do not have the power to read other peoples minds.
With extremely few exceptions – right and wrong – crime, are determined by ACTS, not thoughts.
I do not care whether it is Rosenstein or Obama or Trump or …
I mostly do not care WHY they did something.
I can WHAT they did.
You get to factor WHY into your vote – if Why matters to you.
Fixating on Why particulary in law is stupid.
There is rarely a single reason why someone does anything.
Jay thinks it is self evident that the transcript and the whistleblower complaint demonstrate the Trump was out to get Biden. I think it is self evident that he was after exposing the crap that was done to him in 2016.
It does not matter whether Jay is right or I am right – because WHY does not matter.
Our motives pretty much always have large elements of self interest.
What matters is what was done – and whether there was sufficient basis for doing so.
We do not act immorally when we do good for bad reasons.
We do so when our actions are not JUSTIFIED – regardless of our motives.
If you do a bad thing – for good reasons – you still did a bad thing.
If it is a crime – your reasons are not important.
We do not want people running arround killing others – even if they think there reasons are good.
No, I am not “loudly” or even quietly calling for the GOP to replace Trump.
There is not a single presidential candidate ever that I have 100% agreed with.
If I called for the replacement of every candidate with whom I disagreed on an issue – it would be impossible to elect anyone.
If Republicans of Democrats – come up with a candidate that is actually better that Trump – I will vote for them.
Joe Walsh is not even close – he is all the bad things about Trump – and none of the good ones. Further many of the claims you make about Trump that are false – are true of Walsh.
Bill Weld is an excellent candidate who has absolutely zero chance.
Further I am still very very angry with him for choosing to be half of the libertarian “dream ticket” in 2016 and then partway through the campaign endorsing Hillary.
Give me a Gary Johnson, a Ron or Rand Paul – A Justin Amash, I will get behind them.
Give me someone – republican or democrat who is actually going to be a superior president – and I will get behind them.
Mostly forget the whacky leftist garbage that the current crop of democrats is spraying as their proposed policies – all of which most of us understand are DOA,
Which of the current crop of democrats if elected is NOT likely to drop economic growth back to Obama levels ?
That would be hundreds of millions of people all doing a little bit worse.
Give me a candidate that I can credibly beleive will increase growth to 3.5-4% or more.
And I absolutely beleive that is possible.
Growth does not increase or decrease because of “magic”. And I will vote against Mother Theresa if her opponent was able to deliver 1% higher growth.
This has NEVER been a red vs. blue issue – and you have never gotten that.
It has ALWAYS been a right vs. wrong issue.
It is ALWAYS wrong to make moral accusations that you do not back up.
If you call someone a liar, if you accuse them of wrong doing rather than merely being wrong, you MUST prove your argument.
If you fail, or worse – if you refuse to do so – the moral failure is YOURS.
We have listened to you, robby, the press, the left, and way too many democrats,
shouting at us “orange man bad!!!!”
You have told us that Trump is a crook – then prove it.
You have told us that he is a liar. Yet, he has done everthing in his power to honor his campaign promises.
You have told us that he colluded with Russia – that was a highly implausible claim at the start and it has NEVER gotten any better.
When Trump said this was all a witch hunt 2 years ago – that seemed a bit hyperbolee.
Today most of us understand – that is the truth.
And that YOU are on the wrong side of the truth.
From before Trump was elected – you have frothed and foamed and warned all of us that the world would end if we did not beleive whatever was your latest great outrage.
The world has not ended.
We have spent three years dealing with you trying to push everyone into fearful hyper vigilance.
And you have delivered nothing of substance.
I told you when Mueller flopped that there were consequences to making false moral accusations.
One of those is that you are not believed.
You Media, Democrats and the left have looked desparate since losing in 2016.
It just keeps getting worse.
Purportedly as democrats twiddle over this pseudo impeachment nonsense – they do not appear to actually be going forward – but they are going to continue with the “pretend” impeachment, now they are back threatening to impeach Kavanaugh again.
I was suspicious that Kavanaugh was not a good choice – and I think that has proved true.
but the Kavanaugh hearings were a farce and a circus.
My disagreements with Kavanaugh regard the law and constitution.
Not whether he is a rapist.
But your back at it again.
This has been about “right and wrong” from the begining.
And when you are making moral accusations of others that you do not prove.
YOU are MORALLY WRONG.
“Allowing an idiot like Trump from either party to control the presidency is WRONG.”
First you say this is a moral issue – and then you claim that it is really a question of Trump’s intelligence. That is not a moral issue.
“What part of that assertion escapes you?”
The part where you prove it.
Trump is inarguably doing better than Bush and Obama – not alot better – but enough to be beyond random chance.
We had 16 years of 2% growth on average, Trump is elected and growth increases by a full percent. We could do better – but we haven’t for 16 years.
We were actually headed into a recession in mid 2016. The market anticipated a Clinton presidency and like all of us was surprised when Trump won.
If Trump’s successes are those of an idiot – then he is a very useful idiot or a magical one.
But it is generally a bad idea to attribute a long record of success to luck rather than skill.
All thoseOK with Trump ‘suggesting’ it was OK to murder a CIA agent, doing his job, because it was problematic for him – step forward.
When I google “trump murder CIA agent”
All I get is stories of CIA agents threatening to murder Trump.
Given the massive amount of “fake news” – probably you should “back up” your claim.
More “fake news”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ukraine-scoop-implodes-within-hours-of-publication
so what can you trust ?
I find Ron to be an interesting commenter with opinions on some things that are refreshingly unrigid. But this TNM conversation, as always, is tilted so far to the right that Jay and I, who as far as I can tell are both absolutely allergic to the progressives and who have both expressed support for sane conservatives as POTUS, wind up having to try futility to restore some balance here and explain the points of view that 50+ percent of the country hold.
Well, That is hopeless. Good luck Jay, I have had my venting session. I have other things to do that are much better and more rewarding uses of my time than spending time arguing with the right wing universe. Political discussion in this day and age turns into pure nonsense so fast.
Robby – you and jay are the biggest part of the problem – here and elsewhere.
While I find your claim to be allegic to progressives lacking in substance.
It is the fact that you behave like them – you use the same methods.
You do not make arguments much less support than and you insult anyone who disagrees.
That is the road to hell.
I highly doubt you have gone there on your own – that you have invented on your own the same approach that the far left has spent a century polishing.
But look at TNM – when you and Jay are active – all that occurs here – is fighting over people and insults – not issues and substance.
The entire mess that has reared its ugly head regarding the latest issue.
There are very important things to discuss involving that.
Whether Trump has done something illegal – depends on the law and the constitution.
There are many important areas to discuss there.
Separately from what did occur and was it legal or constitutional is what SHOULD the law and constitution be.
And guess what – I do not have all the answers.
But all that either You are Jay wish to do is come flying in shouting “Argh! Orange Man Bad!
If you do not agree Your evil too!”
Why do you think that gets us anywhere ?
The current Trump issue, has atleast two antecedents – Biden’s conduct with Ukraine and the Obama administration Trump/Russia investigation.
Equal protection of the law is bedrock.
All you are interested in is how to get rid of Trump – and frankly that is all that I can see from either you or Jay, and the other place that I see that is with the left, and that is not the only issue where I can not find daylight between you and the left,
Or you can prove me wrong.
Forget Trump.
What can a private individual do in relation to a foreign government
Are the actions of Flynn, Clinton, Guliani, Kerry, Carter, Simpson and a long long list of others legal or not ?
If you think some are permissible and others are not – which and why ?
And expect that whatever you say – I or someone else is likely to disagree with you.
Because guess what – we are different people, We do not share identical values.
But we can have a debate – using facts logic and reason, and quite often produce law that will bind us all EQUALLY, or more rarely change the constitution – which will also bid us all equally.
I mentioned alot of people – but I am not interested in the WHO, but in the WHAT.
So long as your arguments are of the form – Flynn is criminal but Kerry is a saint – we are getting nowhere.
And the same discussions should take place about what actions of those inside government are legitimate and which are not.
Then there is the question of what is the law vs what should it be.
I am absolutely entirely for vigorously enforcing the law that exists.
I am even for enforcing it – if I beleive it is wrong.
I do not beleive in prosecutorial discretion. While in the real world it is impossible to prosecute everything – we must do our best to do exactly that.
It is the prosecution of bad laws, that drives us to repeal them.
But that is a whole other area of discussion.
If you argue that – individuals out side of government should be as free as possible, but the actions of those inside government should be as constrained as possible – I am near certain to support that.
This is hopeless – because all you want to discuss is WHO is evil and who is not – not WHY.
You have repeatedly asserted that you do not care about underlying philosophy.
Well guess what – our laws and our government rest on the foundation of our understanding of what is right and wrong.
You want everything to be this potter stewart – I can not define pornography – but I know it when I see it.
We can not have a functioning society on that basis.
And when I attack the left and postmodernism – THAT is precisely what I am attacking.
The complete and total nonsense – that what is right and wrong can be determined for all of us collectively by the emotional response of whoever of us has power individually
If you expect humans COLLECTIVELY – to follow a common set of laws – they must know what is expected of them BEFORE they make choices that are inside or outside.
Further you are required to articulate WHY X is a crime, but Y is not.
Every bit of this is the stuff you openly say – you have no interest in.
Every bit of this is the stuff that the modern left completely rejects.
The consequences of rejecting that are essentially totalitarian anarchy.
No one knows the rules, and the powerful get to F over whoever they please.
And we have seen that historically – in the USSR, in China – in Cambodia, in Nazi Germany.
Each of which shares the same underlying foundation as the modern left is pushing.
Further – these regimes often with the trappings of democracy, have been by far the most brutal, and murderous in human history.
various other forms of authoritarian government have NEVER reached the degree of malovolence of the modern regimes with foundations resting on “the struggle” on emotional conflict rather than a strong underlying foundational philosophy that dictates our laws.
You may not like these types of conversations – but the difference between rapidly improving standards of living and blood in the streets, rests in those debates.
This is a really interesting and worthwhile column by Andrew McCarthy, once a never-Trumper, who has been turned into a Trump defender (I don’t think that he “likes” the president, but he recognizes that Trump has been unfairly and unreasonably attacked).
Anyway, I’d be curious to see if we could all at least agree with McCarthy on this:
” But as I detailed earlier this week, we have one candidate for the presidency — a once-serious legal scholar and practitioner — who publicly and straight-faced says Trump’s call with Zelensky could rate the death penalty. As we saw in the late 1990s, when Bill Clinton got to experience the independent-counsel statute up close and personal, maybe it takes Democrats being hoisted on their own petard before we finally say: This has to stop.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/how-about-a-bipartisan-treaty-against-the-criminalization-of-elections/
**Extra credit for naming the candidate that called Trump a traitor for speaking to Zelensky about the Bidens’ alleged corruption. (hint: not a Democrat)
Mccarthy (and many of the rest of us) have slowly been coming to understand that there really is a conspiracy to “get Trump”
And that they will use the power of government to do so,
and that they will make up the rules as they go along.
This was in this mornings paper. Ran nationally, so you may have seen it already. Trump lovers will say this proves nothing there. Trump haters will say Thiessen is a right wing wing nut and doesnt prove anything.
After reading another article about Democrats elected in G.O.P. districts, ie OK City, upstate MN, and their views of this “investigation”, I dont think he is a wing nut.
Anyway, if interested, take a look.
https://www.journalnow.com/opinion/columnists/marc-a-thiessen-democrats-got-ahead-of-the-evidence/article_a3073ccd-2d36-5034-b259-1167ec7b74aa.html
Ha, Ron, we “simul-posted” Also, your article is referenced in the article that I posted. Both are pretty unbiased and factual/reasonable, I think….
Pretty good,
BUT Theisen debates motives.
Your, my, Jays judgement of Trump’s motives is a basis for our votes.
A crime is based on acts. the actual morality of conduct is based on the ACT not the motive.
Theisen notes that Trump did not do what was leaked.
But what if he did ?
What if he did exactly what Biden did and said – No money for you unless you investigate Biden ?
If true – that would be deeply disturbing.
But – if there was a foundation for the investigation – then the act is legitimate – regardless of the motive.
The Biden instance is slightly different – because it is personal.
The threat to Ukraine was legitimate – if there was a basis for the claim Shokin was corrupt.
But Biden could not be involved because of the PERSONAL conflict.
Also Theisen is partly incorrect – Biden did not come up at the end, though he correctly notes that the discussion of the 2016 election interference comes first.
Biden came up in the middle – a single sentence, in a list of things Trump thought should be investigated.
Regardless, it is clear that Biden was not the focus.
Two east coast Republicans now recommending the Trump impeachment inquiry proceed -Vermont’s Phil Scott. and Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker.
Good lets get on with it and finish it up before Christmas. Begin impeachment in January if anything there. Would you bet that happens?
Absofrigginlutely! The Democrats need to stand before the American public and propose overturning the 2016 election because of a phone call ! All exculpatory evidence is available to the President’s side, and all of the incriminating evidence available to the Democrats.
Stop insinuating crimes, start proving them in a public vote to impeach and then a public trial, where the President gets to fight back.
NO!!
If the media, democrats and the left want to drag this out all the way to nov. 2020 – they should go for it.
Step up to the plate – lets have the eyes of the nation focused on you.
I want the spotlight on all of this.
My understanding is Pelosi is now trying to constrain the pseudo impeachment to the transcript.
NO!!!
Democrats, the media and the left should chase after whatever snipes they want.
I am absolutely for giving the democrats the most possible rope to hang themselves with.
And if they are actually able to catch Trump – fine. That is how it goes.
But we are way past rational.
Derschowitz and many others have warned democracts this is dangerous folly.
No one can say they have not been warned.
If democrats want to play a cosmic game of chicken with Trump – go for it.
Regardless, I do not think that the democratic party is going to be able to end its subservience to its extreme left short of near anhilation.
So go ahead.
So ?
Have I ever said that democrats are not free to try and impeach Trump ?
Go for it.
If the left and the democratic party wants to implode – atleast that gets us past this idiocy faster.
Because it is pretty clear that the media, the left, democrats and you are in an incredibly self destructive mood.
Republicans in Wisconsin are hoping Democrats keep all of this up – they are saying that it will assure that they are about to deliver 30-40,000 more votes for Trump
Maybe, I am wrong – maybe this is a political winner for the left – go ahead.
I am increasingly tired of trying to save you from your own stupidity.
Make your own mistakes. Place your own bets.
If I am wrong and you are right – you get to reap the rewards.
I just want to put this out for clarification:
I believe that in the above thread, Ron, Dave and I are all agreeing with Jay on the idea that the Democrats should stop pussyfooting around, and take an impeachment vote.
Democrats are currently trying to have it both ways~ “impeachment hearings”, without a formal House vote.
If Democrats have the goods, move forward according to the Constitution. Impeach. Mitch McConnell has said that he will make sure that the Senate has a trial (Democrats have suggested that he would stonewall). All the dirt on both sides will come out, under oath, and then the Senate will vote.
If the Democrats prevail, Mike Pence will become the president. If Trump is aquitted, the Dems will have to defeat him in the 2020 election.
Go for it.
The democratic strategy is not, and never has been to actually impeach Trump.
It is to talk about impeachment as much as possible, it is to investigate Trump as much as can be done – without forcing moderate democrats to have to stand up and be counted.
The actual impeachment process if followed would be
1). Vote to convene an impeachment inquiry. That Still has not been done. All we have is Pelosi and Nadler and Schiff saying they are engaged in an impeachment inquiry.
This is actually a big deal. The house has limited investigative and no judicial powers – EXCEPT for impeachment. Impeachment is a legitimate power of the house. It is NOT a power of the speaker or the head of the Judiciary and intelligence comittees.
Naddler and Schiff may not take on the extra legislative powers conveyed by the constitution in impeachment WITHOUT, the house voting to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.
This might sound small – but judicial processes require due process – the house follows quasi judicial rules normally – but because it has no real law enforcement powers there are very limited civil rights for those appearing before the house. That changes in impeachment.
Next – Trump fully cooperated with Mueller – but he has absolutely stonewalled the house.
Trump could have fought Mueller tooth and nail in the courts – as Clinton did. He would have won some and lost some. Conversely trump is likely to win most if not all of his efforts to block the house. This is the difference between an actual investigation with judicial powers and the house acting on legislative or oversight powers.
When the house votes to start an impeachment inquiry – the courts are going to rule more frequently in its favor regarding executive privilege as well as likely giving it more access to Muellers material. But not until.
2). Conduct a real impeachment investigation – form a committee specifically to investigate and have that committee actually follow the judicial procedures rather than normal house rules.
3). That committee must vote out specific articles of impeachment based on its investigation.
4). The house must vote on those articles of impeachment.
5). The house must assemble a team to prosecute its case before the Senate. The Senate re-assembles as a jury of 100 with the chief justice of the supreme court acting as judge and the president has the same opportunity to present a defense.
I do not beleive that we will see Step #1 occur – much less any of the rest.
For something completely different – Bill Maher.
Amazing…
We both liked that Maher monologue…
You’re almost human when you avoid politics…
Keep that up, bro…
The Maher monologue is very political.
Further you can substitute a number of issues for race and not change the monolog.
I have no doubt that we would get along in the real world or outside of politics.
I harp constantly on the tendency of you and the left to call others LIARS without backing it up. though some of that has been going on for decades, the internet is like steriods for that kind of language.
When you do not have to look a person in the eye – that makes it much easier to call them a liar or other things without thinking first.
This is the kind of crap Trump retweets on his Twitter account.
And Shit-Head Trump Sycophants just shrug it off.
MAAA – Make America America Again – impeach & extirpate the asswipe….
The Media Doing Its Job-1
The Media Doing Its Job-2
While I am most definitely NOT a Clinton fan – I have defended Clinton’s use of Perkin’s Coi and Steele to “get Dirt” on Trump.
Are you saying that I was wrong ? That Clinton or Perkin’s Coi committed a crime ?
Are you claiming that only the media is allowed to investigate politicians or past political malfeasance ?
Let me be really blunt here.
There is an excellent, and surprisingly GROWING case of extortion by Joe Biden as Vice President
FACTS:
Biden has NOW admitted that he was aware that his son was working for Burisma at the time the NYT story came out – about 6 months BEFORE his threat against the Ukrainians.
Biden has separately admitted he new that Shokin was investigating his son.
Hunter Biden was scheduled to be interviewed by Shokin a week after he was fired.
The Hunter Biden investigation continued for atleast 2 years and may have been going to the present.
Shokin has TESTIFIED that he was told by the Ukrainian Government that he was fired because he was investigating Hunter Biden.
Biden’s attorney’s and the new Ukrainian PG met about a week after Shikon was fired.
Documents from BOTH Biden’s attorney’s and the Ukrainian PG confirm that they APPOLOGIZED for any role they had in Shokin’s firing and that any allegations of corruption against Shokin were false.
ALL of this is now DOCUMENTED.
We are beyond reasonable doubt. If a criminal case was brought against Biden – he would have the opportunity to defend himself, but his prospects would be very poor.
He has publicly confessed to extorting the Ukrainians.
He has publicly confessed that he knew his son was being investigated by the person he demanded fired.
He has publicly lied about these and several other aspects of this.
Increasingly the only thing I can see here is that the media and the left and you beleive it is unacceptable to investigate the past misconduct of anyone who is a democrat – no matter how strong the case, and always acceptable to investigate Trump – no matter how weak the case.
Ukraine is now so terrified at being in the center of this – they are going completely silent.
Which was likely the goal in the first place – to prevent any investigation of not only Biden’s misconduct, but the Ukrainian participation in the 2016 effort to frame Trump.
The Media Doing Its Job-3
Thank you for the clip – that makes it possible to accurately address the facts.
And they are quite simple TAPPER IS LYING.
It has been confirmed MULTIPLE ways that Hunter Biden was ACTIVELY under investigation by Shokin AT the time he was fired – AND that Joe Biden KNEW it.
There were 3 separate investigations of Burisma and Hunter.
One was in the UK. That one, and only that one was dissmissed in 2015.
It was dissmissed on procedural grounds – the Ukrainians failed to meet UK procedural deadlines.
There was absolutley no conclusion of any kind regarding the conduct of Biden or Burisima.
The other two cases continued in the Ukraine. They continued AFTER Shokin was fired – and they resulted in plea deals and substantial fines paid by Burisima – not some finding of innocence.
Here we are debating this – you are using assorting talking heads – who have all been discredited in their coverage of Trump/Russia.
But we have available actual facts.
We know what NYT and Wapo reported in 2015 – we do not know that what they reported was true – atleast not from the articles. But we do know that Biden was or should have been aware of it. And infact he has confirmed that.
We have Shokin’s sworn deposition that he was fired for investigating Hunter Biden – see 6-9 of the link below.
There are many more documents and facts. But the above alone is enough to establish that:
Jordan is correct.
Tapper is “lying”.
The media is engaging in incredible gymnastics to hide the fact that the case against Biden is beyond credible. It is damning.
BTW While John Solomon – who has been working on the Biden case for YEARS, and dumped more than 500 documents demonstrating that pretty much EVERY SINGLE THING being reported by most of the media is FALSE.
He says he is far from done – he has susbtantial FOIA requests that were turned down by the State Department for information germaine to the Hunter Biden/Ukraine mess.
He has requested dozens of documents – that he can establish exist, and he is now in court seeking those documents.
That will take time, but this only gets worse for Biden.
But Biden is only part of the story – and that is the main body of the Transcript and the main body of the Whistleblower complaint.
The Biden story is just one face of the use/abuse of the Ukrainian government from 2014 through the election for an assortment of improper purposes – ranging from obstructing justice to interfering in the 2016 election.
Here is a 2017 Politico story on interferance in the 2016 election by Ukraine at the behest of those in the US Government.
Proof of the allegations in the story is an independent task – though there are lots of facts provided to support the allegations.
What is true regardless is that “it has not been debunked” that Clinton and the Obama administration actively worked with the Ukrainians in 2015 and 2016 to interfere with the 2016 election.
Not only is it “not debunked” – but it has been “leaked” that there is atleast on active DOD investigation into Ukrainian 2016 election interferance and those behind it.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
Even the language is tortured. – reasonable suspicion is not a “debunked theory”.
There is legitimate suspicion of Joe Biden’s actions.
No one has ever debunked that.
Hunter and Joe are both entitled to the presumption of innocence.
They are not however immune from investigation.
Your Tapper Tweet references no facts – not whatever Tapper is complaining about that Jordan said, not whatever “facts” Tapper claims to have.
All of he actual facts I am aware of do not implicate Trump,
but do implicate Biden.
Please frame this entire claim in any way that is not “No one can investigate the past misconduct of democrats”
With respect to whatever Tapper MIGHT think are facts
There is nothing in the whistleblower complaint and nothing in the Trump transcript that are at odds with each other.
There are lots of good questions regarding how a complaint that has no actual substance and that would have been rejected a month ago, even came into being.
But those are mostly only relevant because this nothing burger has somehow gotten the left apoplectic.
BTW your “tweet” is hearsay – actually triple hearsay.
WE are deprived completely of actual facts.
It is nothing more than Vanderpool cheerleading Tapper and dissing Jordan – without any substance to know anything about the truth.
Washington Post:
“Attorney General William P. Barr is planning a holiday treat for his boss.
Last month, Barr booked President Trump’s D.C. hotel for a 200-person holiday party in December that is likely to deliver Trump’s business more than $30,000 in revenue.
Barr signed a contract, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, for a “Family Holiday Party” in the hotel’s Presidential Ballroom Dec. 8. The party will feature a buffet and a four-hour open bar for about 200 people.
Barr is paying for the event himself and chose the venue only after other hotels, including the Willard and the Mayflower, were booked, according to a Justice Department official. The official said the purpose of Barr’s party wasn’t to curry favor with the president.”
Ha Ha. A quick google search shows DC has more than 50 Event Facilities capable of hosting 200 person parties.
So you think you are allowed to decide where other people get to hold their private parties ?
Please do not ever accuse anyone of being a Nazi again – look in the mirror.
So Barr is having 200 people to a celebration – lets assume that is at $200/plate – Barr’s not cheap right ? So that is $40,000. that is less than Hunter received from Burisma in one month. It is less than 10% of what Russia payed Bill clinton.
typical business profits on 40K would be about 2K.
Even if Barr was actually playing favorites with Trump – this is a very small an entirely private transaction.
There was 1.5B involved in the Biden China deal.
Dear dumbass – do you think the remainder of income before ‘profits’ from Barr’s party vanishes into nothingness? 90% of it went into Trump’s pockets for overhead – rents, salaries, insurance, etc.
And it’s good to see you continuing to play your hypocrisy whataboutism game.
Once again, you are worthy of another GFY award… soon you’ll be up for the AOA award: Agent Of Assholism … if what Biden & his son are alleged to have done is so egregious, and was openly discussed in the media at the time, why didn’t ONE Republican speak out about it then?
At some point in the past you claimed to have business experience – clearly you do not.
Profits are the money the business makes.
Revenue – expenses = profits, that is from the first day of any basic business or accounting course.
Expenses in this case are the cost of the building the cost of the electric and heat, the cost of the employees, the cost of the tables, the cost of the food.
Some of those – like the cost of the building are “overhead” – they are huge costs distributed over many many many events.
Some like the cost of food and the servers are specific to the event.
Regardless on AVERAGE Profits are 3-9% of Revenue – ON A YEARLY BASIS.
On a per event basis – they are likely to be about 1-2% or less.
Walmart as an example makes less than 1.5% average on a sale – but because they move their entire inventory every 90 days – they are able to leverage the same investment 4 times a year – for about 5% total ROI.
Further the bigger the business the lower the profit margin, there are many reasons, but top among them is competititon.
You said Barr had 200 other venues to choose from.
Maybe, just maybe as you say Barr picked a Trump venue to kiss ass – I doubt it, because I doubt that if the medias was not puting everything within 10,000 miles of trump under a microscope – that Trump would even know Barr was using his facility.
He certainly would not notice it in his wallet.
Further as noted before – Since running for President Trump has LOST 1.5B.
If that is your idea of profiting from the presidency – thank god you are no longer in business.
Lets be clear – whatever Barr is paying for his shindig – nearly all of that is going to taxes, the wages of Trump staff, heat, light power, the cost of the food, and the debt service costs.
Everything that Burisma paid Hunter goes into Hunters pocket.
If Hunter had to fly to the Ukraine for a board meeting – Burisma picked up the airfare and hotel rooms.
The 50-160K/month was just his directors fee.
I would further note that if the press paid half the attention to Biden or Democrats as they do to Trump’s money – we would know what tooth brushes Hunter bought.
Joe Biden had a son hunter,
son hunter, son hunter
Joe Biden had a son hunter
Who had a fondness for white powder.
And everywhere that Joe Biden went,
Joe Biden went, Joe Biden went,
Everywhere that Joe Biden went
Hunter was sure to go.
He followed him to Ukraine one day,
Ukriane one day, Ukraine one day,
He followed her to Ukraine one day
Which was against the rules.
“Why does the Hunter love Joe Biden so?
Love Joe Biden so? Love Joe Biden so?
Why does Hunter love Joe Biden so?”
The eager children cried.
“Why, Hunter has 1.5Billion reasons,
1.5 Billion reasons, 1.5 Billion reasons,
Why, Hunter has 1.5 Billion reasons”
The teacher did reply.
Is there anyway we can follow an unwritten “Rick: rule and begin using the list of issues he has put to the right side of his page for comments that have nothing to do with the article Rick has written. We have over 1000 comments on this page, it takes way to long to load this stuff, e-mail is loaded with multiple comments responding to one other comment and making a comment results in long delays to get it posted due to computer and systems issues.
Using the list of issues would allow those that do not want to be part of a discussion to avoid e-mail notifications by not clicking the follow link or to opt out when it is too hard to follow any longer.
Finally, can we table to Trump impeachment debate. We all know were everyone stands and no ones’ position is going to change. Priscilla and I want the impeachment proceeding to move on with haste and a decision made.before Christmas. Jay wants to hang Trump now and remove him from office one way or they other, sharing anyones tweets that support his position. Dave defends Trump to the end and provides multitudes of facts supporting his positions resulting in e-mails way to long to read. Roby got sick of this crap and left as well as so many others when you look back on prior years of comments. That is why Rick created the wild card issue since readers were asking for a place so they could avoid their e-mail from being overloaded with comments.
Thanks
“Dave defend’s Trump to the end”
Very little of what I have said is a “defense of Trump”
I have called for Dem’s to move forward with impeachment – probably before anyone else here. I have uniquely said that the house can impeach for any reason they want – or none at all. Whatever “High Crimes and misdemeanors” means – there is no appealing the houses own interpretation – except the voters in an election.
I would greatly prefer they did so following the actual process.
And whatever they choose to do – I have every intention of pointing out when they fail to follow process – because that matters.
What constitutes an impeachable offense is NOT defined in a fashion that has a real constraint. Trump can not appeal articles of impeachment to the supreme court and claim they do not contain anything that is a “high crime or misdemeanor”.
The senate will get to determine whether they are persauded on their own – though I doubt this will get to the senate.
No matter what is being said to the press – no one – especially democrats, wants to have to vote on any of this.
Lots has been said of the 2018 election – one thing that is solidly established is that the Kavanagaugh hearing BACKFIRED, It is likely that Democrats did worse in the Senate than they would have if those hearings has not occured. Further they came very close to disaster.
Anyway, I am entirely infavor of democrats pushing this to the limits. if that is what they want.
I am entirely in favor the the media going nuts over this.
And my goal is not to “defend Trump”.
It is to point out all the lies and falsehoods.
Jay just made a big splash over this Tapper – Jordan sparring match.
The FACTS are simple – Jordan is correct, and Tapper is not merely lying, he is trying to bury facts he does not want to hear.
The cases Shokin started against Burisma continued until atleast 12/2017 and resulted in substantial fines against Burisima.
Are there any things that we can agree on regarding the current “mess” ?
It appears that there is unanimity that the democrats are free to proceed with impeachment if they wish – am I correct ?
That is not to say that it is a good idea, or will not bite them in the ass, only that it is within their power to do.
What about agreement that if they choose to go forward the whole house should vote to begin an impeachment inquiry ?
To be clear – I do not think they are going to do that, and that failing to do so will undermine the legitimacy of their action – but I have no problem with democrats doing that to themselves.
What about some other areas ?
Can we agree that whatever the standards of conduct are – they are the same for democrats and Republicans ?
That if President Trump may not do X – then President Obama could not do X either ?
And that if President Obama could legitimately do X – president Trump could also ?
Can we agree that issues like this should be decided by the facts – not what third parties say ?
Is there anyone who is still buying the nonsense that the Biden/Hunter Biden thing was “settled” before VP Biden threatened the Ukraine ?
Is there anyone who does not beleive that Biden said what there are multple recordings of him saying ?
Is there anyone who does not beleive there was a clear threat and a clear quid pro quo in Biden’s actions ?
Is there anyone arguing that there is an explicit threat and quid pro quo in Trump’s remarks ?
Is there anyone arguing that the substance of the whistleblower compaint and the Trump transcript significantly depart from each other – beyond “spin” ?
Is there anything in the above that we can try to reach an agreement on ?
There is an enormous amount of false information in the media – just generally.
Can we also agree that the only value of anyone’s “assertions” in the media are confirmation that those assertions were made – not that they are true ?
ie is is possible to agree that an assertion that NYT reported X in the media – likely means NYT reported X – not that X is true ?
Going a big further – is there anyone who would disagree that VP Biden from the time of the NYT story on Hunter Biden being investigated, had an ethical obligation (atleast) to remove himself entirely from anything involving the Ukrainian prosecutors office, and that he failed to do so ?
Is it possible to agree that government is actually free to investigate the political opposition,
BUT ONLY when there is atleast reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and that they can only employ active measures – such as spies, wiretaps, searches, subpeona’s when there is probable cause ?
“In yet another stunning display of the very real deep state war being waged against Donald Trump, CNN talking head and former CIA agent Philip Mudd has openly threatened the president with murder.
“Let me give you one bottom line – as a former government official, the government’s gonna kill this guy,” Mudd stunningly revealed.
“He defends Vladimir Putin, there are State Department and CIA officers coming home and at Langley and in Foggy Bottom CIA are saying, this is how you defend us?” Mudd added.”
Tapper eventually got mudd to clarify that he was speaking “metaphorically”
But that is still an open administration that CIA officiers like Mudd are prepared to “kill this guy” – metaphorically – i.e. what we are seeing now.
In recent congressional hearings Rep. Jayapal and former ICE directory Homan went Toe 2 Toe.
One of the things I recall from the exchange was that Homan explicityly confronted Jayapal for lying. He subsequently noted – that as a witness he is under oath Everything he says must be the truth – but congressmen speak in hearings and have no obligation to be truthful.
Homan is pretty famous for defending CBP and ICE agents against defamation by Congress.
One of the things he noted was that everything Trump is doing today regarding illegal immigration that is puportedly heinous was done by Obama.
That in fact everything that Trump has done that “defies congress” was also done by Obama – in defiance of congress.
That while Obama was president – DHS reprogrammed money all the time to address changing priorities – like the need for more beds for detainees.
My major point is not about Homan or ICE, it is that ALL of the past 3 years of hysteria – is manufactured.
Trump has been more successful than Obama, but in most consequential behavioral ways – he is not different.
We can debate whether Biden broke the law.
There is zero debate that Biden extorted a foreign power.
Working together with Russia – even AFTER they invaded the Ukraine, was comonplace int he Obama administration.
We fought here about the Uranium One deal – again whether you think it was criminal or not – it was still a favorable deal with Russia. Trump is not allowed to smile at Putin without the press and the left going appoplectic
We can debate whether the parade of Russian oligarchs patronizing Clinton was legal – but it absolutely was real.
Clinton and democrats did not become alergic to Russia until AFTER the election.
This is fiction – but I watch Designated Survivor and Madam Secretary.
Hardly a show goes by in which the protagonist – to the cheers of views does not Threaten a foreign country or political rival.
My point is that NOTHING about Trump’s conduct actually offends those in the left or the press – except that he is not a democrat.
It is not the conduct you are ranting about that you hate – it is the person.
I found it interesting – innumerable right wing sites are posting the same Tapper/Jordan confrontation and portraying it as Jordan “crushing” tapper.
I did not see anyone “crush” anyone. Jordan was very good on some issues, but was unprepared to confront Tapper on several of his false claims that there was nothing there regarding the Bidens or that Biden had been cleared or that the investigation was dormant when Biden had shokin fired, or that Shokin was corrupt. Or that the effort to “get Shokin” did not originate with the US.
Tapper was provably wrong about all of these.
Jordan did not discredit everything Tapper said, but he effectively discredited alot of it.
I would further note that Tapper – and way too many democrats are completely blind to the “big picture”.
The standard that must be met to investigate Biden is NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The mere fact that Hunter Biden got work and profited heavily everywhere his father went is sufficient
“To defeat him at the polls would do history a disservice, would do our nation a disservice,” Rep. Green said. “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach the president, he will get re-elected.”
“On all these issues, but particularly (cutting back european) missile defense, this can be solved,” Obama said. “But it’s important for Putin to give me space . . . This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
Pres. Obama to Russian Medvedev
Obama DID reduce the US commitment to European missile defenses.
Obama’s presidency STARTED with Putin invading Georgia. Subsequently he invaded the Ukraine. Incontrovertibly our allies got screwed by Russia while Pres. Obama turned a blind eye.
Without enormous hypocracy you can not have even been Silent on everything related to Russia and the Ukraine from 2009-2016 while frothing about Trump.
You can not think that Trump’s remarks to Zelensky are impeachable unless you also think Obama’s remarks to Medvedev were also.
You can not claim Trump has Kowtowed to Russia – without recognizing that Obama actually did.
What is blatantly obvious of those ranting here and in the press over Trump – is that every single thing they are frothing over, they would be turning a blind eye to if Hillary or any other democrat was doing it as president.
This is what the asshole just tweeted:
“His lies were made in perhaps the most blatant and sinister manner ever seen in the great Chamber. He wrote down and read terrible things, then said it was from the mouth of the President of the United States. I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason…..”
A president of the United States accusing a leading opposition member of Congress of treason? Asking for him to be questioned at the highest level?
Imagine someone told you this was happening in another country. Banana Republic Strongman Dictator would be your first guess. If it happened in another Western Democracy you’d mourn the demise of representative government.
Those who refuse to demand the removal from office of this corrupt, irrational, dangerous fool are complicit in his wrongdoing…
Absolutely EVERYONE- Trump, Schiff, You, should STOP the Treason accusations.
They are insane idiocy. Our founders were very familiar with the broad use of charges of Treason as a weapon and therefore the ONLY crime defined in the constitution is Treason
“Article III Section 3
1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Trump is not guilty of Treason, Biden is not guilty of Treason, Flynn is not guilty of Treason, Clinton is not guilty of Treason, Obama, Schiff,
I am not aware of anyone who has anything even remotely close to an allegation that would actually be Treason.
But so long as we are bandying stupid Treason allegations arround like candy.
Schiff accused Trump and his family of being Treasonous and unpatriotic two years ago.
So he asked for this.
I would be happier if Trump would give idiots like Schiff LESS of what they ask for and deserve.
Schiff BTW absolutley should be “censured” by the house for his idiotic “parody” of the Trump Zelensky phone call.
I think the claim it was a joke or parody is implausible. But that is irrelevant.
Schiff is not funny and he should give up his aspirations to a comedy career.
Next he was doing so as chair of the house intelligence committee – from which he should probably be removed for this.
Democrats will not have any problem coming up with another histrionic congressmen to chair the committee who can spew venom in what is not supposed to be a partisan process.
But democrats are neither going to remove or censure Schiff and as a consequence they will have no credibility.
You do realize that Schiff chairing any proceedings against Trump IS exactly what you are accusing Trump of – it is using the power of your office to target a political enemy.
If Trump’s call to Zelensky was a crime – Schiff is a serial offender.
“A chair of the United States Congress House Intel committee accusing the leading opposition party member and president of treason? Asking for him to be questioned at the highest level?
Imagine someone told you this was happening in another country. Banana Republic Strongman Dictator would be your first guess. If it happened in another Western Democracy you’d mourn the demise of elected government.
Those who refuse to demand the removal from office of this corrupt, irrational, dangerous fool are complicit in his wrongdoing…”
Adam Schiff accused Trump (and his family) of Treason and a lack of patriotism – in early 2017.
Absolutely we are looking alot like a Banana republic.
But it is those like Schiff who got us there.
I will agree to impeach Trump and remove him in a second – if you will agree to get rid of EVERYONE in congress who has lobbed Treason as a grenade,
EVERYONE who has made a false accusation about someone else.
EVERYONE who has lied bald faced to the public.
Absolutely – drain the swamp!!!!
But Guess what Jay – The swamp creatures were all there BEFORE Trump arrived.
Trump did not start this histrionic shreaking, and ranting that everything that was “normal” for the past 10 years, 20 years, 50 years was suddenly treasonous.
If you beleive that Trump’s conversation with Zelensky was a crime or impeachable – then so was Obama’s with Medvedev, and so was Obama’s investigation of Trump.
It is that simple. There is no “it is only wrong when Trump does it” law.
Frankly compared to the Medvedev remarks Trump’s were tame.
Compared to starting an investigation of the Trump campaign – asking the Ukraine to look into allegations of corruption where probable cause is present is innocous.
We do not have “the rule of law” unless whatever you think the law is – it applies to all of us.
It would also be nice if the press – the purportedly venerable NYT or WaPo were more rational, trustworthy and credible than Alex Jones. BUT THEY ARE NOT!!!
I am not a big fan of Joe DiGenova or Victoria Toensig, or Sean Hannity.
But over the past year – these “conspiracy theorists” have been RIGHT far more than the rest of the media.
It is really really sad when the Alex Jones – or Hannity types are more credible than the NYT.
“Those who refuse to demand the removal from office of this corrupt, irrational, dangerous fool are complicit in his wrongdoing…”
No, Jay – that is completely false.
Each of us gets to decide for ourselves whether the conduct of others offends us and the extent to which it does.
And this is true on issue after issue – and you do not grasp that.
Absolutely everything that YOU think is important – YOU demand that everyone else treat as important as you do. And you are prepared to use force to accomplish it.
Again part of why you are on the “left” is because if people disagree with you or merely do not share the same ranking of importance of various issues, you are rushing off to accuse them of complicity.
My Daughter came from an orphanage in China – conditions were really really bad.
Go watch “One Child nation” – that is mostly what they are today, two decades ago they were much worse.
I can not see a “save the children” commerical without having my heart torn out.
Do I care about immigrants from Guatemala – sure. but if they stay in the “shithole” countries they are in – they will have it alot better than my daughter did.
Today – she won the lottery – she is a US citizen. But 23 years ago – she was lucky to live long enough for my wife and I to adopt her.
Whatever issue you care about – I care about that issue more. Much More.
Homelessness – bad, but not as tragic as what happened to hundreds of millions like my daughter. Drug addiction, loss of healthcare, the cost of college, …. all bad – but not close.
I have not accused you of being complict with what happened to my daughter and millions like her because you were silent, or ignorant of the problem.
As to Trump – I am not happy with any association between some of the things he has said.
Are you happy to be associated with the remarks of Schiff, Warner, Durbin, Pelosi, Clinton ?
But if you wish to pretend that I 100% support him and therefore should share int he credit/blame for the economy has has brought about and many of his other accomplishments – I will be happy pretend that somehow my quasi support of some of what Trump has done makes me complicit in his successes.
Fork you…
If you watch The Good Place you’ll get it….
“frak you ” and if you watch battlestar galactica you will get it.
Seriously ?
Can you do anything besides lob insults ?
And here we have a US Senator meeting with Zelensky to “‘Reminded’ Ukrainian President That Opening Investigation Into Biden Would Be ‘Disastrous For Long-Term US-Ukraine Relations’; Got That?”
I think that is a clear quid pro quo, and it is also a logan act violation, and it is outside of the domain of the Senate, and it is interferance in an election, and ….
Do we have to keep playing this nonsense ?
https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/09/24/691385/
What should be absolutely clear – that you are completely oblivious to,
Is that since the start of the Obama administration, Democrats have been CONTINUOUSLY blackmailing the Ukraininans into doing their bidding and then covering it up.
Whatever corruption there is in Ukraine – almost the entire relationship between Ukraine and the US has been corrupt.
You cited Lutesenko – without providing a quote.
It is entirely possible he said what you claim.
Right now no one should be trusting anything the Ukrainians are saying – not if it favors Trump or harms democrats not if it favors democrats.
WE – The US government – even to a small extent Trump, but mostly democrats, have been yanking the Ukraine arround like a yoyo.
They have been threatened by Biden, and by multiple US Senators – in person and by letter.
Maybe they have been pressured by Trump – there is no compelling evidence of that,
though there is definitely evidence that Trump wants them to be investigating the mess that was Ukraines interactions with the US regarding the 2016 election. and LOTS of democrats do not.
I do not think it is possible to beleive anything from Ukraine – and I do not blame them.
There are not very powerful – we forced them to give up their nukes when the USSR fell,
We promised to protect them from Russia – and we did not.
We have repeatedly blackmailed them.
They have a powerful hostile foreign power litterally in their backyard,
They are F’d without us, We are not reliable.
And they will do what whoever is in power at the moment wants of them.
You are a complete idiot if you do not understand that whatever Trump’s role in this, this mess with the Ukraine started long before Trump.
As noted above – The US made Ukraine give up their deterent against Russia.
The US encourage the Coup thank angered the Russians.
The US was not there when the Russians invaded.
The Ukrainians are SOL without US support – even though we are completely unreliable.
Biden blackmailed them.
Members of the US senate blackmailed them.
The US IC was involved in all of this, as was FBI/CIA.
I have no idea what the other corruption in the Ukraine might have been – but our relationship with Ukraine has been thoroughly corrupt for more than a decade.
Was Shokin actually corrupt ? Was lutesenko lying earlier this year – or is the LA Times article without quotes true ?
Doesn’t Dictatorial Dick-Head Trump know it’s a violation of law to try and reveal the identity of a whistle-blower?
That’ Crime-Misdoing is worthy of impeachment..
“We’re trying to find out about the whistleblower,” @realDonaldTrump says….
Whistle-blower’s Lawyer:
“IC WB UPDATE: The Intel Community Whistleblower is entitled to anonymity. Law and policy support this and the individual is not to be retaliated against. Doing so is a violation of federal law.”
Whistle-blower’s Lawyer:
“IC WB UPDATE: The Intel Community Whistleblower is entitled to anonymity. Law and policy support this and the individual is not to be retaliated against. Doing so is a violation of federal law.”
There is no actual whistleblower.
To be a whislteblower you must be reporting something you have actual personal knowledge of.
Further what you are reporting must be prima fascia improper.
The whistleblower laws are their to sheild REAL whistlblowers – people who report crimes or government waste – not try to influence policy disputes.
The IG should have dismissed the complaint – because there is no first hand knowledge, there is no crime or waste, everything alleged is a policy difference with the president.
And the president sets foreign policy – not the CIA, not the IC, not the congress.
Had the IG dismissed the complaint for lack of foundation we would not be inside this mess.
The whistleblower would not have to fear retaliation.
Now he should. He has started a fight with the president of the united states over foreign policy. In all cases he loses that, and he should be fired.
Gen. Flynn was fired from the Obama administration for a very similar policy difference regarding intelligence.
Flynn was even right – and Obama wrong. It does not matter, the president sets foreign policy – including that of the intelligence services.
The man is not an actual whistleblower.
He has no first hand knowledge of anything.
He is therefore not entitled to an legal protection.
While I think the Trump should leave him alone and focus on punishing the entire Intelligence community for trying to override the actual intelligence and foreign policy of the United States, I am still not going to get upset about Trump’s tweets.
Besides the press has already quasi outed this guy and it is near certain we will all be absolutely certain within a week.
I would further note that nearly all his “complaint” is a manifesto regarding differences in policy.
That is absolutely NOT entitled to protection, and can get you fired.
If you have a position that actually makes policy – you are free to voice your opinions until final decisions are made. You are NOT free to go public with dissent, nor try to sabotage polices you do not like.
Aside from the suggestion to investigate Joe Biden – Hunter is actually fair game, every single other part of Trump’s exchange is completely inside the norms of what is acceptable.
It might not be YOUR desired policy. But asking the Ukraine to investigate past corruption – even threatening to withold aide. is a policy difference not a crime.
Mentioning Joe Biden is only acceptable – if there is reasonable suspicion regarding Biden.
And there is.
Had Pres. Obama made the threat that VP Biden made – it might be offensive, but it would have been legal. President Trump pressuring, cajoling, threatening, blackmailing, witholding funds from Ukraine – none of which he actually did and all of which Biden did, in order to get an investigation into corruption is legitimate.
It might be good policy, it might be bad policy – but it is policy and the President sets US foreign policy. Arguably it is not even a conflict with congress where they have budgeted the money – because though congress controls the purse the president is nearly omipotent in foreign policy.
BIDEN ACCUSATIONS No There, There…
LA TIMES:
“KYIV, Ukraine — Ukraine’s former top law enforcement official says he repeatedly rebuffed demands by President Trump’s personal lawyer to investigate Joe Biden and his son, insisting he had seen no evidence of wrongdoing that he could pursue.
In an interview, Yuri Lutsenko said while he was Ukraine’s prosecutor general he told Rudolph W. Giuliani that he would be happy to cooperate if the FBI or other U.S. authorities began their own investigation of the former vice president and his son Hunter but insisted they had not broken any Ukrainian laws to his knowledge.”
Another Conservative Political Pundit calls for impeachment:
https://twitter.com/mattklewis/status/1178749330393616384?s=21
Matt Lewis is not a left wing nut – but calling yourself conservative does not make you one.
He has done plenty of hit jobs on conservatives other than trump in the past.
But Matt Lewis is just retweeting so lets look at the actual tweet.
“— Raised arresting a political opponent for treason”
The left – including Adam Schiff have been doing that for years.
Unlike Trump they have even tried to act on it.
“— Retweeted someone suggesting impeachment will create civil war-like fractures”
Duh!!
Everyone is worried that the current political polarization is threatening to reach civl-war like fractures.
Why exactly is it wrong for the president to agree that we are bitterly divided when it is true ?
“— Insisted he deserves to meet the whistleblower”
There is no “whistleblower”
“— Said he’s trying to “find out” about the whistleblower”
That is actually a bedrock principle within the US constitution.
Amendment VI
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
Just to be clear – impeachment is for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
When the House begins impeachment procedings it gains some prosecutorial powers, and in return it is obligated to follow constitutional requirements for due process.
The process MUST be public.
We do not conduct impeachment by “star chamber”. there are no secret witnesses.
The president must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,
He has the RIGHT to confront ALL witnesses,
He has the RIGHT to compel witnesses.
He has the RIGHT to call his own witnesses,
But then you lefties never gave a damn about civil rights.
Regardless, as you move forward with impeachment, you should remember – you are going to lose control of the narrative.
You have watched the recent series of Schiff and Nadler hearings.
You have watched how badly the Mueller, Cohen, Lowendowski, and Homan hearings went,
You have watched how badly even Barr’s questioning has gone for democrats.
This will be worse.
I do not know that will happen – but Hunter and Joe Biden could be called by Trump to testify under oath – about everything and anything related to this.
The “whistleblower” could be called by Trump to publicly testify – and REQUIRED to name every single person that he received information regarding this on.
And every single one of those could potentially be charged with a crime.
Those who heard the presidents remarks first hand – were free to file their own whistleblower complaints – they were NOT free to leak the information they had – not even to a CIA agent.
The left makes a big deal of the Whitehouse “locking down” Trump transcripts.
Guess what restricting access means that anyone who shared information outside the circle specifically authorized to access that information – committed a crime.
Further this “whistleblower” could be asked under oath about prior leaks of presidential communications with foreign leaders.
It is quite reasonable to suspect that he is the source of the leaks that preceded the “lock down”.
In fact there are infinite numbers of things that the democrats witnesses can be asked – both in depositions and in public testimony.
Everything that has occurred thus far regarding Trump has been purely investigative.
Technically that means it is not supposed to ever be made public – unless a determination is made to prosecute.
The reason for this is right in the 6th amendment – an investigation is a procedure in which the target has limited rights, but once this goes from investigative to adjudicative – the target gets full constituional rights.
This is why investigations are confidential and prosecutions are not.
Again this despicable dunce ignores issues vital to the nation but instead concentrates on mitigating his deteriorated personal reputation.
NEW YORK TIMES, just now:
“WASHINGTON — President Trump pushed the Australian prime minister during a recent telephone call to help Attorney General William P. Barr gather information for a Justice Department inquiry that Mr. Trump hopes will discredit the Mueller investigation, according to two American officials with knowledge of the call.
The White House restricted access to the call’s transcript to a small group of the president’s aides, one of the officials said, an unusual decision that is similar to the handling of a July call with the Ukrainian president that is at the heart of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into Mr. Trump. Like that call, the discussion with Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia shows the extent to which Mr. Trump sees the attorney general as a critical partner in his goal to show that the Mueller investigation had corrupt and partisan origins, and the extent that Mr. Trump sees the Justice Department inquiry as a potential way to gain leverage over America’s closest allies.
And like the call with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, the discussion with Mr. Morrison shows the president using high-level diplomacy to advance his personal political interests.
And what exactly is wrong with that ?
Lets be clear the ONLY potentially problematic issue in the Zelensky call were the references to Biden.
Trump is ABSOLUTELTY free to ask any foreign leader in existance to help the DOJ to investigate pretty much anything that does not involve CURRENT political opponents.
There is an awful lot about the Mueller investigation we do not know.
With respect to Austrailia – there is alot regarding the conduct of Ambassador Downer that is unknown or questionable.
We know he had a meetting with Papadoulis. We know very little about how that happened.
We do not know about Downer’s contacts with Mifsud – though I beleive there is evidence that Mifsud put papadoulis and downer together.
Does Downer know Mifsud ? We know Downer raised funds for Clinton.
We do not know what other prior contacts he had with the clinton campaign, or with DOJ/FBI before talking to Papadoulis.
Downer subsequently reported his meeting with Papadoulis – not to the austrialian state department. Not to Austrailian law enforcement or intelligence, – not to US law enforcement or intelligence, not to the US state department – but to private parties who brought it to the state department – not FBI, DOJ. Nor did anything related to Papadoulis, Mifsud or the alleged russian interference int he election go through “5 eyes”
In fact almost the only information we have on russian interferance in the US election – comes through the clinton campaign.
The so called US IC report is almost entirely driven by the Steele Dossier which was provided to them by Brennan and vouched fro by Brennan.
For myriads of reasons this mess should not be called “the mueller investigation”.
First its corrupt origins long precede Mueller.
BTW locking in Downer and Austrialias role is critical – because we have to establish the time line precisely.
Downer’s meeting with Papadoulis has been REPEATEDLY alleged as the foundation for the investigation. It is the event that purportedly creates probable cause for the investigation.
It is therefore absolutely critical to establish exactly what Downer’s involvment was and exactly when it took place. There is alot we know – but not everything.
We have an ever growing body of evidence that the actual investigation predates the Downer/Papadoulis meeting.
That means the investigation started BEFORE there was any reasonable suspicion – before there was a Steele Dossier.
There is a huge difference between starting the investigation based on the Downer Papadoulis meeting and starting it before that meeting.
There is a growing body of evidence the investigation started in 2015 and that Trump was only one of the targets, and that Obama was involved in its initiation.
ALL of those need to be determined.
So Yes, there is plenty of legitimate basis for investigation.
What exactly is it that you are afraid of ?
Further – rather than undermining it you are MAKING the case for securing presidential transcripts.
Investigations are supposed to be secret. It is prosecutions that are supposed to be public.
I know that given the past couple of years it is hard to grasp that as the norm.
But we are mostly NOT getting leaks from Durham and Hunter.
Which is as it should be.
But My GUESS is that those investigations are actually what is driving the whistleblower complaint.
The press may not know what Hunter and Durham are doing. – but the people being questioned know they are being questioned, and the IC community is near certain talking among themselves and they know THEY are the target of the investigation.
All of this leaking and changing the rules and faux whistleblower complaints are just efforts to stop of distract from those investigations.
Well it took longer than I thought. Jay stated “Again this despicable dunce ignores issues vital to the nation but instead concentrates on mitigating his deteriorated personal reputation” when addressing “The White House restricted access to the call’s transcript to a small group of the president’s aides, one of the officials said, an unusual decision that is similar to the handling of a July call with the Ukrainian president that is at the heart of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into Mr. Trump.”
On September 26, 2019 @ 10:47 pm I posted”
“One thing I heard today gives a good picture of Washington today.
Queen Nancy said during her press conference that Trump was ” moving up” conversations in classification to hide wrong doing and that was corrupt ( or something to that effect)
A couple hours before, I also heard an interview with someone familiar with NSA issues and other issues that people in the “spook agencies” had been leaking Trump info since his administration began, so he and his administration has been “up-classifing” meeting and telephone transcripts to make it more difficult for any info to be leaked.
So Trump haters have something to latch onto.
Trump lovers have something to latch onto.
For those like me, would any president that had enemies in the spook agencies leaking info not do the same thing if the leaker(s) could not be found? This is not like Nixon erasing tapes, the government has the transcripts, but they are withheld to keep the media from getting it. Everyone knows Shiff’s going to leak it if it gets to the house.”
So yes Jay, I was right, you latched onto this issue.Guess you don’t read what I post, just Dave so you can make sure he keep busy.
There is absolutely nothing to latch on to,
The fact that The permanent executive has been leaking like a sieve to F over trump is nothing new.
The fact that Starting with Kelley the administration as been trying to thwart leases is nothing new.
We know nothing about Obama’s calls to foreign leaders.
We have the Medvedev conversation – only because it was on an open mike.
Whatever Obama said to Putin or Merkel or … – we do not know – unless he wanted us too.
If you do not like that – change the law, or possibly the constitution.
There is no such thing as “up-classifying” in the context of the president.
First the president IS the final authority on what is an is not “classified”
He can classify anything, he can declassify anything.
Separately – completely independent of the NSA or the classification system, the President can decide exactly who – down to the individual level can see what – particularly within the whitehouse.
There is no need to pretend he is playing games with the rules of classification.
If Trump says – CIA does not get my calls to foreign leaders – they do not get them.
PERIOD. He has no need to up classify.
My guess is you will find the current arrangement was devised by Kelley – not Trump, for the purpose of thwarting and catching leakers.
If there has been “up classifying” – Kelley made that decision, and it has been continued.
There is nothing wrong with the decision.
Further it is an executive only decision.
Conversations with the president – whether whitehouse staff or foreign leaders are covered by executive priviledge. Congress does not get them if the president does nto want them to have them – absent the courts stepping in, which they are unlikely to do.
This whistleblower complaint is the swamp striking back.
My guess is the “whistleblowers” “sources” are the people who were leaking before.
But now they can’t – the list of people with access is too small and they know it.
But by playing this hearsay game – they think that they are protected.
I doubt they are – at somepoint the IG or DOJ or Congressional Republicans or Whitehouse lawyers or Trump’s impeachment defense team is going to ask – who provided you with this information.
The whistlblower is a government employee in the executive branch.
He must answer. Or be held in contempt.
Dave “There is absolutely nothing to latch on to,”
I don’t know what country your living in, but both sides have latched onto this impeachment crap like a Bit Bull guard dog on the ass end of a burglar trying to jump a fence. The left is flinging information about corruption and “hiding” corrupt activity like crap from a bull moose with diarrhea and the right is defending Trump like the armies of the Pharaoh Ramesses II in 1200BC.
I dont give a flying F*&^ if there is anything “there”, it is the reaction of people to the actions of those wasting our money chasing this crap that concerns me. They are latching onto this when the same thing could occur with a campaign and a good democrat candidate. Removal of DT as president.
What don’t you understand that I keep trying to communicate?
You want facts. The facts are that right now there is nothing that will lead to impeachment unless something comes up that has not been found or communicated as of today. The facts are this impeachment stuff is dividing the country further than it was. The facts are showing that the left is trying to energize their base, it is leading to an energized GOP base and many who are being turned off by politics. The facts are that “nothing” is leading to “something” People like you spending hours defending Trump and people like Jay spending way too much time finding negative info on Trump.
The fact is most voters did not elect 535 member of congress to waste their time on crap like this! They voted for them to do their jobs and those jobs are defined by the party and the voter, but did not include what is now happening.
Right now I am praying that Trump gets impeached sooner than later, it damages him so badly that he decides not to run and then 2-3 GOP members challenge Pence in the primaries because Pence is not one of my favorites ether. He is basically another Ted Cruz that wants to dictate what women can do concerning abortion and would be inclined to further the controls of social lives, such as THC bans and enforcement, etc
“there is nothing to latch on to” – I was specifically refering to the story about the handling on presidential phone call transcripts.
Further what appears to be coming to the surface for me – is this has almost nothing to do with Trump’s phone call to Zelensky.
This appears to be a massive holy war to directed at the investigation of the investigation.
The Biden stuff is a tangent that seems likely to completely nuke Biden.
All the media – and Jay are spouting this – Biden has been investigated and there is nothing there bullshit.
There is pretty much Zero doubt that Hunter is profiting off his relationship to his father.
That is not illegal, but it is really bad for somebody trying to be closer to ordinary blue collar workers than Trump.
There is also a pretty compelling story that Biden was sent to the Ukraine to end corruption – and sure managed to make things look WORSE.
Absolute proof of corruption on the part of Biden ? Not quite at that level yet.
But any claim that this has seriously been looked at an properly resolved is laughable.
Finally a surprisingly large portion of people do seem to get that – if there was any legitimacy at all in investigating Trump – then there is in investigating Biden.
But the real theme seems to be about the left trying to shut down the entire investigation of the investigation.
The arguments are now – not only can’t you investigate Biden, but you can not investigate anything in the past.
Jay went frothing over Trump and DOJ talking to the Australiians.
There was not a democratic presidential candidate in site.
But somehow that is purportedly impeachable
I guess we can not investigate anything anymore – or is it just democrats we can not investigate.
This was painted as an attack on the Mueller investigation – if it was ? So What ?
But it is not – it is an investigation of the source of the Trump investigation.
Mueller testified he did not investigate that AT ALL.
Well now someone is.
I would further note that the left has a very very serious problem – the attack on Trump is building support for charging Comey and McCabe and …
If there is something wrong with Trump’s conduct – then how is there NOT something wrong with Comey’s ?
Yes, the democrats are in front of camera’s So republicans are too.
There all politicians – they think they look good in front of a camera.
I have watched Guiliani a couple of times.
He is not coming off as someone who is scared.
He is reading as someone just itching for the fight to begin.
Guiliani is practically daring the democrats to go ahead.
Pelosi meanwhile is struggling to not sound deranged and not doing well.
I do not care about the money they are wasting.
In federal government terms this is not rounding error on much of anything.
I also do not care about the Mueller investigation cost.
It was legitimate or it was not. If the former – then the cost is irrelevant.
I am not expecting anything to lead to impeachment.
So long as democrats must do this in front of cameras – I think they are screwed.
What I do not want is lots of closed door testimony and then false naratives that it somehow went well.
With respect to the Faux whistleblower. His name is coming out. His carreer is over.
He may not lose his job, but he will never hold a position of trust again.
And he is near certainly going to have to rat out his sources at some point – and they are in serious trouble.
As much of the Democrats attacks are targetted at Barr and to a lessor extent Guiliani.
That is the big deal, the real story.
There is always so much fake spin on stories that are emerging it is hard to tell.
But the IG’s report has been provided to Barr in draft form.
Some placces are saying it pulled its punches – others that it is damning.
My guess is that it is like the Clinton report – long with lots of misconduct,
but it is going to be too willing to presume discretion, inconpetence rather than malfeasance.
Regardless the More the IG finds and the more he does nothing about it, the more impossible it will be to go after Trump.
But we have learned int he past week that DOJ is looking into everyone in government who sent or received and email from Clinton’s bathroom server. I doubt there will be any prosecutions. But I suspect there will be serious personel consequences – reduced security clearances demotions, suspensions, of hundreds of people.
And we have learned that there is an ongoing DOJ investigation into pretty much everything on Trump’s laundry list.
And that is what I think the real story going on is.
This is not about Trump or Zelensky and barely about the Ukraine.
Nor is it about impeachment.
It is about trying to stop Trump/Barr/Hunter/Durham from cleaning house
The country is divided – that is just a fact.
The source of the division is the left, this does not get better until the left works out its problems. That likely will require a catastrophic loss.
Trump is not getting impeached – not sooner, not later,
This was a hail marry by democrats and the parties in the government that participated in the 2016 election interferance to kill the investigation into their conduct,
And it has failed.
Trump took a hit in the polls – but it was a small one, and it appears to be over.
What that means is that people do not beleive this is serious.
The left has cried wolf too many times.
I do not beleive you will see the house do anything that remotely resembles a real impeachment inquiry.
They are not going to vote to begin impeachment.
They are going to say they are running an impeachment inquiry and see how far that gets them.
Apparently there will be some testimony in the house shortly.
If that is done publicly – expect it to go badly.
It probably will be done in secret – and then we will hear leaks about what was purportedly found.
“The source of the division is the left“
Your brain is divided…
The analytical side has malfunctioned…
The cause of the accelerated divisions is Trump.
Duh.
Jay;
You have been insulting me since long before Trump showed up on the scene.
Whatever has driven your assessment – it has nothing to do with Trump.
I stand by my arguments.
You can’t stand by yours – you have not made any.
slurs are not arguments.
“You have been insulting me since long before Trump showed up on the scene“
Just shows I had good judgment all along.
(I wasn’t posting here before here long before Trump)
Constantly insulting people, especially without being able to back up your moral denunciation is incredibly poor judgement.
When I monitor this site (that now happens in cycles) I look at all your postings.
And if I reaffirm something you posted about, why does that upset you?
I only read one in five of of dhlii’s posts, ignore the rest. I prefer to spend my remaining time on Planet Earth in enjoyable pursuits, like watching The Good Place or Lucifer on cable, or Pre Code 1930s movies on YouTube, or cooking or baking recommended recipes, like this one I’m trying today:
https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/26313/banana-cream-pie-v/print/?recipeType=Recipe&servings=8&isMetric=false
More Schiff.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schiff-apparently-pranked-by-russian-radio-hosts-who-promised-naked-trump-photos
House democrats are racing towards a “constitutional crisis”.
The house may not invest itself with its constitutional power to conduct impeachment investigations – without voting to do so.
Nor can it conduct such hearings in “secret”
impeachment is about “high crimes and misdemeanors” – it is subject to the rules of criminal procedure – it is required to conform to the 6th amendment.
We do not have “star chamber” investigations.
This must be done in PUBLIC – witnesses must be presented in public, examined in public and crossexamined in public.
This is even more true of impeachment than a criminal trial – because voters get the last word on the actions of the house. There is no appeal of impeachment – except to voters.
We want to see the witnesses, evaluate their credibility – evaluate the credibility of those conducting the process.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/whistleblower-is-expected-to-testify-soon-schiff-says/ar-AAI1pha?li=BBnbfcL
While I support it if the democrats wish to be so stupid as to go forward with impeachment.
I do NOT support kangaroo courts, or impeachment lite.
If you are going to do this – do it RIGHT.
Vote to authorize impeachment proceedings.
Form an impeachment inquiry committee,
Conduct PUBLIC hearings.
If you do not have faith in what you are doing – then do not move forward.
Do not try to sneak quasi impeachment in through the side door.
If you are not willing to follow due process – the 6th amendment – then you are lawless – and you are the problem not Trump.
And remember – whatever you do – unless voters massacre you in November – it is going to happen again (and again and again). And next time it will likely be republicans doing it to you – following your script.
For those of you who live and die by the polls and beleive they are magical.
Trump has recovered 2% over the weekend on Rassmussen and is back to 49% – that is 4pts from his almost all time high a week ago. and up 2 from Friday.
It is likely the damage of this nonsense is done.
And please spare me the “rassmussen” nonsense – there are the only daily tracking poll. Gallup is no longer tracking daily.
This is nonsense! It is a national poll. It means nothing! What is it by state? 100% of the voters in California could vote for the democrat, give them a notional percent of vote over 55% and Trump could still win because more states supported him than just California.
What does NC, PN, MI and FL say?
Ron, I don’t think that national polls are nonsense. The most important polls in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election were national polls, especially Rasmussen. I’m not saying that good state polls aren’t valuable, just that there aren’t many good state polls.
I also don’t believe that traditional polling, state or national, is reliable anymore. Most polls are based on turnout models from the 2012 election, when the minority vote, particularly the black vote, was off the charts. Trump hate will drive many Democrat voters to the polls, but it will also drive Trump’s voters to the polls. I can assure you that most Trump voters believe 100% that Trump hate is also hate for them. They believe that what Democrats have tried to do toTrump, which is to destroy him personally and politically, is what they intend to do to all Trump supporters, once they are back in power. Who will stop them? People like Jay or Roby, who consider all Trump supporters scum?
I have plenty of friends who voted for Hillary, but would never vote for Warren, because she is a socialist. (Maybe Hillary was too, but she didn’t talk like one.) Warren scares people who think that she will nationalize everything, confiscate guns, bring in millions of migrants who don’t want to assimilate, etc. I mean, this is what she’s said she’s going to do, so why not believe her? Plus, does anyone think that she will drive high voter turnout in the black community?
And the same goes for all the rest, except Biden, but he’s being destroyed as collateral damage in the phony impeachment. Stick a fork in him.
Now it looks as if Hillary is making power moves to get in the race. That should make things better for everyone!!!
In short, I the extremism and division that we’ve all been talking about for years, is going to get exponentially worse. We’re seeing it begin with this insane, ultra-partisan impeachment.
If we ain’t seen nothin’ yet, no point in believing any polls right now.
National polls do not tell us what is going on in MN.
but they do tell us whether this impeachment nonsense has legs.
Right now it appears to be fizzling.
If that is the case that is really really really bad for democrats.
Major Wallstreet political contributors who have traditionally backed democrats have announced PUBLICLY that they will not support Warren, they will either back Trump or sit out the election. There is a great deal of evidence that democrats are going to have serious money problems in 2020 and that is due to the positions of the candidates they are running.
Money is now fleeing Biden – as are voters.
When the Mueller report was released I pointed out to everyone that it had consequences.
That there is a huge difference between disagreeing on facts and making false moral even criminal claims about someone else.
The latter costs you your credibility.
Maybe I am jumping the gun, but it appears that the entire recent effort is dying – faster than I would have thought.
If I am correct, that means large portions of people do not beleive the media and democrats or are just ignoring them – which is much the same.
All this could change in an instant, but it probably would require something of more substance than the Zelensky transcript.
I am somewhat pulling my punches here – I though that left wing nut outrage would have burned out long ago – but it has not. It appears near certain that democrats are going to have no trouble turning out a core of zealots who beleive anything the left says in 2020.
But they appear to have entirely lost middle america.
People who do not like Trump – are still not going to support democrats.
As much as I have said that false moral accusations have consequences, Even though I expected the far left to burn out – I did not expect that the center would loose faith in the media and democrats to the extent they appear to have.
Again maybe I am wrong – maybe the small uptick in Rassmussen in the past could of days is an anomally – monmouth does not do daily polls but their poll this week shows very little change from before this entire mess started.
It is extremely unlikely that between now and 2020 the left gets a better shot at Trump than they just had, and I think this is pretty much over now.
Good god, not Hillary again. If she runs, i guarantee I will change voter registration so I can vote in the democrat primary and vote for whoever is running second. I dont care if that is Warren, Sanders or Daffy Duck. That bitch needs to leave us alone! And when i said i will vote Libertarian in the general, that is not entirely true. Given the close election coming where it is likely Trump will lose N.C. I will vote for Trump if that bitch is on the ticket!
While not quite as livid as you.
The only thing that MIGHT get me to vote for Trump would be if HRC was back in the race.
Priscilla, you calmly and objectively back during the 2015 campaign stated that you expected whoever got elected, Hillary or trump to be impeached. So, here we are. And you were calmly correct in 2015, the GOP would have immediately got down to impeaching a Clinton for the 2nd time. Now you are sure that the POTUS and his lawyer doing nothing wrong by using Us aid as blackmail to get dirt on his most effective democratic opponent. Of course you would be 100 percent fine with all that if it was a democratic who did it (insert eye rolling icon). And of course you and the GOP would be fine with a democratic who had Trump’s character(insert banging head into a wall icon). Really, if you do not realize that the GOP would have attacked Clinton as POTUS, impeached her, dug up every little fart she made, blew it up into mount Everest, and you would have been right there with them, well, aarrgg. I award you the golden hypocrite trophy which you can share with 85 percent of your fellow ultrapartisan Republicans. How can you take your own complete bullshit seriously?!? It boggles my mind, the whole mass phenomenon of conservative Republicans departing to their own delusional universe that bears very little resemblance to their previous standards and beliefs.
Thank you – an actual argument,
“the GOP would have immediately got down to impeaching a Clinton for the 2nd time.”
That is speculation. I have no doubt that Republicans would be looking for an oportunity to impeach Clinton – and would have jumped at their first chance. I think based on the GOP 1998 experience they would have sought a clearly illegal act AS PRESIDENT before proceeding. I am near certain Hillary would have provided them one.
At this time the FACTS are:
POTUS wants a broad investigation of the investigation.
Guiliani is aiding Trump in that as his lawyer – and possibly as an agent of the State department. That is confusing, but it is not acutally unusual.
Presidents have frequently used emesaries that were NOT part of the executive to interact with foreign powers. There are significant advantages to that. There is a presumption those jore accurately reflect the views of the president. AND there is more deniability.
A threat or promise by an emessary is more deniable. This is not new. Carter was used as an Emisary to NK by Obama he negotiated a deal – and Obama backed out of it.
I think that was a mistake, but it was not a crime.
You are correct that the administration is using Ukrainian aide.
Again not unusual. There are many in the administrion – in State and DOD who do not want us to provide Aide to the Ukraine. This was true during the Obama administration. It is NOT new. Congress had to threaten Obama to get aide delivered to Ukraine.
To the extent there is evidence that Trump specifically is using the Aide as a lever – the evidence is that he is using it to get the Ukraine to get a bigger committment from the EU.
That is not getting him impeached. It is completely consistent with Trump’s remarks from the beginging of his presidency. There was no link in the Zelensky conversation between Aide and cooperation with the Biden or any other investigations.
Democrats are free to investigate further – though they are likely to run into a stone wall of executive priviledge. Regardless absent evidence from something other than the Zelensky transcript any claim of linkage is speculation.
But you have additional problems – I do not beleive that the US should meddle in the internal affairs of other governments – I am completely with George Washington on that.
I would castrate, possibly elimate alot of the US intelligence aparatus.
But that is neither our policy nor our law.
Trump does not appear to have used aide to coerce the Ukraine.
But he – like Obama is free to do so.
VP Biden did so brazenly, and he did so on an overt basis that I think is improper.
Worse, it appears that the US “anti-corruption” efforts in the Ukraine were corrupting.
But the fundimental problem is that he new Shokin was investigating his son.
He was therefore PERSONALLY conflicted.
It was an absolute conflict of interests for VP Biden to threaten the Ukraine to get Shokin fired. It was probably a crime.
Arguably Obama or anyone else could have done so,
But so long as Hunter was under investigation in the Ukraine Joe Biden could not have anything to do with “anti-corruption” efforts in the Ukraine – and he improperly lead those efforts. there is inarguably a basis for an investigation of Biden – and remains so today.
The argument this “was looked into” is crap.
But Biden was a small tangent to the phone call. The big ask was help in the investigation of the investigation. And there is absolutely no “there there” and most people understand that.
There appears to be alot going on under Barr.
One other thing that recently leaked was disciplinary measures regarding the Clinton email fiasco. While Clinton was the center of the FBI investigation, litterally hundreds of government employees were involved.
Merely participating in emailing official correspondence to Clinton’s bathroom email server is a violation of govenrment record keeping laws. I expect a few people will get fired. and a large number of people will have there records flagged.
I think that is perfectly fine.
There are also stories that independent of Trump and at the direction of but NOT the management of by Barr there are several active and broad ranging investigations into the 2016 election. Those should have taken place long ago.
Hopefully those investigations will proceed QUIETLY, without leaks or interferance until they either are dropped or result in indictments.
That is how an investigation is supposed to be conducted.
If we leave the executive – yes, I am actually fine with Trump’s lawyers getting dirt on his most effective (or any opponent). Are you saying that Perkins Coi and Hillaries and Fusion GPS’s efforts are all crimes ?
I have defended the entire steele Dossier Fiasco of Clinton right up to the point were people inside the administration proceeded with it uncritically.
There is nothing illegal about what Clinton did to get dirt on Trump.
There is nothing illegal that Perkins Coi did.
That Steele did, …
There are a few specific questionable problems regarding private actors – I beleive Glenn Simpson lied under oath. But beyond that the actual malfeasance with that the Obama administration appears to have participated – before Steele, and certainly moved into investigative measures without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do so.
Guiliani’s actions might disturb you or me – but they are legal. Just as Clinton’s were.
If the GOP had tried to impeach Clinton – absolutely I would be rooting them on.
But I would not be making shit up to get her. Nor pretending that legitimate actions were crimes.
Clinton’s entire involvement in getting Dirt on Trump was completely legal.
That is not a new statement from me. I have been saying it here for years.
We follow the law – NARROWLY, regardless of whether that lets us “get” the people we want to get.
If the actual law NARROWLY read “gets” Trump – so be it, impeach him, remove him,
and anyone in the future who violates the law.
if the actual law NARROWLY read does not “get” the people we are sure are slime and scum buckets – SO BE IT.
I absolutely beleive that Clinton has engaged in criminal misconduct – as it appears has Biden. But if reasonable suspicion does not exist they can not be investigated, and if probable cause does not exist – then searchs can not be conducted.
and if that results in guilty people going free – I am entirely OK with that.
And I have been consistent on that for all the time I have been here.
I beleive that Priscilla and Ron have also.
But neither you nor Jay have been.
The test of hypocracy is not “who you want to get” it is whether you will turn a blind eye to the law to do so.
Roby, for years now, I have responded to your comments with respect and civility, despite your irrational mischaracterizations of my opinions, not to mention your never-ending insults regarding my personal morality and intelligence – funny, since I don’t believe that you know me or anything about me, other than what I have revealed here. So why should I care what you think of me? (Hint: I don’t)
I will continue to read your comments, and respond to any points that I find worthy of response. As I have often said, in your less emotional moments, you can be insightful.
But, increasingly, those moments are few and far between.
Ron;
I am not trying to pretend that it means “everything”.
It is a national poll. It is the only daily national poll that remains.
We can attack Rassmussen however you please – it is the only measure we have at this moment.
Monmouth came out today – it has much lower support for Trump than Rassmussen – 43%.
But Monmouth too found a small hit to Trump’s approval and a small increase in support for impeachment proceedings.
Put simply very very few people think Democrats have found a silver bullet.
And it is likely that if they can not deliver more of consequence quickly any hit Trump has taken will recover – Rassmussen already has Trump recovering slightly.
Tommorow could be different. Maybe it is taking a long time for people to assess and digest this. I do not think so – they had the weekend.
But I could be wrong.
Further more and more stories are running talking about the investigation of the investigation.
Democrats are trying to link that and the Trump Zelensky call in an effort to kill the investigation of the investigation.
Republicans are striving to ensure that this Zelensky call sideshow does not sidetrack the investigation of the investigation.
While I think Biden has been fatally damaged by this, that does not appear to have been Trump’s aim. Just as in the Selenzky Call – Biden is just one of many issues regarding 2016 that are being investigated.
In other words I hit the truth dead on about your perpetual GOP propaganda. You complain about problems, this terrible civil war. Unless your comments here are written by your evil twin, you cannot find a better example of the habits that are causing this war than your own habits. Unlike Dave whose comments simply reflect his own issues, your comments reflect a real and substantial thing. That is why I so often fail to restrain myself from responding to your propaganda. I wonder what you will think of this phase of your beliefs if you ever do snap out of the programming?
Robby;
What does your comment even mean ?
I can tell that you are insulting Ron, but not why.
The best I can tell is you are making the false argument that if we are divided the fault is also divided equally.
That is ludicrously stupid, as well as the road to hell.
If we must evenly split the baby in all conflicts – then the most extreme side always wins in both the short and long run.
This has been the gist of my attack on compromise.
Unfortunatley we must always strive to determine who is right and wrong on an issue – or even just who is more right and more wrong.
If we do not we encourage extremism and polarization by rewarding the most extreme viewpoint.
If one side or the other (or both) are wrong, you do not reward them by giving them half what they want, or you can be sure they will be back for more.
Here’s Florida, Ron…
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/approval_rating/president/fl/president_trump_job_approval_in_florida-6287.html
Jay, thanks. I would have thought the difference would have been greater than the 2% from the latest poll of likely voters. This is basically 50-50 when factoring margin of error.
The newest number is 9/3 – long before this, and has Trump +3
“I can tell that you are insulting Ron, but not why.”
Like a lot of things that you can tell, it would go better for you if you had any clue at all. God forbid I should insult Ron. I was not even actually trying to insult Priscilla, who I was replying to, I was simply describing my reaction to her perpetual GOP propaganda.
“God forbid I should insult Ron.”
but you did
“I was not even actually trying to insult Priscilla”
And still you did.
‘I was simply describing my reaction to her perpetual GOP propaganda.”
I think it is likely accurate – that you are not even sufficiently self aware to understand that you are insulting everyone who disagrees with you – rather than making your arguments.
I do not know if that is by nature or practice – but I would guess the latter.
One of the many reasons for my war on the left, is that both as a matter of ideology and as a matter of practice – they have normalized insult rather than argument to such an extent that in way too many it is a knee jerk instinctive response.
So you have programmed yourself to act immorally and been deluded into beleiving it is virtuous.
This is why facts logic and reason are so important.
When truth has no anchor you can be completely convinced that the most heinous acts are virtuous.
Go read Adolf Eichman’s trial.
He beleived in what he was doing. He though he was a good person, doing good.
We are ALL – including me, susceptible to circular reasoning that what we are doing is good, because it aligns with our beleifs.
It is critical to ALWAYS check what we are doing – and what we beleive against FACTS, LOGIC, REASON.
I don’t know about those pollls, Jay. Only one from 2019, and that was back in May (that’s the month of Memorial Day, right?). Am I missing something, or not reading the link correctly? Not sure how they relate to the current discussion.
Roby, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I’lll try to be more clear:
You are rude to me for no other reason than that you imagine me to be a “GOP propagandist,” and/or someone who has no mind of her own. I have no desire to get into a insult-slinging match with you, because I don’t enjoy that sort of thing. I respond to arguments that you make, and I try to do so without calling you names, insulting your intelligence or implying that you are less than a decent and moral human being.
I will continue to do that. I just figured that I would let you know that your rudeness does not go unnoticed, so if you thought that I was being respectful to you because I am too stupid to notice how rude you are, you were wrong.
So, no, you did not “hit the truth dead on.” Sorry.
Today, Tuesday, Oct 1st, 2019
The top two show Biden with double digit leads in a variety of polls:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Thanks, that link makes more sense.
So Biden is still doing well in one NC poll and in one National poll.
He is also dropping nationally in the RCP average, and Warren is only 3 points behind.
He is losing to her by 4 points in Iowa
And the current betting Odds has warren at 49% and Biden at 20.
If you think Biden is going to win the Democratic party – bet $20 – you will get $100 back.
Ron – Hillary running?
You’re quoting Bannon?
Ha ha ha ha!
Jay, sorry, I did not identify who I was responding to. No, not Bannon.
Priscilla. She mentioned in a comment reply to me that Hillary was looking, or others were trying to get her into the race.
Regardless, my comment stands. That bitch needs to exit stage left and stay there. I have thought her to be a bitch since Bill was president the first time, 20+ years. My views have only strengthened. I had no problem with Bill’s infidelity with a wife like that.
Is it possible that we might agree that Hillary running is a really bad thing – for the country, for democrats ?
Hey Jay, new Rick topic, the Ukraine affair. By Vu min
Dhlii: “Trump does not appear to have used aide to coerce the Ukraine.”
You have the reasoning ability of a Roomba Floor Sweeper..
That would be an argument ?
That would be evidence of coercion ?
Trump’s Trade Wars & Tariffs sure have helped the US economy
“U.S. manufacturing dives to 10-year low as trade tensions weigh
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. manufacturing activity tumbled to a more than 10-year low in September as lingering trade tensions weighed on exports, further heightening financial market fears of a sharp slowdown in economic growth in the third quarter.”
Do not know where Reuters gets its data – but it is at odds with mulitple sources.
BTW a 10 year low in almost any aspect of mfg is obviously wrong mfg had barely started to recover from the great recession in early 2010.
Here is the FED
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/ipg1.svg
Production is near an all time high
Capacity is at an all time high.
Utiliazation is low – but that most likely a very good sign – it means manufacturers have increased capacity beyond immediate production, and that means they are anticipating future growth.
The Goofy President of the US inciting violence:
Trump is incorrect – it is an attempted coup.
Regardless, more and more it appears that the objective was to shutdown investigations into the past misconduct of the intelligence community and of the prior administration.
No prior president EVER has left office by starting an investigation of his successor.
Transistions of power in the US – even between rival parties have nearly always been cordial – even friendly. The Bushies for all their other faults were unbeleivably kind to the incoming Obama staff.
There is no instance in the record of the kind of hostility that the leaving Obama administration gave the incoming Trump administration.
Frankly there has never been an administration as overtly political as that of Obama.
From the temples are the democratic victory bash – through to his departure from office.
The Obama administration came in – not to serve the american people but to rule them.
They came in with the certainty that they were not merely right on the issues, but morally superior to all other humans – including their constituents.
They beleive not merely that they are doing good work – but gods work, and that the ends justify the means and that disagreement is congruent with moral failure.
It is that faith that allows the moral bankruptcy and corruption.
Interestiing read