Censorship
Righty: I might disagree with Lefty’s pronouncements 93 percent of the time, but I’d defend to the death Lefty’s right to pronounce those pronouncements. All right, maybe not to the death, but I’d take a good kick in the brisket rather than stifle our progressive friend. Like our Founding Fathers, I believe in the free marketplace of ideas. For example, if some left-wing nutjob advocated monetary reparations for women (oh, the pain of all those centuries of forced domesticity!), I’d trust the wisdom of the people to heckle the nutjob off the podium. That’s democracy in action.
Lefty: Censorship has no place in a free society, but neither do hate-spewing, small-minded demagogues whose virulent ideas can cause actual harm to others. I see nothing wrong with banning neo-Nazis or Rush Limbaugh from airing their repugnant tirades in public. In such extreme cases, we owe the people a measure of protection from the dangers of rabid demagoguery. That means banning hate speech over the airwaves and monitoring who gets to speak on campus. As Fidel Castro said, “The universities are open only to those who share my beliefs.”
The New Moderate:
When it comes to free speech, our stand should be staunch and uncompromising: all ideas, however objectionable, deserve a hearing. And, as the good Dr. Johnson used to say, “There’s an end on’t!”
But I have a confession to make. The woeful state of our culture has convinced me that the free marketplace occasionally goes awry. I have no objection to even the most objectionable ideas, and I would never push for censorship in the realm of words — whether printed, broadcast or delivered in person. It’s the sounds and images that are starting to rankle me and fill me with dread — the dark, satanic ugliness of cultural artifacts aimed at adolescent boys, in particular. Rap music that lures young minds into fantasies of rape, domination, thuggery and murder. Video games (like the vile and alarmingly popular Grand Theft Auto 4) that glorify a brutal, soulless, survivor-take-all mentality. Over-the-top pornographic images, available by the thousands online, that would sicken Hugh Hefner and even the Marquis de Sade. Not to mention all the atrocious “shock art,” replete with sliced corpses and bodily effluvia, aimed at more discerning audiences.
I’m really not a prude, but all my instincts tell me to fight the spread of brutalism and degeneracy. I’m old enough to remember when our culture actually promoted nobility of character (what a concept!) along with the charm and easygoing laughter of a more innocent time. Something has to be done before we slide irreversibly into a bottomless cesspool.
Too late, you say? Not really. But have we reached the point at which we need to start imposing restrictions on the purveyors of shabby culture? If so, do we risk becoming an authoritarian society that suppresses freedom of expression? Whose standards do we honor?
As usual, I think there’s a middle ground. And there’s a precedent.
From 1934 to 1968, Hollywood effectively censored its own productions to avoid possible government intervention. The Hays Code, which went a little overboard in limiting our glimpses of ladies’ thighs, underwear and other charming sights, nevertheless coincided with a golden age of American popular culture. The films of this era still enchant us today, and they did it all without a single F-word. By aiming up instead of down, Hollywood appealed to the best instincts of its audiences. This was self-censorship par excellence.
We’ll never return to the squeaky-clean standards of the Hays Code era, and I don’t think we should. But if we value our souls, and the soul of our civilization, we need to start exerting some pressure on the folks who deliver our cultural goods. Even in the Internet era, most of our commercial movies, TV fare, music and games come to us from a handful of giant media corporations. We need to convince them to stop the flow of cultural sewage. Let’s not dictate what they can produce, but let’s call them to account when they bombard us with repellent dreck. Let’s urge them to examine why they feel compelled to produce such dreck, and whether they could survive — whether, in fact, they might even thrive — if they appealed to our better natures. So far, we’ve managed to convince them that sleaze sells. Let’s do the opposite.
In the end, of course, we get the culture we deserve. It won’t be easy to stuff all those evils back into Pandora’s Box. But I think we deserve better, and I hope Righty and Lefty would agree.
Summary: We should never ban ideas, even when the free marketplace seems to be enamored of the worst of them. But the ever-spreading ugliness of contemporary pop culture calls for serious soul-searching and just possibly a new wave of self-censorship on the part of our cultural establishment.
THE NEW MODERATE 
We might not need censorship if people were smart enough to recognize stupidity in the first place, and deny it any credibility. That most people watch or endorse mindless fluff, shows that no, they are not smart enough to see past the idiocy for the vulgar trash it is. Although I must admit a certain joy in watching the jackass movies, that feeling of supery-ority (misspelled on purpose, to make a point) over the jackasses I suspect most people are… Hmm… Damn, I hate learning unpleasant things about myself, it’s quite a bubble-burster. (and probably healthy) Censorship can be used to shield the gullible from poor behaviour they may try to emulate, but on the other hand this interferes with Darwinism, reducing the whole of humanity to two people shooting rockets out their asses. Also, it is used in sinister ways, to quash ideas found unsuitable by governments/networks. And, on a foot, I guess, (hopefully I won’t have to use all the extremites as analogies…) Some trash just so vulgar, it defies everything, but if put on TV, will still be watched. What can be done about this? Ultimatley, it is up to those who choose to watch/read (yeah, right, like anyone really reads anymore. Sigh) to make up their minds about what we see, for better or (probably) worse. Other people should stop concerning themselves with what others watch, and find something constructive to do.
Agree with the Moderate point of view for the most part. But have no tolerance for any “art” or it’s expressions inducing people to violence. If somebody’s going to sell music from some jerk singing about raping whitey and his hos, etc…I am PERFECTLY willing to stomp on his/her rights to “free speech”. People have every right to be STUPID as far as I’m concerned, but inducing other idiots to commit crimes is not acceptable. Likewise if Nazis want to march in Nazitown they are more than welcome to do so. Don’t do it anywhere else. Everyone knows about THAT history and what the end goal is there. Same thing. Just inducing people to commit savagery against other people. The problem may not be their expression of their idiocy. But the problem is all the IDIOTS they recruit who choose to act out on their garbage. What about the black man in Texas who was dragged to death by white supremacists back in the 90s? Guess their right to free speech was more important than his right to be left alone.
Ami: Sorry I didn’t notice your comment until now. You make a good point about drawing the line where speech incites the audience to acts of violence. I’d be in favor of suppressing any speech that advocates violent crime.
It’s tricky, though, because there’s a gray zone between acceptable speech and incitement to violence. It’s what we’ve come to call “hate speech.” Yes, it’s objectionable to spew venom against blacks, Jews, gays, and other minorities. But the PC police would expand that gray zone so that you can’t even voice legitimate criticism of “protected” groups. (Somehow it’s always acceptable to bash men and rural white Christians, of course.) That kind of control over free speech looks too much like a slippery slope.
I guess the key criterion should be whether the speech advocates criminal behavior. Otherwise, I’m inclined to let the haters hate; at least it keeps them from bursting at the seams.
Surprising your Righty doesn’t exhibit any features of the typical “Moral Guardian”. If you want to call out the excesses of both sides… (I’m talking Mary Whitehouse sort of excess here, or whatever your equivalent of her is- though I’ll admit she had a point on occasion).
That said, there are some things which are beyond the pale, and I’d actually not averse to preventing that even by legal means. Freedom of speech should be just that- freedom to express your ideas in words. It shouldn’t be an excuse for gross obscenity, it probably should not be an excuse for pornography (which I believe could be damaging to society by allowing people to see others as little more than sexual objects), probably the same with advertising junk food to children, and certainly not an excuse for provoking a riot or driving someone to suicide (you have to prove that last one, though).
How you do not do that is the way our video recordings laws work in the UK- if a video hasn’t been rated by the BBFC, it can’t be supplied to anyone else. So I can buy an import DVD from its country of origin (if the copyright holder doesn’t mind), I just can’t sell it n or even give it to a charity shop. Moreover the need to pass this ratings system perhaps prevents the thing from getting a UK release- as a would-be anime fan in partiuclar, I find it’s a bit awkward when you guys get a decent selection of stuff and we don’t.
I don’t think in terms of so-called “hate speech”, saying something that happens to offend a particular category of people, or use a percieved slur, is a reason to override free speech. Only if it is a serious threat to the public order.
Basically, free speech should not just be free *speech*, but *free* speech.
He eventually sold out to NEC for a billion dollars.
You could add your business logo to the stationery or you could us it as is and place your address information at the top.
On the development of perspective, stationery, or to resolve patent issues.
Rather than matching Leftys argument, you come dangerously close to matching the Puritan standards that Righty used to embrace a few decades back and has conveniently forgotten about. To which I ask, sir: who are you to determine what constitutes “degeneracy”? You seem overestimate the influence violent media has on a developed, rational mind (a statement science has backed up time and time again). Ideas must be exchanged freely, not buried, and society AS A WHOLE must be trusted to sort the good from the bad.
Moved. And after tonight I suspect we will have a couple hundred comments by tomorrow night on what happens at 9 tonight.
150 of the comments by you know who…
Yes Dave “Government revenue growing by 4% a year means government revenue is growing FASTER than the economy.
Growth in the later half of the 20th century was 3.5% not 4%, growth int he 21st century was 2% not 4%.”
I could have gotten technical, looked up every years economic chage, applied that chage to the numbers and come up with what I believe would ge the same answer.
That being, We have two parties that will not make the decision to fix spending in American governmental programs.
I was not fighting you.
There is no reason that government should increase in cost as we become more wealthy.
In fact the cost of government should decrease. Though poverty is not the cause of crime, we know that crime declines as our ability to meet our needs increases.
The cost of government should increase as population increases – though at a slower rate than the rate of population increase.
And it should decrease as standard of living rises.
Instead government revenue has increased much faster than was necescary and government spending has increased even faster still.
Whatever else one may think of President Clinton. Unlike his successors – including Trump, he reduced deficits to the point of surplus.
All of our problems would be less intractible but for the last two spendthrifts, and for all the other positive attributes of Trump – he is NOT a deficit hawk.
So we now have evidence that someone in the SC’s office – almost certainly Andrew Weisman leaked Reoger Stones’ SEALED indictiment to CNN prior to it being issued.
I would note that a prosecutor leaking information about a criminal investication is a serious ethical violation. I would further note that leaks regarding anything involving a grand jury are a crime. As is leaking sealed information.
If the SC’s office is going to investigate and prosecute – “process crimes” where there is no underlying crime – then there must also be an investigation and procesution of the “process crimes” of the prosecutors.
When those enforcing the law can not obey the law we are lawless.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/exclusive-documents-show-cnn-was-tipped-off-on-roger-stone-arrest-by-29-fbi-armed-agents-leaked-by-fbi/
Dave, people dont want the truth. As a famous line in a movie goes “You can’t handle the truth”. Right now people can not handle the truth that Trump might not have had anything to do with collusion or something close to collusion with the Russians.
When the truth comes out and people find out just how inept the campaign was during the summer before the election, they will be amazed that Trump even won, let alone had the ability to collude with anyone.
Right now the left only wants his scalp, and nothing less.
Reminder: Jessup was arrested at trial’s end, found guilty
Justin Fairfax is entitled to the benefit of the doubt about decade old uncorroborated claims of sexual harrasment and assault.
Subsequent evidence may emerge to alter that.
But in the meantime the allegations against fairfax are insufficient.
But the story is the hypocracy of the left.
The claims against Fairfax – though weak are significantly more substantial than those of Blaisey Ford. 15 years ago is NOT the same as 35 years ago.
If you felt that the allegations against Kavanaugh were sufficient 0- then those against Fairfax are more so. If you were up in arms about Kavanaugh and are quiet about Fairfax – you are a hypocrit.
http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/04/washington-post-displays-glaring-double-standard-when-reporting-sexual-assault-claims/
Of course there is a double standard. Few on the left said anything about not jumping to conclusions, now Warren, Blumenthal, Booker and others are either saying he is innocent or dodging the question.
Quadruple exception- both sides are guilty of it.
I do not know if he is innocent.
I do know there is not enough evidence for a criminal prosecution at this time.
AND there is not enough for a compelling demand to resign.
This is much like Kavanaugh – except not as antique.
It is entirely possible that Fairfax (or Kavanaugh) are lying.
But the probability is low and absent better evidence this should fizzle.
An accusation alone is not enough.
Just as it is not enough with all the Trump/Russia nonsense.
Dave the issue is not one of guilt or innocence. It is one where the left demanded K’s withdrawal because he was GUILTY and they are saying not to rush to conclusions because F has NOT BEEN PROVEN GUILTY yet.
I just require equal treatment for actions.
There I was, agreeing with your assessment on the assault allegations, and you had to bollox it up, comparing it to Trump-Russia. That’s like comparing a tweet to a thesis.
Nope it is exactly the same thing,
An allegation does not crate a fact.
Of Kavanaugh, Fairfax, Trump/Russia, Tulsi/Russia and Schultz/Russia,
There is some factual basis for the Fairfax allegation.
Fairfax has admitted a consensual relationship
Of all the rest – there is no factual basis.
Ford can not even place Kavanaugh together with her any time that summer.
Trump/Russia has been investigated out the whazoo.
There remains NOTHING – no actual evidence of anything.
Schultz/Russia and Tulsi/Russia are PLANTED stories – they are democrats eating themselves.
When you go chasing after nonsense without evidence you destroy your own credibility.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/43066/walsh-5-reasons-why-justin-fairfaxs-accuser-more-matt-walsh
So Tell me – Is Tulsi Gabbard a Russian Sock Puppet ?
Given that the source of the allegations is essentially the same as those against Trump,
Either we must beleive both allegations or reject both.
“Either we must beleive both allegations or reject both.”
Dear Dummy, obviously not true.
Everyone with sense (sorry to see you on the outside looking in) has already pointed out the obvious: Russian support of Gabbard (an outlier with zero influence outside Hawaii) is meant to benefit Trump by siphoning support from any viable Dems who will oppose him. Double duh,
How about Tulsi’s support of Putin’s ally Assad? She says he’s not a bad guy. Is she faking that Jay? If so, she’s been faking it for more than a year…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats
So, you’re saying that Tulsi is basically acting as a stalking horse for Trump?
I’m saying she’s wrong meeting with Assad.
But then again, she was the first Dem to meet privately with Trump.
And I don’t agree with her Israel criticism.
Maybe she has bad judgement, like so many Trumpanzees.
And she’s not ACTING as a stalking horse. The Russians are USING her that way. As they are bot-promoting the Starbucks guy, and will raise attention to any marginal candidates, to disrupt the Dem vote & aid Trump’s reelection. Surely you understand that?
Jay;
You are not getting it. The Tulsi/Russia collusion story is another FAKE story put out by a democratically affiliated group that has been caught pumping these fake stories and even creating the fake purportedly russian accounts.
This is not about does Putin think Tulsi is a stalking horse. I doubt he knows who she is.
This is about democratic dirty tricksters lying to the public even about their own less favored candidates and blaming fake russians for their antics.
Dave, the same people that believe Trump colluded with Russia will believe the Tulsi/Putin story.
And they vote!
Scary?
Tulsi met with Assad – good for her. There is nothing wrong with talking to people.
Kerry met with the Iranians – again I am fine with that.
Flynn met with Russians and Turks – arranging to be breifed and debriefed before and after – fine with that.
I do not have a problem with politicians and others meeting with other world leaders – even desposts.
Tulsi has also come out in support of Assad – that gets more interesting.
I would be more tepid in my support. Assad is at best the least bad of available choices.
Again the Russians are NOT using her.
The Russia nonsense is FAKE – it was manufactured by a democrat affiliated group – one that has provided advice to congressional democrats.
There is no real evidence I am aware of that actual russians are actually trying to aide Gabbard.
My mistake….she’s been faking it for more than TWO years. So she in it with the Russians from the start, eh?
In my to this point cursory examination of the democratic field, Gabbard is just about the least offensive democrat currently running.
She seems mostly a traditional center left democratic candidate.
Thus far she does not seem to be a falling off the left edge of the world socialist.
She is a veteran and she is opposed to this neocon endless war garbage.
She appears decidedly left of center – but far less left of center than any of the other democrats at the moment.
I do not think she has the national stature of the other democrats – but if she did – she would have a far greater shot at defeating Trump than any of the seven socialist dwarves.
So your argument is that Putin is trying to sabotage a bunch of left wing nuts and this somehow helps Trump ?
Just to be clear – your guesses as to the motives of some third party do not alter the FACT that the situations are the same and you are hypocritically responding to them differently.
In, Dave – Gabbard is a Progressive, and says so proudly. I’m glad to see you are open to the leftist lefts.
Gabbard is complex, and labels cloud issues.
Gabbard does not appear to be what I would call a “progressive” regardless of what she calls herself – and she is free to self identify with a label that I think she should be ashamed of.
Many of her positions are quite nebulous. Further her actual actions seem to grasp that government is often the problem rather than the answer.
Her views on foreign affairs and the USE of the military are those of most republicans today – though not in the past and those of most democrats in the past.
But completely out of step with modern progressives.
She is pretty left wing – but in the 2020 field of democrats as left as she is, she is on the right flank of the democratic party.
Schultz is solidly democrat – atleast in a different era. He is probably to the Left of Bill Clinton.
But he is solidly to the right of every current democrat including Gabbard.
IF Democrats want to win in 2020 – they should flush their entire feild and adopt Schultz NOW.
Sorry Dave, can’t agree with you on Tulsi. She is an Assad apologist, and, unlike Rand Paul, who opposes our involvement in Syria, she has defended a brutal tyrant who has basically slaughtered his opposition. So, wholesale mass murder is a-ok with Gabbard, apparently because she has personally met with Assad, and believes he’s a good guy. Posing for pictures with a Putin ally who’s tortured and killed his own people is a far cry from opposing interventionism.
To be clear, I don’t buy for a minute that the Russians are using Gabbard to help Trump. I think she’s an idiot, who’s being used by the Russians to show that a “reasonable” American politician sees how unfairly poor Bashar Assad has been treated.
Jay, I think that your attachment to the Trump/Russia collusion nonsense clouds your judgement.
The russians are not using Gabbard to help Trump.
This story is a successful New Knowledge fraudulent plant.
There are no actual russians involved.
Though the damage to Gabbard is real.
We have Jay explaining to all of us how this is different from what happened with Trump – because he can divine the intentions of the Russians.
I seriously question his skill at divining the motives and intentions of real russians.
It is completely insane to be trying to speak of the intentions of fake russians.
Remember this is the company that was CAUGHT not merely selling, but actually creating the fake russian accounts and pushing the Roy Moore aided by Russians story.
Unfortunatley this company has also provided assistance to the house and senate democrats in the Trump/Russia investigation.
Democrats should be embarrased.
NBC should be embarrased.
These guys are even more crooked than Fusion GPS.
I don’t think that the Russians are using Gabbard to help Trump. I just think that Gabbard is a useful idiot.
Trump is wrong – we should get out of Iraq too.
Can this man make any decision that is not criticized?
“We’re going to get out of Syria”
“That’s the worst decision you can make”
“We’re going to keep a few troops in Iraq to watch Iran”
“That’s thevworst de ision you can make”
“Can this man make any decision that is not criticized?” No, he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t…
The very same people who criticize him for doing one thing, also criticize him for doing exactly the opposite. So, Democrats, who have been the anti-war party forever, are now the eternal-war party. They oppose the US army remaining in control of a base that we built in Iraq, which would provide us with a tremendous strategic advantage, should Iran make a move on Israel, Saudi Arabia, or any other ME country. They want to put thousands of our young men and women in Syria, to hunt down every last remaining member of ISIS, but are good with giving jihadis the opportunity to gain control of the biggest military installation in Iraq.
And the pro-Iran NYT of course pooh-poohs the idea that we might want to keep an eye on the Iranians.
Because a country whose leaders chant “Death To Israel” and “Death To America” isn’t a country that we should keep an eye on….
“Because a country whose leaders chant “Death To Israel” and “Death To America” isn’t a country that we should keep an eye on….”
So you mean US democrats or Iranians ?
It is hard to tell – so many on the left are chanting “Death To Israel” and “Death To America”
Who knows – maybe Mexico will “pay for the wall” or build their own, or better still build one on their own southern border.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mexico-deploys-militarized-police-to-block-2-000-migrants-from-entering-texas?utm_source=WEX_Breaking%20News%20Alert_02/05/2019&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX_Breaking%20News
Walls are immoral. Tear down the ones on the California border!
Lessons from the shutdown
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/lessons-government-shutdown/
You will never get left of center individuals to discuss privatization, let alone accepting it. Thats just a fairy tale.
No you wont.
But that should not stop us from doing it.
Every single dergulatory and privatization move that has occured in my lifetime has been enormously successful.
Sell the post Office – I am sure Bezos will buy it.
Privatize TSA, and ATC,
Close Department of education, Department of Energy, EPA, CFPB, FCC, FTC
Get rid of the FED.
And a long list of others.
None of these serve any useful purpose. Or any purpose that can not be done better privately.
The Founders warning of the danger of unprincipled men in positions of authority:
https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/1093242886357991425?s=21
And they also warned when debating paying members of congress. Ben Franklin.
“Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice—the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have, in many minds, the most violent effects.And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government and be your rulers.”
So is it not true that congress is not “the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust”, but the ” bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. ”
In this, we have creayed careers, ones whichmembers will do anything to get reelected.
Will women turn out as ‘bold and violent’ in selfish persuit of political power as men, or worse?
Recently, when reading the written words of the Founders, I can’t but wonder if they thought an illiterate, unread, idiotic corrupt knave like Trump would ever hold the highest office of their newly formed government.
Jay, hard to tell what the founders were thinking about who could hold office. Back then, only white, male land owners could vote for the most part. But founders wrote the constitution in such a way that changes could occur in the future.
They also wrote the constitution in such a way that they did not trust future voters to always make the right choices, so they created the electoral college. In doing this, if someone that the electors did not trust was voted in by voters, they could over rule the voters themselves. The question then becomes one about a person like Trump being nominated and elected by voters. Would the founders support him through the electoral college or choose someone else?
But one thing I do believe. Since they restricted voting to those over 21, male and land owners I doubt if they ever envisioned a country allowing uneducated, uninformed, ignorant of current events and constitutional issues individuals and individuals uninformed about candidates positions ever being allowed to vote. When less than 60% of voters really know what candidates stand for, we end up with those like you described in positions in both parties.
The Founders ALL could read and write intelligently.
They respected that ability, and surely expected applicants for high office not to be as mushy-brained as Trump. But that didn’t extend to ‘common’ citizens voting. Barely educated landowner farmers living in log cabins could vote.
Lowering the voting age to 18 was a mistake (England held out on that until 1969). With the extended life spans we have now, and a seeming slower mental maturity rate, I’m in favor of raising it to 30 years for all national elections.
I want to beleive that – but unfortunately in the real world it has not proven to be true.
Bill Clinton is a rapist, serial sexual assaulter, serial perjurer, witness tamperer and obstructor of justice.
He was also a better president than either of the bushes or Obama.
Both Bushes were decent people. They were poor presidents.
I am still likely to vote for personal integrity – which means I am unlikely to vote for any currently announced candidate.
But Wittes is wrong. Even though I wish he was not.
Censorship in the 2K’s
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/are-we-free-to-discuss-americas-real-problems/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=americas-real-problems&fbclid=IwAR0NeSXv4KDq3Sytb9s4aD3RXOEVOGevtheZJi_ICJ6O7i1SyGN2Icr_RqY
This result truly boggles my mind:
“A new poll is finding broad support for an annual wealth tax on people with assets of at least $50 million, underlining support for taxing the rich.
The Hill-HarrisX survey released Wednesday found that 74 percent of registered voters back an annual 2 percent tax on people with assets over $50 million, and a 3 percent tax on people with assets in excess of $1 billion.
The poll showed support for the idea among people of all ages and races and from both political parties.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) proposed the wealth tax last month. She is one of several high-profile Democrats calling for higher taxes on the wealthy.
Just 26 percent of respondents said they were opposed to the wealth tax.
Strong majorities of both sexes said they favored the tax, as did a majority of Republicans. Sixty-five percent of GOP voters supported it while only 35 percent opposed it. Independents backed the tax 69 to 31 percent, as did 86 percent of Democratic voters.
The proposal also had strong support across all racial groups and in all regions of the country. Seventy-three percent of voters favored it in Western states, 72 percent backed it in the South, as did 73 percent in the Midwest, and 78 percent in the Northeast….”
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428747-new-poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-taxing-the-wealth-of
This is what many are calling socialism and its wildly popular according to this survey across age, geographic, race, sex, education, and even political boundaries. Sixty five percent of GOP voters supported the Warren proposal!
Anyone who thinks that its just the idiot left that does not understand economics is fooling themselves. The next target of populism is on the horizon, eat the rich, not matter what the consequences!
I actually oppose these prog tax ideas. Apparently I am more realistic or informed than the majority of the poll takers. Its not that I do not sympathize with the basic intent of the taxes, but they won’t work. People seem to believe that the wealthy keep their money in their mattresses as cash and can just dip in and take some out. As well, they do not realize that there is no tax that can’t be evaded, most likely with detriment to the economy due to unforeseen consequences (many of which Could be foreseen by someone with adequate economic literacy).
They will never get these ideas into law, even if they sweep into power with huge congressional majorities.
If they did get them into law then they would start spending the money on new programs instead of making existing entitlement solvent and paying down the deficit and national debt.
Worst-case scenario, the progs sweep the 2020 elections get the power to do as they please, they do enact these taxes, they then spend money that they optimistically expect to yield from the new tax rates, and when the money does not materialize, its the middle class stuck with the bill, plus the deficit grows enormously, and the existing entitlements go belly up. Prog ideas dead at last but at a terrible cost. Economics 101-201 would be put to the test and found sound.
But, it won’t get that far. I believe that the next period of time up to the 2020 election is going to be one giant economics lesson and in the end the electorate will reluctantly pass. When actual economists start to add up and explain the costs and consequences of the prog proposals enough people will get it.
It cracked me up to hear AOC wailing that people are using the word socialist to scare people. Imagine that! Cracked me up and made me mad too. Does she believe that her ideas live in a criticism-free bubble?
On the other hand, another poll found support for Biden to be far higher than that for any of his dem rivals, including Sanders and Warren. As well it found that only 25% of dem voters rated progressive policies as a priority in choosing the dem nominee. So, there is still some hope that sanity will eventually prevail. I believe it will.
But it is certainly frightening to think of the worst case left wing takeover scenario.
How about a one time net worth wealth tax to reduce the national debt?
Guess who once suggested that:
“In 1999, billionaire Donald Trump proposed a “one-time” net worth tax of 14.25 percent on people worth $10 million or more to help pay off the national debt. He claimed it would raise $5.7 trillion and would wipe out the debt in one fell swoop, as CNN put it. In a written statement, he said that “no one has put forward a plan to make this country entirely debt free as we enter the next millennium. The plan I am proposing today does not involve smoke and mirrors, phony numbers, financial gimmicks, or the usual economic chicanery you usually find in Disneyland-on-the-Potomac.”
His rationale was based on the idea that the top tier held much of the country’s wealth. Trump noted that “by my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan. The other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes.”
Jay, trump had a superficial knowledge of economics then and has a shitty superficial knowledge now. Like Ann Coulter he was living in the irresponsible world of saying noisy stuff to call attention to himself in 1999. Unlike Ann Coulter, he became POTUS and his superficial knowledge of everything is now not at all funny.
Jay, very little of that projected tax money would ever actually appear, no matter who passes what law. Once upon a time I also believed in the “take it from the rich” plan. Then I did my research and thought the situation through.
On the other hand the perpetual GOP tax Cuts for the rich are idiotic and increase the deficit, I hate them. But taking the opposite approach and trying to hold the rich upside down and shake them is fundamentally flawed and offers the false promise to magically fund all the prog dreams. I want reality to assert itself sooner rather than later.
Guess you did not read my post from yesterday about income and expenses. We do not have an income problem. Using inflation and population growth from 1990 until today and compounding that yearly, we are collecting what we need to collect. But spending has outpaced inflation and population growth, !eading to the debt and deficits of today.
When will people learn you can not keep spending money on out dated programs, programs that need modernizing and services better provided by the private sector.
Thank you Ron.
Maybe some of those here will buy it when you produce these facts.
So much of our debate – here and nationally has turned to WHO is saying something rather than the merits or demerits of what is being said.
Here is an example of how I think the prog ideas will be shot down by economic realities over the next two years. I actually applaud the GOP legislators for proposing to tackle the medicare for all idea head on now, ASAP. The dem response was hilarious.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/republicans-medicare-for-all/index.html
“…. Seeking to deflect criticism that they won’t protect Americans’ health care, Republicans are trying to bring attention to the growing popularity of — and divide over — Medicare for all among Democrats. The controversial idea seeks to expand affordable coverage, but carries a huge price tag and risks alienating those who want to keep their private insurance through their employers.
Democratic anxieties over 'Medicare for all' kick off first 2020 primary fight
Democratic anxieties over ‘Medicare for all’ kick off first 2020 primary fight
In a letter, they made their opposition clear. “Given the Committee’s broad health care jurisdiction, we have a responsibility to review any legislative proposal that is supported by so many members of the House majority, especially one that threatens to impact directly the lives of millions of Americans by upending how they receive their coverage, including those with employer and union sponsored plans,” they wrote.
The push got a chilly reception from committee Chair Frank Pallone of New Jersey and subcommittee Chair Anna Eshoo of California.
“Who are you kidding?” Pallone said. “Oh sure, we’re going to have a hearing on something that you think will destroy the country.”
“Now don’t get me wrong, we will address that issue. I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t,” he continued…..”
Now, that bit of rhetorical dancing is funny.
Dems – god no why would we openly admit how we are going to bankrupt the country rapidly when we can do so slowly.
MFA does not smell any better incrementally.
BTW there is no fundimental economic difference between MFA and PPACA except scale.
One is hugely stupid the other only a wast of two trillion a decade.
There are few arguments for PPACA that do not work for MFA
There are few arguments against MFA that are not arguments against PPACA.
Roby, I believe I have said this before, but will cover this once again.
in all countries where there is a national health system with one payer, such as the UK, most of the medical providers are employees of the national health system. The hospitals are part of the NHS. Pharmacies are part of the NHS as well as other providers. Doctors, nurses and pharmacist are part of the NHS.
Salaries for all providers are set by the NHS. The average GP in the UK makes about $60,000 pounds.($77,000) In the USA, $225,000. Nurse in the UK make 30,000 Lbs,($38,000) in the USA $75,000. And the same holds true for pharmacist where they make about 1/2 what their American counterpart makes.
My point. Not until ALL providers, hospitals, human input, pharmacies and all other medical facilities are under the control of the government where the government sets salaries (75% of most all medical costs) and negotiates drug and supply cost for 100% of all services will a one payer system work to reduce costs.
Right now we have three independent arms working against each other. Insurance, drug and supply companies working to increase profits to the highest possible margin, employees working to increase salaries to the highest possible margins and the government working to reduce cost to the lowest possible margin. Those do not provide for a cost efficient system.
Then add to that where many states restrict the competition through certificate of need before a service can be added in an area and that eliminates most competition, something that reduces cost. When there is no competition, charges can be raised without much oversight and negative impact. Where there is competition, people can choose the lessor cost provider.
So MFA sounds like a wonderful idea, but the cost is enormous and will only grow larger as the cost for providers grows larger as the government can not control the costs associated with services provided. And when cost exceed reimbursement, providers close or find a different profession, making it harder for patients to find services. Rural areas are experiencing this change currently.
“So MFA sounds like a wonderful idea, but the cost is enormous and will only grow larger as the cost for providers grows larger as the government can not control the costs associated with services provided.”
About 3-4 years back I suddenly had the idea that medicare could be expanded little by little by shifting the age limit down a year or two at a time. Got so excited I even wrote my congress people by email. Then in about an hour I had realized all the things that are wrong with that idea. Ooops. Couldn’t unsend the letters.
MFA does Not sound like a good idea – if you actually have that “common sense” that Ron keeps talking about.
Any beleif in the virtue of MFA requires beleiving we are all cookie cutters that share the same needs, or that some unknown experts in Washington – who arguably have never gotten anything right, will suddenly get everything right.
Roby, great comments. What people dont realize is when government creates a law or regulation, there are hundreds of consultants to find ways to avoid those regaulations. Working in healthcare finace, I witnessed government creating a regulation over and over to reduce costs, and over and over consultants found a way to work around it as well as improve reimbursement from previous levels.
And thinking about someone with $1B in assets. I have no idea what is a good return on assets, but 10% seems good to use here. That means income of about $100M. Taxes at 37% for federal, state @8% (New York) and 3% New York City, total 48%. So tax on that $48 M. Now added the wealth tax of 3% on the $1B adds another $30M, so total tax is $78 M, leaving the Billionaire $22 million. If, for some reason the return on assets decreased to 8%, then the total for the year net would be break even.
There is litttle doubt in my mind that wealth in the USA would decrease drastically, while small islands would benefit greatly.
And that does not even take into consideration the loss of jobs when business move to low tax countries.
The thing is their assets are not liquid assets. They are assets on paper that fluctuate from day to day with the stock market. In fact, people with 1 billion in assets probably own a company via its stock. I would have little sympathy for a return of “only” 22 million, but that is not real spendable wealth, its ownership in a company. The rich can’t begin to spend their money, their money is in a big sense a fiction on paper. Its nothing they can just lay their hands on to spend or to pay as tax.
Let us imagine that all that so-called wealth of the rich is stock (not exactly true I realize, since they own homes and cars and boats too). What would the implications be of forcing the sale of 2% of the stock market to pay the “rich tax” each year? Who would have the money to buy the shares they are forced to sell? Probably Not other rich people, who would also be under orders to sell 2% of their holdings. So who would buy those stocks? Its easy to say, lucky smaller fish would profit from the duress on the big fish, but I have my doubts that there would be enough assets in the smaller fish to buy the stock the big fish are forced to sell. Seems to me the stock market would be forced to sink and the wealth on paper would go with it. It would be an incredibly complex matter to figure out what the implications of the “rich tax” would be.
I am just hand waving but I think I am asking reasonable questions.
In your example, their return on stock dividends would be far less than assets generating income, like Trump prooerties.
And under your example where stocks were sold to pay for taxes, the declining stock prices due to large sales would impact a huge portion if middle Ameruca that has individual retirement funds in the market.
Kudos for understanding how stupid this is.
No form of taxation is more thoroughly economicially destructive than “wealth taxes”.
BTW they are almost certainly unconstitutional.
I wish it were possible to be able to distinguish your views as well as you claim it is from those of the lunatic left.
The very same reasons that wealth taxes are idiocy is the reasons that most of the things you have espoused are too.
The fact that one stupid proposal is popular does not make a less popular stupid proposal less stupid.
Is it possible that hearing AOC expound nonsense (and watching Venezeula implode) is bringing you back to sanity ?
Venezuela, AOC?
No. I took some well taught economics classes in college in the mid 80s. I was doing a doctorate and then post docs at a University with a noisy left wing student group (only about 50-100 students and maybe 5 left wing nut professors but they made enough noise to be mistaken for the majority) who drove me crazy and made me ill, I made my first trip to Russia in 2000, lived there in 2007-2008 for almost a year, saw firsthand the consequences of a failed left wing society. I do not need Venezuela or AOC to wake me up, I have been “sane” and strongly opposed to left wing economics for considerably longer than you have known me.
You simply have never had the first clue what my actual opinions are on economic issues in spite of my many posts. I have argued since the beginning with your extreme economic beliefs that wind up with government drowned in the bathtub; therefore, I must be a left wing lunatic. End of story to you. Once you form an opinion your mind shuts like a steel trap and rejects any information that goes contrary to what you already believe. You are simply wired that way. So, you will never understand my actual opinions if we keep this up for 100 years. (You could save yourself and us a lot of bother by refraining from the standard “there is no….” response. )
Ask Ron, ask Priscilla, they may be economic conservatives but they can both place me accurately in the spectrum of economic belief. I am sure neither of them would be at all surprised by my opinions of late about progressive economic proposals and would not find them any departure from many many opinions I have stated for a very long time.
Instead of wasting your efforts on me I would spend more time worrying about the 65% of GOP voters who supported this tax idea. There is a whole lot more going on here than simply the lunatic left being wildly wrong. Americans in general understand about as much about economics as they do about transistor circuits or molecular biology. Its a technical subject that requires an interest and some actual education.
There is no form of taxation more economically destructive than wealth taxes.
A bad idea does not become a good idea by doing it only once.
Nor does a bad idea actually work by doing it only once.
We have a spending problem – NOT a revenue problem.
So Trump proposed something stupid in 1999. BTW – in 1999 we would have paid off the debt quite quickly had we NOT gone into deffict spending under Bush.
I would also note that there is almost no difference between a “wealth tax” to end the national debt – and defaulting on the national debt.
In both instances you essentially go to the people you borrowed money from and say in one instance – I am not paying you back and in the other I am paying you back with money I steal from you.
If you think a wealth tax is a good idea – why not just default ?
The effect will be very nearly the same.
Interesting read. Just another link in my distrust for government. She was a reporter that investigated what needed to be investigated, regardless of politics. She stepped on the wrong toes. So does freedom of the press exist anymore?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/02/07/im_suing_the_government_it_has_a_problem_with_that.html?fbclid=IwAR3FJ-DslhTIWxzyc77-B_a2qv3PuRW9OoQCj8aYd8I00izCxJIT4EbLM38
“Guess you did not read my post from yesterday about income and expenses. We do not have an income problem. ”
I did see your posts. I have been trying to figure out how to post graphs I find on google to reply. I found your data on revenues in graph form broken down into categories of revenue. So far I have failed to figure out how to post the graph without posting the blog its linked to.
Here is a pew graph on Revenues as a percent of GDP since 1962. This figure has varied somewhat cyclically and been between about 18 and 24 percent over this period.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-the-federal-government-spend-your-tax-dollars-on-social-insurance-programs-mostly/ft_17-04-03_budget_420px/
Yes Roby, social programs are a large part of the growing debt. So lets break down those parts individually.
The chart shows that social security has changed little from 1990 until today. In fact, it has been flat since 1985. I give the reforms that Tip O’Oneill and RR put together for some of the control.
Now Medicare. As government worked for years ( starting in 1980) to control costs for Medicare, what did Bush and congress do in the early 00’s. They created part D to cover drug costs. So they grew a program costs by adding benefits. Where does the graph show Medicare increasing? Somewhere around 2005-6.
OK, Medicaid. It took off in the early 90’s. What took place in the 90’s. From the Free Library. “Many States relaxed eligibility standards for Medicaid, extending coverage to higher income pregnant women and children or, in some cases, to the general low income uninsured population. In these States, Medicaid reform was a component of a broader effort to increase access to health insurance generally, and to encourage the development of managed care.
The States were not the only actors in the Medicaid reform arena. Congress enacted a number of reforms at the national level, including changes in the laws governing Medicaid payments to disproportionate share hospitals (DSH), welfare reform, repeal of the Boren Amendment and enactment of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). ”
Each and every one of these changes increased costs. FINALLY! Another huge increase in Medicaid in 2010. PPACA increasing the number.of families eligible for Medicaid. The feds paid 90% of any additional costs for states increasing coverage.
Each and every one of these changes occurred with no attention to how the change would be paid for.
Now for the left/right rub. People on the right, such as myself, do not think any of these changes were needed. I dont believe we have seen any noticable change in outcomes for people involved with these programs today vs 1990. In fact, I believe Part D medicare has had a detrimental impact since drug companies can jack up costs and Medicare pays it. As for those on the left, all of these changes were needed regardless of outcomes or cost.
So again my point. Had increasing costs with new government programs not occurred, we would not have the debt and deficit we have today.
And if you took this graph and plotted just dollars and not % of GDP, you would see a much more pronounced change in the graph at these periods of time.
There is no doubt, you are well informed. The graph is actually part of a Pew article which I have to admit was rather eye opening to me.
The problem with creating programs with benefits and large economic consequences, as I found out when I was battling the Vermont Property tax law, act 60, is that once the benefits are in place, there is NO going back.
I also have to admit that we who opposed Act 60 vociferously and learning it inside and out and predicted its economic consequences, well, we were right and we were wrong. The basic consequences we foresaw did play out about how we expected over the years, the act did not lower tax rates in fact it tended to raise them, and as far as I know it did not improve academic outcomes noticeably as a whole, although perhaps it did for particular schools. But, I can also admit, the world did not end, life seems to be much the same post act 60 as it was before it. If you are a school administrator it may have made a noticeable difference, I do not know. But for me, very little has changed.
I am in the category of those who do not want government to grow, I would prefer no new major entitlements. I also accept that the entitlements that exist now are built in, I am not believing that they can be rolled back. I want government to do the things it does now, but more efficiently where possible. I am with people like you and John McCain about finding waste.
Roby
All of this stuff does not work. It has never worked.
The problems you face with one thing – are present with averything government does, even those that are actually its job.
The day after 9/11 the NSA was not wiping the egg off their faces, they were planning how they were going to spend the new money that they new was coming, and how to use the new power that was also coming.
Government rewards failure
Regardless please take a look at Bastiat.
We can not foresee the future as individuals. The few of us who are eitehr very good at guessing or very lucky will benefit incredibly, but most of us will be mostly wrong about the future.
Every single government program outside the legitimate scope of government requires an acurate determination of the future – even the actual future effects of current government choices.
Historic data tells us that nearly always a government program will fail.
But that it can not be allowed to fail, and therefore it will be saved forever by government.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
While some areas have done better and some worse, and SS is not the worst performer,
SS costs should actually DECLINE as a percent of GDP – in a growing economy.
In fact all government costs should decline as a percent of GDP – in a growing economy.
A higher standard of living should mean less government cost, not more.
Aside from a spike in the 80;s Crime has been trending down for centuries.
The cost of the criminal justice system should DECREASE as crime decreases.
Even the cost of the safetynet should actually decrease as standard of living rises.
Roby – I would note that though your graph tends to support the claim that tax cuts generate revenue.
The long term trend on your graph is increasing revenue as a percent of GDP.
Revenue was increasing prior to the Reagan tax cut – and it continue to increase afterwords.
When Reagan subsequently increased taxes revenue fell. After the Clinton tax increase revenue fell, After the Bush tax cuts revenue increased and after the Obama tax increases revenue fell.
I can not delete the above post. Regardless it is in error.
Roby’s graph is of government spending not revenue.
Re-analyzing in light of that does raise odd questions – why does government spending increase after a tax cut, and decrease after a tax increase ?
Clearly they seem to correlate.
I would also tax specific note of the near constant exponential growth of Medicare and medicaid – if the growth had been linear the graph would have shown them as unchanged as a percent of GDP – basically medicare and medicaid are growing significantly faster than GDP – so much so that they have entirely eaten declining defense spending (as a percent of GDP) and that we would be running surpluses without those increases.
I would further note that PPACA did absolutely nothing to reign in Medicare and Medicaid costs, if anything they subsequently increased faster.
Finally I would note there is no reason to beleive that government should track GDP.
It should track population – it should actually NEGATIVE track GDP – because the wealthier we get the less government should cost.
I am unable to comprehend how even a moon unit like AOC could manage to tie the concepts of green energy with providing economic security for those unwilling to work. That’s it, progressives will carry the weight of those words forever. I hope it sinks them.
The conservative media are going to be besides themselves with joy, AOC, the gift that keeps giving… to the right.
You Libertarians! Drugs are bad! This is why super strong pot should not be legal:
Revealed: Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ calls for all-electric cars, no more airplanes or ‘farting cows,’ $4.6 TRILLION in infrastructure spending and income guarantees for people who are ‘unwilling to work’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6679905/Green-New-Deal-Electric-cars-ban-airplanes-farting-cows-4-6-TRILLION-infrastructure.html
Really? Maybe if she used some high level pot she would activate some brain cells that seem to be hibernating.
I think that Congress needs to pass legislation, banning the wholesale mass slaughter of farting cows!
Seriously, this thing is beyond parody at this point. The Onion is going to be put out of business.
I guess she does not understand that air travel is one of the most energy efficient means of transportation.
I believe the rail transportation of freight (not people) is more energy efficient.
Every single domestivcated animal exists for the purpose of meeting the needs of humans.
In 1915 the US had 26M horses. Today there are about 3M.
Horses serve very little useful purpose today so there are few of them.
cows will disapear when we can produce meat that we like without them.
Roby, seems like your feeling the feel that many on the right felt when Trump gained the limelight😤!
One can only hope the severely divided democrat field does not result in a fringe candidate gaining the nomination as Trump did with the GOP.
I don’t know how the Democrats avoid that, Ron. Almost every current declared candidate has endorsed the delusional Green New Deal, not because they believe in it (God, I hope not), but because the base of the party has become so extreme that they cannot win the nomination without kowtowing to the absurd left-wing nuttery of AOC and her social media fan base of economic illiterates and social justice warriors.
Look at the response to Howard Schultz, who declared that the party had gone too far to the left. He’s been treated like the second coming of Donald Trump, which is to say like he’s the devil incarnate. And all he did was try to defend capitalism ~ other than that, he’s very liberal.
The Democrats are going through the same thing that the Republicans went through in 2016, and I don’t see how it doesn’t end with a far left nominee. Sure, every reasonable Democrat wants to see Biden get the nomination, but how they do that without alienating the base, which has become so extreme? The base is demanding a woman nominee, preferably a minority woman. Biden is an old white guy~ I don’t think they’ll go for him.
I know he is the current front running – according to polls, but Biden can not win.
Biden IS trump on many of the issues the left wants to attack.
He has conducted himself worse with women – though he has not bragged about it.
He attempts to appeal to the same working class base as Trump.
He is a White Male.
What he is NOT is the incumbent.
Biden running against Trump is like Romney running against Obama.
Biden is Trump without the bragadocia.
Biden will alienate the base on the left which will just stay home.
He may do OK with those moderates who just want to end the media firestorm.
But he will be tied to Obama’s economic record, and Trump will have 3% growth and lots of kept promises.
And Biden is likely the most competitive candidate the democrats actually have.
If they want to win – they should draft schultz not piss on him.
What currently viable democratic candidate is NOT “fringe” ?
Further Trump is not especially fringe. Most of what offends the left – aside fromt he fact that he won when they beleived he could not and labeling him as a mysoginyst racist homophobe did not work, is style not substance.
Trump is more conservative than Obama, but not that Ted Cruz, or Sen, Graham.
He is not a social conservative, he is weak fiscal conservative.
While Trump has successfully undone much of the Obama regime – most of what he has done was either done by Obama or promised by Obama.
Dave, when I comment about Trump being a “fringe” candidate, I am not just commenting about far-far left or far-far right. I am addressing anything that is not traditional values supported by the party leaders.
So was Trump a long time Republican. No, he vacillated between GOP, independent and Democrat over the years. RR was a democrat and became a republican, but remained a republican, he did not flip flop from one to the other as did Trump
Was Trump a man of high moral values that the right so cherished with the christian conservative right. No, Trump is a man challenged in morals, if not morally corrupt.
Was Trump known to be one that exemplified family values? No, he has shown family values means little to him unless it is connection to his businesses.
Does Trump value the truth? NO, one can even asked if he knows what “truth” actually is. Politicians lie, but Trump sets a new standard for how far a lie can go.
And there are other things I can point out that takes Trump out of the main stream GOP party and makes him a fringe candidate.
Again, I will point out that I believe had there only been Trump and a couple other candidates, Trump would have dropped out after New Hampshire. But a completely divided field allowed for 35% of voters to set the stage for his nomination in the early primaries. And someone getting only 30-35% of the support is fringe in my book.
My point was that Trump’s positions are far from the fringe of the GOP.
They are overall pretty moderate republican positions.
At the same time – even by your definition of fringe – you fail.
Trumps; popular support may be 40%,
His Republican support is in the upper 80’s or 90’s.
Dave, you are addressing Trump, the president and I am addressing Trump, the primary candidate when we speak of support.
2016 primary election results for elections in selected states up to super Tuesday
Iowa 24.3%, everyone else 75.7%
New Hampshire 35.2% everyone else 64.8%
South Carolina 32.5% everyone else 67.5%
Virginia 34.8%, everyone else 65.2%
Texas 26.7%, everyone else 73.3%
Georgia 38.8%, everyone else 61.2%
North Carolina 40.2%, everyone else 59.8%
And looking at these states Georgia and NC were well into the election cycle after many of the 15 or so candidates had left the field. But where Ted Cruz carried Iowa and John Kasich ran a close second to Trump in NH, other candidates did well in SC and other states, effectively splitting the votes so no one could find a way to stop Trump.
So now we have 40% that you say support Trump. And at election time another 10-15% will make up their minds if a far left candidate is better than a Trump.
But my point is, had there been Kasich, Trump and Cruz running, or some combination like that, Trump would have been knocked out by SC because more than 60% of the GOP primary voters did not support Trump at the critical juncture of the campaign.
In my mind 30-35% support is a fringe element of any 100% of the voters.
Providing economic security for those unwilling to work is impossible.
There is no economic security if no one works,
and few of us actually work if we do not have to.
It is economic insecurity that raises standard of living.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
Adam Smith
“Providing economic security for those unwilling to work is impossible.”
Your Captain Obvious Crusader Decoder Ring is in the mail. I saved up all my cereal box tops and bought it for you.
Ha.
“….The operating principle behind the Green New Deal is a no-enemies-to-the-left spirit of fostering unity among every faction of the progressive movement. Thus, at the same time, the plan avoids taking stances that are absolutely vital to reduce carbon emissions, it embraces policies that have nothing to do with climate change whatsoever. The Green New Deal includes the following non-climate provisions:
–A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
–High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
–High-quality health care
–Safe, affordable, adequate housing
–An economic environment free of monopolies
–Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work
— Free Pot for all public school teachers
— Pet Unicorns for all children under 5
— Latte as the official national drink
— All Catholic Schools must have Che Guevara T shirts as part of their uniform
Sean McElwee, a socialist organizer with a penchant for colorfully threatening to destroy his enemies, designed the Green New Deal as a framework to encompass every maximal demand of the left. “The Green New Deal is what it means to be progressive. Clean air, clean water, decarbonizing, green jobs, a just transition, and environmental justice are what it means to a progressive,” he tells Vox. “By definition that means politicians who don’t support those goals aren’t progressive. We need to hold that line. Get on the GND train or choo-choo, motherfucker, we’re going to go right past you.”
It is difficult to see how the task of finding 218 votes in the House and 50 in the Senate is made any easier by attaching a plan to such goals as economic security for people who are “unwilling to work.” Rather than think creatively about overcoming the formidable obstacles facing the green agenda, the Green New Deal retreats into a political fantasy world in which the ideologically median legislator is Bernie Sanders.
While rightly insisting on the primacy of climate change, it betrays its own confidence by submerging climate policy into a broader array of priorities. It simultaneously argues that we must move with urgent speed on climate, but that we must first achieve comprehensive socialism in order to move.
Speaker Pelosi received the plan icily. “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” she said. “The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?” Her skepticism appears well-taken. Democratic presidential candidates would be well-advised to start over.”
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/democrats-need-a-climate-plan-the-green-new-deal-isnt-it.html#comments
What will it take to get you past this CAGW nonsense. An Ice Age ?
The attached graph plots the climate models vs, acutal temps through 2016.
I would note 2016 broke the previous record high temperature – 1998 by 0.01
2017 and 2018 have been COLD years. So the problem is worse.
The “anomally” the departure from the 1975-1988 baseline was .047C in 2016 it is 0.31C at the moment that is DOWN 0.16C
The natural rate of warming from 1750-1950 was 0.11C/decade.
The warming from 1975 to 2019 has been 0.07C
It is BELOW the rate of warming when human CO2 was not a factor.
Belief in CAGW is an IYI test – Intellectual Yet Idiot.
You Are the King of Oblivion. My interest is not in CAGW here, its in the utter stupidity of progressives. You did not even read the thing. Pet Unicorns and Che Guevara Tee shirts went right over your denial addled mind. Even when I blatantly agree with you about something you have to find an angle to give a misplaced lecture about your religion.
If you do not want a discussion and criticism of CAGW – do not raise the issue.
The choice is yours.
Yes, I read your post. I do not often respond to the portions of posts I do not have a problem with.
Religion is the belief in things without evidence. CAGW is an example or a religion, Socialism is an example. Libertarianism not. It is an ideology driven by evidence.
You can persuade me of anything – if you can provide sufficient evidence to make your assertion more probably correct than the my present position.
I mostly agree with your comments about AOC, Though I do not understand why you can not grasp that she is only distinguishable from most of the left by degree.
I intended some humor here, boy did I get it.
It is very difficult to communicate humor over the internet.
That is not some secret.
“It is very difficult to communicate humor over the internet.”
There are two possibilities, the items below are meant seriously or the items below are meant in humor. Which would someone choose? Serious or humor? Dave, Dave, Dave, you need to loosen up.
— Free Pot for all public school teachers
— Pet Unicorns for all children under 5
— Latte as the official national drink
— All Catholic Schools must have Che Guevara T shirts as part of their uniform
Roby, I really admire your willingness to go after the progressive agenda, and, as you said in an earlier comment, you have always been very consistent in this, while supporting traditional liberal values.
And , I think that Nancy Pelosi is perhaps trying to make a fool of AOC (as if there is any doubt), by allowing AOC to present this leftist utopian manifesto, disguised as a bill. I think that Pelosi is hoping that it will be roundly rejected, in favor of more mainstream legislation, and AOC will fade into the oblivion that she rightly deserves.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s going to happen. While I’m quite sure that the Green New Deal (GND) has no chance of passing, it is being latched onto by most leftwing 2020 candidates, and many media publications. An op ed in The Washington Post calls it “smart politics and smart policy”. and states
The Democrat base has become a left wing base, partly because the old, white blue-collar base migrated to Trump in 2016. And, the party leadership seems to be losing control of the agenda to the base, just as the Trump agenda pulled the GOP farther to the right. I don’t know if Pelosi can tame AOC and her socialist supporters. I hope so, but I’m skeptical.
Heh, I left out the WaPo link. That last paragraph is me, not the op ed.
The imbeciles on my own side of the spectrum almost hurt me more.
At the rate things are going, we’re going to have the Populists vs. the Socialists…if not in 2020, soon thereafter.
And that presents a problem for moderates, who advocate compromise as the way to achieve goals. How do we compromise with socialists, who advocate against freedom and in favor of government control? How do we compromise with populists, who insist that the “elites” be driven from power, but have little understanding of how to wield power themselves?
Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813) quote:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
So where are we? Depending on the generations, I would say we achieved abundance and have become selfish and given the current state of politics, apathy has grown large and is continuing to grow. With AOC and the other “leaders” in the Democrat party moving the party to the left, dependence will become more prevalent over the next few years. And with the speed of change, that will not take anywhere near the time it took to achieve abundance.
“And that presents a problem for moderates, who advocate compromise as the way to achieve goals. How do we compromise with socialists, who advocate against freedom and in favor of government control? How do we compromise with populists, who insist that the “elites” be driven from power, but have little understanding of how to wield power themselves?”
The planets have aligned, we are in the agreement zone. But I gotta add, socialists ARE the ultimate populists and the eat the rich campaign (and rich can mean anyone with more money than me) is just the next phase of the unchained populism that was channeled by the likes of Bannon. I was scared shitless of the populism that was unleashed in 2015 and still am. Its going to turn in every direction like an armor piercing round ricocheting in a tank until its gutted everything.
Meanwhile Putin’s authoritarian view of the world is gaining time and moves as the west self destructs.
I drink very little most of the time, but that may change.
$28 at Costco – good as $40 Jameson Tripple Blend
Jay, I’ll have to hit Costco. My kids appreciate whiskey. I’m actually more likely to mix Kahlua with half and half or rum with coke. Perhaps as one who is mainly Scottish and Irish I should just throw in the towel and turn to the ancestral potion.
Its a beautiful day, I just bought a pair of new generation Fischer cross-country skis with metal edges, cross country skis that can actually do alpine skiing (unlike my old pair). I am going to go ski my brains out at Trapps, then have a snort and go sit in their outdoor hot tub, and then come home and drink myself silly and put on Santana Abraxas. I don’t know what my wife will think when she comes home from work and finds me all loosened up. That could go either way.
Living in the trump-AOC world is going to require better skills at escapism on my part.
Remember in 2013 Sanders introduced a climate protection bill. I believe that get -0- co-signers
Six years later, the GND got 15 co-signers,(16 total). That is a significant shift in just 6 years.
I suspect by early 2020’s. something like the GND will become reality with a fast shifting process to socialism.
“I suspect by early 2020’s. something like the GND will become reality with a fast shifting process to socialism.”
And I believe, with equal gloom, that its the right kooks who come out on top in the end, not the left kooks. There simply is not money to do what the left kooks propose. And in the middle term the national political IQ will decrease so rapidly that Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan will look like Einstein and Sir Isaac Newton by comparison.
Although a more disconsolating pair of ignoramuses than trump and AOC is hard to imagine. Perhaps we have hit bottom. Perhaps moderates will come into fashion after some spell of left and rightopian imbeciles finally exhausts the national patience. There are so many perhapses. Perhaps I’ll have a drink.
Democrats having regained some power in the house are scaring the crap out of lots of ordinary americans.
Whether it is the GND or any of the rest of the hard left nonsense they are pushing.
To be clear – house democrats are free to push whatever agenda they want.
They can embrace Che if they want.
But if they wish to hold the house in 2020 so far they are doing all the wrong things.
Howard Schultz muddling over a run as an independent is damning.
Schultz should be the front runner for democrats.
Just the attention he is getting is making it clear democrats have lost touch with the center.
Roby, I tend to agree with those who say that the political spectrum is more circular, than linear. Once you reach a certain stage of “tear-it-all-down” it doesn’t matter why, so left and right become fairly useless terms, and totalitarianism is the end result either way. For the far right, it comes about by design (“trust the ruler, he is good”), for the far left it’s hypocrisy, in the name of the “greater good,” that paves the way.
I’d like to think that Trump’s SOTU speech, in which he extolled bi-partisanship and compromise, is the beginning of his pivot to the middle for the 2020 campaign. I know that both sides typically flap their gums meaninglessly about this (à la the McCain and Bush funerals). And, I know that, now that he faces a divided Congress, Trump is being forced to move more to the center, just as Clinton did after 1994. But, at some point, there has to be a move to the middle by someone, and moderates have to reward it. And that’s not to say that they have to reward Trump. Maybe it will be Schultz, or Biden, or Bloomberg. But it can’t be Kamala or Cory or Bernie.
Best Newspaper Headline This Year (maybe ever!)
Oh, thank you. Its right up there with the mirth that dave’s ironic IYI usage gave me today.
Clearly you are IYI if you think my use was Ironic.
IYI means you are intelligent, but fail to use that intelligence.
You are literally trying to invert its meaning.
Hahaha! I suppose, in this case, that headline was inevitable. But it’s still great.
Seriously, one wonders how stupid and/or arrogant Bezos is, to send those texts and think that they wouldn’t eventually be discovered. I guess, when you’re the richest man in the world, you figure that you can control everything… I hope his wife takes him to the cleaners.
“Seriously, one wonders how stupid and/or arrogant Bezos is, to send those texts and think that they wouldn’t eventually be discovered.”
So absent the recipient of a text providing that text, or doing so yourself, how is it that ones text’s are “discovered” that is legal ?
The one and only one point that the left has regarding 2016 is that IF the russian’s hacked the DNC – that was a crime. Presuming they were hacked and not leaked.
It does not change (as with Bezos) that the messages say what the say.
It does not change that once public, they are news, and you can not put the gennie back in the bottle.
It appears that Pecker engaged in extortion – that is a serious crime.
It is also probable that NE may have actually hacked Bezo’s phone – that too would be a crime.
Bezo’s wife will likely take him to the cleaners – and that is appropriate.
Mostly I think Bezo’s is handling this well.
Well, I suppose that The Enquirer could be in some legal jeopardy. I don’t know the legalities.
My understanding is that the texts were provided to the tabloid by a disloyal friend of Bezo’s gf, in whom the gf had confided. The Enquirer no doubt paid for them. Honestly, I am not gonna spend any time worrying about Bezos, Pecker, or Bezo’s pecker.
If the texts were acquired as you described – NE is covered.
It is well established that you can publish something that SOMEONE ELSE acquired illegally, so long as you did not participate or have prior knowledge.
The most famous case on this is the Pentagon papers, but it also covers wikileaks and
Roger Stone and cronies efforts to find out what Wikileaks had.
Your description does not even involve hacking.
Asumming it is correct NE has no problems regarding how they acquired the texts.
I am still trying to sort out the “if you stop your investigation, we will stop publication” portion of the emails from NE to Bezos.
I am not sure if all the elements necescary for criminal blackmail are present – but it is very close.
The headline provoked you to criticize Betos for infidelity, Pricilla, but ignore the blackmail threat?
Should Melania take Trump to the cleaners for sexing with porn stars and nudie playmates?
Eh, it’s not blackmail. It’s the way The Enquirer has operated for decades. Bezos is just being a whiny jerk, who got caught sending dick pics to his gf, after putting himself out there as a holier-than-thou family man for the past 25 years.
And Melania should absolutely take Trump to the cleaners if she so chooses. And she might…but it certainly appears that, if she’s planning to do so, she’s waiting til he’s out of office.
After multiple marriages, I bet Trumps prenup is iron clad and she would have to use a nuclear device to get much out of a divorce.
It does not matter if it is NE’s SOP.
It is either blackmail or very close to blackmail.
There are also implications that get even worse for NE.
How did they get Bezos’ texts ?
There are only a few legal ways those texts could be acquired.
It is likely they were acquired by hacking the phone of Bezos or his GF.
If NE participated or had advance knowledge they are in deep shit.
I will be happy to defend NE – but not for actual blackmail, nor for hacking phones.
A free press is not carte blanche to commit crimes.
“The headline provoked you to criticize Betos for infidelity, Pricilla, but ignore the blackmail threat?”
I am glad that Bezos is going after NE.
But some have noted the Irony of Bezos being concerned about his own privacy – given the data amazon gathers on the rest of us.
“Should Melania take Trump to the cleaners for sexing with porn stars and nudie playmates?”
That is up to her.
Whatever I might feel about the political unimportance of of Trump’s infidelity, the importance inside Trump’s relationship with Melania is between them.
I do not know of their relationship.
But if she wants to Take Trump to the cleaners – is there someone who would not support that ?
Melania is actually entitled to be outraged by Trump’s behavior.
You and I are not entitled to be outraged for her.
Beautiful.
The details matter, but it appears that NE really did try to extort Bezos.
I am absolutely with him, that he must stand up to that.
Unfortunately this happens alot.
Can someone explain how Mueller’s efforts to roll Flynn, Manafort, Papadoulis, Cohen, Stone, Corsi are different ?
Give me what I want or I will destroy you.
According to the law, offering to NOT go after someone for a crime they actually committed in return for something you want is itself a crime – extortion.
Regardless if Bezos destroy’s NE – more power to him.
OH, No!
Adam Schiff is Colluding !!!!
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/429041-adam-schiff-glenn-simpson-and-their-forrest-gump-like-encounter-in-aspen
RON, thank you for the alert on the jump.
Too many comments to catch up, but I repeat, Tulsi is my favorite Dem, whether she can win against al the loud mouth phonies is another story.
Russia is using her is roil our election process, as usual.
dduck, not sure, but I think that Russia story is fake news.
But the problem is few check facts before running off at the mouth. So she probably is dead in the water before even beginning the swim.
Russia is a master at misdirection and at interfering in elections.
Tulsi went to Syria and met with Assad. OK, then let her explain what she was up to. If she is pro-Russian in the same way as Trump (border line treasonous) I will drop her like a hot potato.
There are things Russia is actually good at.
Meddling in democratic elections is NOT one of those.
The effort that Russia put out in the 2016 election was laughable garbage.
It was not only inconsequentially little, it was also poorly done.
I guess you have forgoten the amateurish political adds attributed to Russia.
Unless Putin is littlerally colluding with democratic political operatives.
there is not at this time actual evidence that Russia is aiding Gabbard.
Beyond that – you can demand whatever answers you want from Gabbard,
and she can decide whether she is going to answer.
Just like Trump’s tax returns.
She is not entitled to your vote – you are not entitled to her answers.
That said I am not bothered by her trips to Syria,
Why is it so hard for all of you to get – Russia is NOT using Tulsi.
That is FAKE NEWS.
Do you know what a “false flag” operation is ?
That is what this is.
A democratic consulting group who has done this before created fake evidence that made it appear Tulsi was getting support from Russia.
Please read the story from the intercept that I linked.
The Intercept BTW is a LEFT publication of Glenn Greenwald.
It is also one of the best sources for national security and espionage and hacking stories.
Greenwald is the person who broke the snowden story.
More meds might help.
So take more meds.
Trump Towers North Korea now on the drawing board
Someone better tell Dumbskull Donnie that North Korea is a socialist nation. Has he changed his mind about socialism’s poor economic success?
I agree with Mr. Riley: “Democrats Love Diversity, Except When It Comes to Thought
Their candidates work to extinguish any original ideas they might have held.”
‘What’s really off-putting is a discussion focused on Ms. Harris’s biracial background instead of on her views, but there’s the rub. In 2019, the only things that truly distinguish the Democratic candidates are superficial characteristics. On any number of issues—single-payer health care, guaranteed jobs, free college—Ms. Harris and Mr. Booker dutifully toe the progressive line. The irony is that there was a time not too long ago when they weren’t afraid to express sensible opinions …………
“The Democratic Party today could benefit from some diversity of thought on these matters and others, but as Howard Schultz is learning, their base isn’t in the mood. That means Sens. Booker and Harris will likely spend an inordinate amount of time on the campaign trail apologizing for once making so much sense. ere unpopular among fellow Democrats.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-love-diversity-except-when-it-comes-to-thought-11549411119
“The Law? I don’t follow no stinkin’ law!”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/politics/white-house-khashoggi-deadline/index.html
Apparently what the GND was referencing is something called UBI: Universal Basic Income.
I attach a link. The contents will cause a few people (maybe everybody here) to shoot their soda out through their nose, so put down any drinks before reading.
I think its utter nonsense. I cannot believe some of the polling they quote that shows support. Ask people if they support it after telling them what it will cost in taxes, ha.
As well, it quotes certain Libertarians as supporting it! Ultra strong weed is everywhere now.
https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-media-attacking-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-2019-2
What? Alaska shells out money to every resident yearly? What up with that? 🙃
https://www.businessinsider.com/alaska-universal-basic-income-employment-2018-10
The Scandinavian countries for many years had similar programs, providing money to every citizen, but most recently discontinued the practice. Money for nothing (were the chicks still free?) didn’t do much good, or harm either, apparently.
I could only find a small pilot program that just ended in Finland, 2000 people on unemployment were given about $700 a month. Result of the test program, the people were somewhat happier but no more employed than the control group. Another captain obvious decoder ring to the designers of the pilot program.
Ah, sorry, my mistake – I confused it with the Wealth Tax: “Austria, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Finland, Iceland, and Luxembourg have abolished it in recent years.”
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wealth-tax.asp
Jay “What? Alaska shells out money to every resident yearly? What up with that? ”
Why wouldn’t they? What do you want them to do with the extra funds they get from selling oil? Send it to D.C. so they can add a social program to help California or pay for that idiotic bullet train?
Alaska built up a huge fund from oil taxes and royalties for a number of years. This fund also earns income from investments. Funds from these investments are then distributed to each resident since the 80’s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
“What do you want them to do with the extra funds they get from selling oil? Send it to D.C. so they can add a social program to help California or pay for that idiotic bullet train?”
Sending a third of the extra funds to D.C. is not a bad idea. That would be a fair deal as a third of Akaska’s economy is the result of Federal jobs financed there, pumping money into the Alaskan economy. That’s slightly more than oil money contributions to Alaska’s economy. The US Military alone spends about $4,500 per Alaska resident. Therefore why do we Californians (highest contributor to federal funds per SDP (State Domestic Product) add so much more to the National kitty, subsidizing Alaskans who of the 52 US States Are 49th lowest at generating tax dollars back to the Fed Govt.
High speed train service from Burbank to San Francisco in under 4 hours would be great. Way better than the 7 hour car ride on I5N (with multiple rest stops and gas refills), and less hassle than the airport to airport check ins, and inevitable delays and baggage check outs now. Alaska should chip in to build it (alas, I probably won’t be around by the 2032 completion estimate) but I’ll nevertheless enjoy the prospect.
Roby, the author states “Many libertarians, who view government social programs as “paternalistic” and inefficient, support cash transfers to boost social welfare and the economy. ”
Does she provide #’s of libertarians? No!
Does she quote any documentation to support this claim? No!
Does she provide any links the the Lubertarian.party platform? No
Does she state that Libertarians would support this if all other support and wefare programs were eliminated? No!
I think you would find some Libertarians that would say yes, like me, to this if every other social program was eliminated. I would not have any issues with giving someone unable to work money and they had the freedom to spend that in anyway they wanted. But dont come runningto the government when you pissed away the money and now need money for an operation.
But that is not what the Democrats are proposing. They want to keep or expand social programs ( One payer health system) and add UBI. What the Democrats are posting is the seventh step in Alexander Tyler’s eight steps of democracies.
This may well get approved at sometime in the future, but it will be the last stepbas we now know our freedoms.
Well the program they described would cost 4.4 trillion per year. That is 12000 times every person in the US. Ha!
I don’t think any libertarian would go for or many other people once its cost was explained. Its just another stupid pie in the sky dream.
Is that 4.4 trillion for just the no-work-get-paid provision?
Restrict it to citizens over 18 and you can get it down to about 2.5T which is about what the programs it replaces costs.
But you MUST eliminate those saftey net programs to pay for it.
The 2010 cost for the social safetynet is about 2.5T.
Eliminate the safety net, restrict the UBI to adult citizens and reduce the amount to be a neutral change in the current budget, pass constitutional amendments precluding us from ending up with a UBI AND social welfare programs.
Eliminate the Minimum wage – you do not need it wnay more.
Eliminate most labor regulations.
And yes I will buy this.
The program is simple: give 1000/month to every person.
Roby, not that simple. They want to give $1,000 (?) per month along with all the other social programs that are now given.
For a Libertarian to buy in ( you said many.libertarians support this), all social programs need to be eliminated and that cost is then given in check form to everyone. ( Just like Alaska oil dividend).
Never happen!
Won’t 99% of that money immediately flow & circulate back into the economy, like most other Govt aid programs?
Children probably excepted, but who cares its just a thought experiment not a real thing. And never will be.
But of course its a scary idea that just reinforces that there are no limits on stupidity.
Roby, if someone would have said in 1990 that we would have a government health bill that fined people for not being insured, most would have said ” never happen”.
So I wont say the GND will never happen. I only question how many years before it does.
No one ever envisioned a Trump type person becoming president. “Never happen”.
So a Warren Sanders or AOC type politician becoming president “Can Haapen and will sometime”
Ron, its not “the democrats” who want UBI its “some especially loony progressives.” Don’t over generalize, not just because its poor rhetoric but because you will needlessly scare yourself silly. Every stupid idea that someone somewhere on the left can think of is not the work of “democrats” as a group. UBI is like reparations, an idea too ridiculous to have legs. I never heard of it before yesterday. ( I also wrote yesterday to my congresspeople yesterday to vent about the whole GND fiasco.)
In fact the GND and UBI it will have more legs as an argument Against the progs than for them.
Roby “UBI is like reparations, an idea too ridiculous to have legs. I never heard of it before yesterday”
So lets just change that a couple words that may have been said in 2010. “A Trump presidency is like reparations, an idea too ridiculous to have legs. I never heard of it before yesterday” And look what happened in 2016!
Ron,
I have discussed a UBI here before.
The “big” issues with a UBI are:
It must be universal – otherwise the negative impacts are no better, and possibly worse than what we have.
It must replace all other safetynet programs – including SS and Medicare.
It must replace many labor law – family leave, minimum wage, ….
Acheive those and it is the “lessor evil” – it is an improvement on what we have
It is highly unlikely to ever be passed in a workable form – because it takes from poiliciticians control of spending.
There is little power in giving 1,000 a month to every adult citizen.
There is great power in deciding cheese subsidies and milk subsidies.
When you get to pick winners and losers – then you have power.
Social Security recipients would revolt.
Corrected:
“Won’t 99% of that money immediately flow & circulate back into the economy WHERE IT CAME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE, like most other Govt aid programs?”
Govenrment can not generate economic activity by taking money from the economy and putting it back.
This is a variation on the “broken windows fallacy” – if you break a shop keepers window – the shop keeper must replace his window and that is good for the economy.
But if you did not break the shop keepers window – he still would have done something with that money.
When government takes money from the economy – it breaks a window.
No matter what government subsequently does with that money, we are never as well off as we would had government done nothing.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
Roby – I have no idea the specifics of what “some progressives” are proposing.
But a UBI properly implimented is LESS BAD than what we have now.
It is likely impossible – because to work it must REPLACE existing entitlements,
that is the only way it is not too costly.
For myriads of reasons it is likely politically impossible.
You will never get politicians – right or live to let go of their control of the money they steal and give to others. And government ceding control of “safety net” money is the entire point of a UBI.
Further the UBI is paid for by eliminating all other entitlement and social safetynet spending.
Everything government does will have winners and losers.
Those currently on SS would make more from SS/HI than a UBI.
A UBI would also end labor laws, and government insurance subsidies and regulations.
“So lets just change that a couple words that may have been said in 2010. “A Trump presidency is like reparations, an idea too ridiculous to have legs. I never heard of it before yesterday” And look what happened in 2016!”
There’s impossible, as rhetoric, like a democrat getting elected as Senator in Alabama is impossible and then there is impossible, like Really impossible, flying to the sun and strolling around on it tomorrow impossible. UBI is that kind of impossible, there simply isn’t that much money or that level of political suicidalness. And, by the way, removing disbelief on it being enacted, hyper inflation would be the final blow.
UBI is impossible.
There is EIC, which has existed for quite a while and I even remember a GOP senator suggesting making it larger not so long ago. EIC is a pimple compared to UBI.
All these absurd things that somehow poll well in some one-off oddball poll vanish when people start to talk about the actual cost faster than single payer died in Vermont. Living through that experience gives me a lot of belief that nearly all of the prog ideas, other than a $15 min wage in a few of the wealthier states, will be deader than dead once seriously examined.
Single payer was wildly popular in Vermont, the people wanted it by a wide margin, the House and Senate were totally dominated by dems, the governor, Shumlin, had staked his career on it. They passed a bill saying that it would be brought into being in a two year time span, and when push came to shove, the real costs killed it dead. Once the true costs were determined and the taxes calculated on business and individuals to pay for it the dems could not send a bill to the governor and he wouldn’t have signed it anyhow, they all just admitted that it was too expensive. Some bitter progs did the usual left conspiracy shtick that the insurance companies bought off the politicians, but that was bunk. It was simply impossible economically. It was the end of Shumlin too, who I particularly hated (and he hated me.)
EIC is close to a UBI and it is very real.
“So a Warren Sanders or AOC type politician becoming president “Can Haapen and will sometime””
Its a funny argument we are having, kind of reversed, you are sure the dems will win and I highly doubt it if they run a prog. OK, in spite of all past shellackings of McGovern and that ride in the tank governor guy from Mass. lets say that somehow, due to the 55% who say now that they will not vote for trump, somehow a Warren or some other real lefty gets elected. How hard was it for trump to get his wall? How hard will it be for the dems to get their free collage for all etc.? They would be 4 and out and the 2022 mid terms would be 2010 with an overhead cam. And that would truly be the end of the prog left.
We are not an inherently left wing country.
Roby, How hard would it be to get the progressive agenda?
I say about as hard as PPACA was when the left had control of government. And IMO if Shumer gets control of the senate, he will change procedures to a 51 vote majority for everything.
“And IMO if Shumer gets control of the senate, he will change procedures to a 51 vote majority for everything.”
And he will hold that majority until the next senate election. When absolutely everything he accomplished will be rolled back.
The damage of a Warren presdency is not the promises that they will NOT be able to keep.
It is the same as the damage of the Obama presidency – it is what they can do unilaterally.
“free collage for all” Well they might get free collage for all but they never will get free college for all.
Ron, you have this wonderful BS detector that throws out all the fake news and silly assumptions infallibly and you can’t believe people are so gullible as to believe it.
The US government passing Bernie Sanders type wildly left-wing prog wet dreams is Fake News. Its like abortion being made completely illegal or all the guns being taken away. Its a big overreaction to a fantasy scenario. Just reject it like you do all the other fake news.
Maybe its an over reaction, but I remember writing a bit based on “The Producers” and how Trump was running, would get nominated and everyone said I was nuts.
So when I read stuff like this, I see string possibilities.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/4/majority-millennials-want-live-socialist-fascist-o/
Fake news can drive voter choices.
Unless you are willing to take all guns away all other gun legislation is just farcically stupid.
Playing games with magazine sizes and what constitutes an assault weapon will change absolutley nothing.
The 1990’s AWB had absolutely zero effect – except encouraging add on markets and encouraging manufactueres to make guns that were AW’s but did not fall under the law.
You are right we are never going to confiscate everyone’s weapon’s .
If you understand that – then you should understand why almost all gun control laws are just stupid excercises in futility.
“For a Libertarian to buy in ( you said many.libertarians support this), all social programs need to be eliminated and that cost is then given in check form to everyone. ( Just like Alaska oil dividend).”
Didn’t. I said the article claims that certain libertarians support this idea. Which I think is very unlikely. That might mean one or two somewhere.
https://stanfordsphere.com/2018/02/24/the-libertarian-case-for-universal-basic-income/
Looks more than one or two. Not sure how many though. But as the article states “UBI is the welfare programme most suited to libertarian tastes”, I would be very supportive of.one cash.program where individuals under a specific income level received a cash payment and nothing else.
One readon it will never happen. Once a government program is in place, it will never dissppear. Too many programs in place now.
Libertarian support for a UBI – if it replaces everything as a “lessor evil” is actually pretty strong.
Even people like Hayek and Friedman have offered it under different names.
You can find enormous discussion of UBI on libertarian cites like CATO or fee.
The gist is:
It is the lessor evil compared to what we have
BUT politicians are not trustworthy and an UBI will ultimately turn back into something like what we have only worse.
There are a few libertarain purists who oppose a UBI because it violates the NAP.
Which it does. But must modern government does.
But most libertarains are willing to “compromise” – a UBI is an improvement over what we have If and Only If we permanently eliminate what we have.
Most libertarian opposition to a UBI comes from those who do not beleive it will permanetly replace entitlements.
“Roby, How hard would it be to get the progressive agenda?”
Extraordinarily. Go and look at a red/blue map of the US.
I am sorry, I would not have posted that article if I actually thought you would take it to heart. Its just rubbish, nothing that could become law.
I admit that trumps impossible election has raised the chances of another impossible election of a Bernie Sanders type for two reasons: one, now we no longer believe in the boundaries of the previous political era. Two, the visceral counter reaction to trump may make a previously unelectable democrat electable. But that depends on so many things that are unknown as of this minute.
Oh yea of little faith. I believe that by election day the prog economic agenda will have been thoroughly exposed as nonsense to nearly everyone. Quite likely during primary time, which is what I hope for.
Roby;
It is near impossible that the US will turn socialist tomorow.
But we have spent 70 years moving towards incremental socialism.
I beleive we are in a period of retrenchment where we understand we have gone too far and that we risk destroying the nation if we go farther.
But that recognition is NOT stable or inherently permanent.
PPACA was another step towards socialsim. As was Medicare D.
Much of Sanders agenda is not coming tomorow.
But you do not need to factor the impossible election of Trump to realize that socialism has and continues to creep into the US.
That merely makes failure take longer. It does not make it any less likely.
Incremental socialism is still socialism and it still does not work.
“Won’t 99% of that money immediately flow & circulate back into the economy, like most other Govt aid programs?”
Jay, since we are talking about a good part of 4.4 TRILLION dollars suddenly thrown into the economy I say that the result would be hyper inflation and chaos.
Government does not throw money into the economy that it does nto take out first.
There are 3 ways for govenrment to acquire the money it spends.
Print it.
Borrow it.
Raise it from taxes.
Aside from time preference issues they are all the same.
This is also one of the reasons that Republican tax cuts are less effective than they hope (Always) though more effective than democrats claim.
Because tax cuts without spending cuts are much less stimulative.
Without spending cuts – a tax cut is just a defered tax.
Inflation BTW is just a different form of taxation.
If a political party was a single intelligence instead of a chaotic unpredictable war between millions of intelligences (using the word kindly) then the parties would avoid choosing candidates and policies that would give them temporary victories followed by certain backlash that works out to their opponents favor.
In spite of all experience to the contrary I think that many in the parties believe their opponents are weaker than they are and will not be able to regroup. Partisans believe they will score a knockout. That is delusional.
We are for all practical purposes at a balance between the parties seen over time even though the parties are both becoming more extreme.
I understand the fear of creeping socialism, its not irrational. But the word socialism is extremely ill defined. It means many different things to different people. Is the post office socialism? Some say it is, to defend socialism.
What the Bernie movement of democratic socialists is modeled on is a scandinavian nanny state or as economists call it in a technical way, a welfare state. It is debatable whether it is actually socialism. Government at all is socialism if you come down to it. I find that the word is so losing its meaning that its becoming a nonsense argument.
I fucking well do not want Venezuala’s system that is unquestionably socialism with an overhead cam, I definitely do not want the Scandinavian welfare state , but I am fine with the post office and the Canadians do not seem to me to be real socialists in spite of their medical system. I do not believe that Canada is headed to ruin over it.
I will get a hot argument whose form I know by heart from Dave but it will not change my opinion that socialism is an ill defined idea.
Roby, there are things the government needs to be involved with, such as the post office. Pure Libertarians might say no, but there is no company that is going to deliver mail to the rural parts of this country and lose money. They would jump at deliveries in NYC because volume creates profit, but would have no way to get a letter to “Bodunk Texas” in rural western Texas where few items are delivered each week.
However, the “socialist” leanings of unions has created the losses in the P.O. with their excessive benefits that caused expenses in the future and the future is now.The P.O. can operate at a profit had benefits jot been excessive.
As for health care, I have said mny times. You can not control costs of health care unless all entities are part of the system. Hospitals, Doctors, Nurses, Pharmacist, Drug Stores all the way to the maintenance worker mowing the lawns at the hospitals have to be part of the health system so evefyones interest is aligned for lower costs.
You cant control cost when suppliers raise cost, nurses demand.more wage increases, doctors demand more reimbursement, hospitals have to raise rates due to salary and supply increases and drug companies continue to raise drug costs to increase profit margins.
Why does the government need to be involved in the post office ?
Please!!! Shoving the post office out of the federal government is pretty much the easiest no brainer there is.
Then get rid of Amtrak. get rid of government airtraffic control, privatize the TSA
All of these are no brainers.
We have examples elsewhere in the world where there tasks are handled privately and well.
We KNOW these do not need to be government functions.
If we are going to debate this – lets atleast have the debate over things like roads and sewers where the evidence is harder to come by.
The rural mail argument is total horsehit. Fedex and UPS deliver anywhere in the country.
FDR made the same stupid argument about electrification
The rate of Rural electrification SLOWED DOWN DRAMATICALLY when govenrment took over. Even early in FDR’s tenure PRIVATE electric companies were expanding into distant rural areas FASTER than the government.
Because they were embarrasing govenrment TVA bought the private electric companies in a shutgun marraige – sell or be destroyed.
We had the same discussion with phones.
We also had it with cell phones.
It is a bogus argument.
You are right no company is going to lose money delivering to rural areas.
They are going to find a way to MAKE MONEY.
That is ALWAYS what happens. And they ALWAYS do so by delivering better service cheaper than government.
So Dave, if companies can make money delivering to “Bodunk Texas” somewhere out toward the New Mexico border, why hasnt Fed Ex or UPS begun that service? They dont deliver unless they have a specific package and many of their rural deliveries go to USPS post offices and are carried to the homes that way. Many of our packages here have UPS labels to the local post office and our mail carrier delivers.
Are you really going to tell me companies can make money driving hundreds of miles delivering mail to home miles apart on a regular delivery schedule?
Yes privatise air traffic control, Amtrak and TSA. And maybe eliminate the postal service and force all communications over the internet.
“So Dave, if companies can make money delivering to “Bodunk Texas” somewhere out toward the New Mexico border, why hasnt Fed Ex or UPS begun that service?”
I like easy questions.
In the 19th century Lysander Spooner got some investors together and created a private mail service – he would deliver anywhere – faster than the postal service and for 3/5 the cost.
He was actually able to do this. The government sued him. And lost. I beleive this went all the way to the supreme court.
So congress changed the law. It is illegal to provide service that competes with the post office. That is why you do not see it.
FedEx and UPS provide completely different service – or different enough to avoid running afoul of the law. If you want to see if Fedex and UPS can compete with the post office – change the law.
But you are not going to see that happen.
Why ? because if the post office failed large numbers of employees would be out of jobs, and large numbers of pensions would be destroyed or diminished.
At this point in time the Post Office is primarily a jobs program.
“Are you really going to tell me companies can make money driving hundreds of miles delivering mail to home miles apart on a regular delivery schedule?”
Yes,
Cell companies do it today – not just in the US, but in third world countries.
As noted before – 95% of the electrification of the US was done in 3 decades privately.
The last 5% took another 7 decades and was done after the public utilities forced private electric companies to close or bought them out.
Many of the rail lines in the US had no subsidies at all.
Most benefited from land grants that pretty much conform to the constitution.
The federal government sold the right of ways to the railroads at the same cheap prices they were required to sell to everyone.
Cable TV has gotten to most of the country.
Even Telephone long ago got everywhere. We can fight over the importance of government subsidies.
The next thing I would say is why do you presume things have to be as they are ?
The USPS got extremely hit by email. Business letters are very rare any more and declining.
Increasingly the mail is about package delivery. And package delivery is RARELY about getting from A-B. It is about getting something from wherever it is – which is often NOT where the sender is, to where the recipient is.
Amazon has warehouses all over the country – because they transport what you are buying by TRUCK to as close to you as possible and then deliver the last mile by USPS or UPS or FEDEX.
People joke about Bezos and Drones – but Amazon spends 8B/year on package delivery.
That is alot of money to invest in drones.
And even if we do not get drones – autonomous vehicles are just done the pike.
We like to think of automated ubers taking us where we want to go.
But why not redesign the autonomous vehicle to deliver packages ?
And that is just my ideas. Legalize competition woith the USPS and things I have not thought of will be tried.
No Ron.
You can NOT control the cost of healthcare.
You can NOT control the cost of ANYTHING.
There is no example anywhere at any time in history of government successfully controlling the cost of anything.
The only method that has ever sustainably worked at delivering higher value at lower cost – ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYTHING, is free markets.
That we are even arguing it proves the extent to which most of us have been brainwashed.
And how poor our education is.
Those people who tell others that what we KNOW does not work – somehow will – are immoral.
Ok UK cost as % of GDP is about 8%. USA its about 18%
So the UK controlling doctors salaries, nurse salaries and all other medical provider salaries that make up almost 65% of our healthcare cost right at 50% of our level has no impact on cost?
You show me any service where 65% of the cost is 50% less for one comoany and I will show you services which cost far less.
Ron,
it is an open secret that the public cost of UK NHS is bogus.
No one knows for sure but it is likely twice the cost that is made public.
The UK goes to a great deal of trouble to hide the actual cost of the NHS.
Further US cost increases since 1965 are driven somewhere between 1/3 and 100% by medicare.
We should NEVER be trying to sell US healthcare as “free market” it is not.
The Swiss have a completely private healthcare and heatlh insurance system.
But they MANDATE insurance, Further they require that all patients must pay 1/3 of the cost of their healthcare – that is the minimum necescary to get patients to care about costs.
Needless to say – their healthcare is cheaper than ours.
In the US health services that are not covered by insurance are declining in cost.
I heard an AD on the radio for Lasik at $250/eye.
That is the cost of two pairs of glasses for me.
Plastic surgery has declined in price.
You can go to thailand and buy MTF sex change for about $8000. I think is is a bit less than twice that in Brazil – and those locations have become the best and safest in the world – and this is for profit.
My wife had a bad break to a finger several years ago – the cost was 22K – that was for one night, surgery that was much easier than an MTF sex change.
India has a booming medical tourism business with the UK – you want medical care, they provide better than NHS and on demand not 18 months in the future.
But you have to pay – for most procedures the travel is the highest cost.
One of the reasons that free markets work is because YOU CANT CONTROL THEM.
All the players you claim need to be on board – have a voice in the free market – but they DO NOT have control. Each participant can “be the asshole” and try to game the system – but inevitably the market will eventually work arround them.
When employers do not treat employees well enough – they get unions, When unions become to “socialist” – the businesses that they control fail and others supplant them.
One of the reasons that free markets work is because all those groups that you claim need a voice – ultimately have a fairly small voice. In the end only one voice really matters.
That of the consumer. Free Markets work because every where at every stage the parties to any negotiation can walk away. While that may come at a cost – No one has an actual monopoly over anything.
One of the many reasons that you DO NOT want government in the free market is no matter who government favors that group ends up with near unlimited power.
Markets never allow that permanently.
As I have noted over and over – absent government support there has never been a sustained monopoly or cartel.
Monopoly power requires government.
‘Socialist’ Canada ranked at 10th in the world for GDP
(Amazing as it’s ranked at 38 for national population)
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.php
Canada is not Socialist. It is ranked the 8th freest country in the world by the Heritage that is 4 positions above the US. While Fraser institute has Canada at 11 and the US at 17.
There are some very socialist things in Canada – and in the US.
But a few mistakes like Canadian Healthcare do not dwarf everything else.
By standard of living the US ranks 11th in the world, with Canada at 22nd.
There is no country with a population of more than 10M that has a higher standard of living than the US. The first country with a population higher than 10M other than the US ranked by standard of living is Germany – with a 20% lower standard of living ranked in 17th place.
Some of those Nordic Social democracies have higher standards of living – they also have near zero diversity, incredibly homogenity, tiny populations, and high economic freedom.
Some of your assertions regarding parties are interesting.
You are loosely correct that it is unlikely that one party will dwarf the other for long.
Should a party lose power and be unable to regain it without change – the party will change.
On numerous issues democrats and republicans have shifted or flipped over many decades or even 200 years. Each party is going to attempt to craft its values to appeal to enough people to get elected and hold power – while not so many as to have to water down values .
This dance will go on forever.
2016 SHOULD have been a message to democrats to change their values.
Unfortunately that is not the message they got and we are all suffereing for it.
Separately the differences between parties are a reflection of our underlying differences societally.
You keep pushing for this tremendous homogenity – we are diverse – get over it.
That is MOSTLY a very good thing. But it reduces the scope of our common ground.
A major part of why I think you are a leftist, not a moderate is that you are still seeking to acheive unity – by force if necescary.
Again the chaos of individualism seems to terrify you.
The parties are so “extreme” because of the differences between people.
The more recent conflict is practically predictable – you might want to read “The road to serfdom”.
Government F’d up – creating the “great recession”.
I am going to skip which party is to blame, it is not particularly important, though I would note that regardless of WHO was to blame, the cause was government medling in the economy – whether you blame the efforts of government to drive up home ownership or the the poor monetary policies of the FED.
When things go to hell and we get scared we look for scapegoats and strong leaders promising answers.
The germans did much the same thing with Hitler.
In this instance we got Obama and socialism-lite.
Strong leaders are rarely the best solution to whatever our problems are.
Strong leadership – is exactly what you are arguing for – moving to a single intelligence rather than cacaophony. But strong leadership is dangerous – absent facing an ACTUAL existential threat strong leadership takes charge and persues a single vision.
Sounds good – sounds like exactly what you want. The problem is that we are NOT that unified, and the type of unity you seek is NOT a good thing. In fact it makes us more fragile.
Regardless, Obama’s successes as well as his failures GUARANTEED there would be a backlash. Though I would go farther than just Obama – because many of the causes of the current friction are not inherently with Obama, but inherently with the left.
Regardless, I have been making these points over and over – and you keep ignoring.
We are NOT as homogenous as you wish, trying to accomplish that by FORCE will ALWAYS result in a backclash.
Obama failed – because the resulting recovery was weak – and we want more.
Obama failed – because he and the left overstepped.
The left has actually won the culture wars.
But they went beyond equality of rights, and are striving for the impossible – actual equality.
The Phillips/Master Cake fight is the current conflict in a bottle.
The left won gay rights – except at the very fringes the right has accepted this.
But there is a difference between acceptance and embracing.
The left went beyond forcing equal rights to attempting to force “right think”.
Phillips must be compelled not merely to provide gays with equal rights but to think in the proper way about homosexuality. He must subordinate even his religion to “right think”
This is pretty much a guaranteed recipe for backlash.
I would further note – backlash is the consequence of OVERREACH – the cause of the current conflict rests with THE LEFT. The overreach is on the part of the left.
Backlash is NOT extremism in the normal sense. It is a reaction to EXTREMISM.
Trump is not extreme. As republicans go – he is to the left of the center of the GOP on most issues.
There are particular things about Canada that I would criticise.
Probably the ones you would praise.
But overall comparisons to Canada are POOR.
Each country is overall extremely free, and each country has government that is oppresive in some areas.
Further your argument seems to be “if I only socialize one or a few things, it is not socialsim, or maybe it will work”.
So lets address that.
In the US social security and medicare – they are SOCIALIST, and they are a failure.
Not a catastrophic collosall failure that will destroy the country – though that is still possible.
But one that makes all of us poorer than we would be otherwise.
Beyond medicare the US healthcare system BEFORE PPACA was a quasi-socialist MESS.
PPACA made it slightly worse.
Canada’s healthcare in many ways (not all) is LESS of a mess than the US – even before PPACA.
But it is still a mess. It is also still socialist.
Yes, the Canadians “mostly” like it – national pride is a major factor – the Brits “like” the NHS, but few objective observers would try to sell NHS to anyone today.
One of the problems with this “socialism lite” garbage is that it is a mess, it does fail – but not catastrophically. It makes us poorer than we would be otherwise, it does not impoverish us.
Venezeualla is NOT an example of the fact that there is something distinct that is socialism as compared to the socialist programs of the US and Canada, it is example of the fact that ALL socialist programs fail and much us poorer, and when a nation – such as venezeula adopts ALOT of those in a short period of time – ineveitably they fail collosally.
Each “socialist” program you buy into, brings us more failure and makes us slightly poorer.
We likely have a significant distance before the scale of the failure is large enough to actually destroy the nation.
But is that the ideal you aspire to ?
Lets just assume that MFA were not nearly as bad as it likely is.
Lets assume it could be accomplished for say $4T/decade MORE than the healthcare we have now.
That would not be the end of the world. It probably would not bankrupt the country.
But we would be $4T poorer. Maybe we would have better health care – I doubt that.
More likely what we would have is exactly what you want – less chaos – more “right think”.
Healthcare would be very nearly the same for all of us. Regardless of our individual needs.
We also would lose alot of personal control of our own healthcare decisions – alot of that has already happened – but we would inevitably lose more.
Because that is what your “single intelligence” means – one or a few deciding what is best for all.
And THAT is what socialism is.
And the reason it does not work – is dispite your abhorence of chaos, we actually PERFORM better when we are more free – when one intelligence does NOT drive us.
“Trump’s Inaugural Grift Reportedly Lined His Own Pockets”
“Monday night, ABC News reported that investigators subpoenaed documents from the inauguration committee. Today ProPublica adds another key detail, confirming that the inauguration did pay the exorbitant $175,000 fee to the Trump Hotel. And it quotes tax law experts describing this as an obvious crime. “It could be a tax law violation,” Brett Kappel, an attorney at Akerman LLP who advises nonprofits, tells ProPublica.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/trumps-inaugural-crimes-hotel-investigation.html
The fee may not be exorbitant, dduck- it costs around $200,000 to rent Madison Gardens for a night – but the money going to a Trump business-for-profit transaction may violate campaign finance laws.
I would further note that Trump pledged – and he has kept that pledge so far, that all PROFITS from his businesses from business with government or lobbyists or foreign dignitaries, would be sent to the IRS as a voluntary tax contribution.
When you whigged out that Trump was charging exhorbitant fees to the Secret Service for their accomadations at his facilities – you missed the fact that if Trump was profiting on those fees, he was returning the profits to government.
Talk about “captain obvious”.
The inaugural is privately funded.
Absent some evidence of litteral bribery of pay for play there is nothing there that is Mueller’s business.
The attorney cited should be disbarred.
The inaugural committee is a corporation, – probably a non-profit.
The Trump hotel is a corporation.
There are absolutely ZERO taxes on exchanged between corporations.
You can not evade taxes that do not exist.
To be “tax evasion” The transaction would have to be secret and unreported.
There is no sane reason to not report. Failure to do so is a crime.
Further even if it benefits one party it must harm another so there is no reason to agree to it.
Obama’s 2009 inaugural cost 170M – the amount you are talking about is a drop in the bucket.
Regardless it is NOT public money – so it is NOT your business.
The amount a buyer payers in a free transaction is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
“Experts told WNYC/ProPublica that the rate raised questions of whether the inauguration committee was involved in self-dealing with the Trump Organization.
“It could be a tax law violation,” Brett Kappel, an Akerman LLP attorney specializing in nonprofits, told WNYC/ProPublica. “Those emails would be of great interest to the Internal Revenue Service if they were to conduct an audit. They probably will be of great interest to the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York, which is investigating the inaugural committee…
“Every legitimate nonprofit is very concerned with this,” Doug White, a tax adviser to nonprofits, told WNYC/ProPublica. “You’re benefiting a private person, and you’re using the nonprofit to do it.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/429183-trump-inaugural-committee-spent-175k-per-day-for-event-space-at-trump.
(BTW – ANYTHING a presidential candidate does in regard to campaigning is EVERYBODY’S business. Who the hell do you think you are – the Dicktator’s Censor?)
When have I ever cared what the purported talking heads and experts you cite say.
If you think this is illegal – CITE THE LAW.
I presented you with why it is not (and can not be)
Because you have a fundimental misunderstanding of economics, law and business.
I beleive in the past you claimed to have run an SMB for some time.
Then you should know that one business paying another for goods or services – even overpaying can not inhernelty create tax liability or a violation of tax laws.
Evading taxes can not be accomplished by re-arranging money.
To evade taxes you must lie about income or expenses.
You can buy and sell inflated value services to your hearts content and NEVER violate tax laws.
Any lawyer claiming otherwise has proven themselves an idiot.
“When have I ever cared what the purported talking heads and experts you cite say.”
When have I ever cared when a talking anus like you has opinions different than talking head experts?
The tax laws that may be in violation are campaign related to non-profit organizations, not straight forward business dealing as you mistakenly assert. Ask your wife, she’ll explain the difference to you.
I do not ask you to care WHO says something.
I do not ask you to care whether you think they are a “talking anus”.
All I ask is that you do not use force to impose your will on others.
Especially when you have no regard for the actual facts.
As for myself. I place some weight in who says something – when that source has a track record of accuracy. But primarily I am concerned about the facts, the truth, not who says it.
As I have said before – the truth is still True is Hitler says it.
“The tax laws that may be in violation are campaign related to non-profit organizations, not straight forward business dealing as you mistakenly assert. ”
That is FALSE. There are no special laws regarding who a non-profit can freely exchange with. There are no special laws regarding who a political campaign can freely exchange with.
Separately the Inaugural committes are NOT covered by Campaign finance law.
The inauguration come AFTER the election, it is NOT part of the campaign.
If you or your idiot talking heads wish to CITE actual laws – narrowly read,
not any of this stupid garbage where buying a candidate toothpaste is a campaign finance law violation.
Put simply you are FLAT OUT TOTALLY WRONG – as is any idiot who offers nothing but a title and an oppinion that says the same.
There are instance where we have very stupid laws. And we have lots of stupid campaign finance laws. But thus far not half as stupid as the argument you are making.
But I am going to go one step farther.
The transactions we are talking about ARE ABSOLUTELY AS SIMPLE as I make them.
In fact the PRINCIPLES I refer to – are ABSOLUTE – in rare occasions the law deviates from those principles – where it does THE LAW IS WRONG.
When I say you can not evade taxes by buying and selling something – even at an inflated price. That is a FACT. Evading Taxes requires note reporting income that you actually have, or claiming expenses that you do not.
Now we can pass laws that say Eating Bananas on Sunday is “tax evasion”, and if you eat a banana on sunday and get caught you will go to jail for violating a stupid law with “tax evasion” in its name. But you will not have “evaded taxes”.
But for the most part as stupid as I think many of our laws are – none are so stupid as you and the idiot talking heads you are citing claim.
Lets try another question to see if maybe I can get through to you.
If some private activity has no effect on the total taxes that the government collects, the only effect it has is on who owes the taxes, would you actually support a law that barred that activity and call it tax evasion ?
Should we call consensual intimacy rape and make it a crime ?
Now with respect to the specific instance you are fixated on.
The innaugural committee is a non-profit.
It is not going to pay taxes no matter what.
But if the Inuagural committee buys services from someone else, that person MIGHT profit and if they do owe taxes.
So when the inaugural committee spends money – even overpaying, the result is NOT tax evasion, but HIGHER collections by the IRS.
I also want to address “campaign finance laws”.
You may not like this – but they are FAR narrower than you think.
One of the reasons they are narrower is because the most of them ONLY apply to the presidential campaign, and ONLY to the campaigns of candidates that accept federal matching funds.
This is that way because otherwise the laws would be unconstitutional.
Many of our federal laws skirt constitutional problems by giving, individuals, businesses, colleges, states something and THEN subjecting them to the laws.
There was a debate several years ago – Harvard’s endowment is so large and its interest on that endowment is greater than its cost to educate students each year.
Harvard was in a fight to prevent ROTC from operating on campus.
I beleive they lost that suit.
But one argument that came up was that Harvard could quit taking federal funding, and if it did so exempt itself from all federal education laws. Including the requirement to accept ROTC.
And this may arrise again as Harvard is currently being sued for descriminating in applications against Asians and thus far the case is going badly for Harvard.
Harvard can exempt itself from all federal education discrimination laws by simply refusing federal funds. It can then conduct admissions however it wants. It can convert itself to a school for only black lesbians. It can bar republicans.
My point is a substantial portion of what you think of as federal law is unconstitutional as general law, and only exists in the narrow circumstances where the government gives you money in return for agreeing to follow some law.
Most of those laws are NOT criminal – because the constraints imposed on you are essentially contractual constraints, it is very rare that we criminialize contract breaches.
This is also why there are very few criminal charges ever filed with regard to campaign finance laws. It is not that we normally do not treat those as crimes. It is that it is likely unconstitutional to treat those as crimes.
There is one class of laws that might actually apply here – and it is NOT campaign finance laws and it is not tax laws.
Those are the laws for fiduciaries prohibiting self dealing.
To violate those laws, you must be a fiduciary – you must have power over money that is not your own. That generally applies to the officers in a non-profit, it sometimes applies to upper managers in a for profit. It does not apply to people who own their own business. It does not apply to people who are not officers – because if you are a middle manager with spending authority and you engage in “self dealing” it is just simple fraud.
Self Dealing – like tax evasion pretty much requires that you are hiding what you are doing from the party you are harming – the government or in the case of a non-profit, donors, in a corporation is requires hiding it from shareholders and board members.
So if you do not have hiding there is no crime.
In the specific instance of the Trump inaugural committee – the actual allegation as I understand it is that the chairmen of the inaugural committee was trying to curry favor with Trump by funneling business to Trump enterprises.
It might be possible to make a case there but it will not be a tax evasion or campaign finance case.
Further, unless there was an actual quid pro quo – which is highly unlikely, you still have not touched Trump at all.
If you actually find a quid pro quo – i.e PRESIDENT Trump providing special treatment by the federal government in return for the inaugural committee chair sending business to Trump enterprises, then the charge against Trump would be a public corruption charge – bribery not tax evasion or campaign finance law violations.
Finally you are making me seriously doubt your claims to have had anything to do with business in the past.
If you did – you would know most of this.
An enormous amount of conduct that is illegal (though nearly impossible to convict) with respect to the relationship between a private business and the government, is perfectly legal between private parties – including non-profits.
I have repeatedly cited the 3 principles underpinning our Criminal Civil and Torts laws:
You may not initiate force against others – Criminal law.
You must honor your agreements – Civil Law,
You must make whole those you actually harm – Torts law.
These principles are extremely important – law is the use of force.
The first principle – the foundation of criminal law is you may not initiate force against others.
When you pass a law that allows government to use force against another, If there is no actual harm – then it is government that is acting criminally.
We are permitted to shoot people who are about to kill us.
We are not permitted to shoot people who are not doing us any harm.
Not even law enforcement can shoot someone who is not an immediate threat.
Our laws are (mostly, and only legitimately) premised on punishing actual harm.
Next time before you start ranting about oh my Trump has been caught comitting a crime,
Try looking at you facts and see if there is an actual harm to someone.
And actual harm is not “I do not like that”
In the thing we are currently dealing with,
ask yourself does the IRS end up collecting less taxes ? Unless you are completely clueless, you would grasp the IRS ends up collecting MORE taxes – infact the more inflated the price is the higher the profit the more taxes the IRS collects.
Are those donating to the Inaugural committee actually harmed ?
If you can not find either of those – you do not have a crime.
“Every legitimate nonprofit is very concerned with this,” Doug White, a tax adviser to nonprofits, told WNYC/ProPublica. “You’re benefiting a private person, and you’re using the nonprofit to do it.”
Mr. White needs a lesson in logic.
If a non profit hires a taxi – a private person profits.
If a non profit buys a pencil – a private person profits.
Further we would not want it otherwise.
How many times do I have to quote Smith.
we WANT people to profit by providing others what they want and need.
It is not a defect. it is the engine of progress.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
Adam Smith
Once again you substitute “feelings” for facts, logic, reason.
Because you do not like something – it must be wrong.
You do not like the fact that other people profit.
Adding the world profit to a discussion does not create a crime.
Watch out El Paso, Trump will be leading an “invasion” of more lying liars into your formerly crime ridden town. I don’t know if Kirsten will be there, she may have been replaced by skinhead Whitaker by now. Matt presents a much needed tough look for HLS than little
Kirsten. (“Who the hell picked her, anyway?” I’m imagining Trump bellowing.)
Beto & Baby Blimp will Be There!
“EL PASO — If American politics has turned into a three-ring circus, this city in west Texas will hoist the Big Top on Monday, with President Donald Trump coming to rally for a border wall, Democratic wunderkind Beto O’Rourke leading a protest march and even the Trump Baby blimp putting in an appearance.“
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/09/trump-beto-face-off-el-paso-dueling-rallies-near-border/2822324002/
I’m watching Black Panther on Netflix.
Typical Marvel action-special effect film, but with mostly black cast.
The good blacks are African.
The evil villain is a Black American from ghetto Chicago, and talks like it.
If it wins the Oscar for best film, will American blacks praise or condemn Hollywood?
Same question for left & right.
Moderates of course will see both sides of the issue…
Or maybe we can just look at the film as a film rather than as all about race ?
I have zero problems with films that feature black casts, or that make blacks the heros.
You can substitute homosexuals or transvestites or hispancis or asians.
We all need role models we can identify with – that is a good thing.
But in the end to the broader culture – it is just a film.
I am not sure I though Black Panther was an Oscar winner – but it was a good film.
But it is all about race. Hence the film title.
It’s the racial (African) perspective on which the film is based.
That’s not a criticism; just a statement of observation.
I too liked the film; reminded me of Raiders Of The Lost Arc in its visual epic scope and action – and movie financial success (both films dominated box office revenues).
Did you watch the credits at the end of Black Panther? It took about 5 minutes to scroll through: and included at least 1,000 names. That’s $200 million in jobs created (the film cost) by Hollywood. It’s already earned about $1.5 Billion in box office sales world wide. Maybe one of the movie producers should run for Prez.
When a black person sees Black Panther – they see a world in which Black people get to be the good guys, the super heros, ….
That is a good thing,
Probably my big problem was the nonsense about vibraniaum.
That undermined the foundations. Wakanda is successful because of a deus et machina lucky meteor strike.
Creating a role model that ultimately rests on luck undermines the message.
When I see the movie – mostly I just see a good action superhero movie.
Yes,, lots of people were involved.
BTW the Kevin Costner megaflop WaterWorld cost $400M – and that was in the 90’s.
“Probably my big problem was the nonsense about vibraniaum.
That undermined the foundations. Wakanda is successful because of a deus et machina lucky meteor strike.”
As usual, you cocked up the significience of vibraniaum in the world of Marvel inventive story telling.
What’s nonsensical about a rare metallic substance of extraterrestrial origin in a fictional universe?
Is extraterrestrial Superman with all his powers more nonsensical because he was rocketed to Smallville?
As usual you entirely miss my point.
There is nothing wrong with Vibranium as a plot device.
We are in the world of science fiction.
The problem is thematic.
A random asteroid strike makes Wakanda the secret wealthiest and most advanced nation in the world.
If you are looking to create a role model for minorities – particulartly blacks the theme is WEAKER when it is founded on random chance.
Take the same story and instead of Vibranium being the result of an asteroid strike, have some the wakandanites have figured out a scientific technique to create a super material from ordinary existing resources – and now their success rests on their own ingenuity not random chance.
And yes I am aware that in comic book universes random chance is king.
I am not talking about what makes a good story.
I am talking about what makes the heros of a story into good role models.
African Americans in the US have people like George Washington Carver as evidence that they can do whatever they want, that they are not intellectually inferior.
There is no deaux et machina in the Carver story.
Of course superman is nonsense. Are you really asking ?
My point is – is The Black Panther just another comic book superhero story.
If so – it is not Oscar material. It still may be a fun story.
Or is it actually inspirational – I think it tries to be, but the Vibrainium plot line undermines that.
Superman is less inspirational – because he is NOT an ordinary person, he was miraculously endowed with superpowers.
That may make good fantasy, but it is not much of an inspiration or role model.
An oldie but still applicable today
Love the liberal press reporting of “Anger at Trump over dip in average tax refunds” (MSNBC and Yahoo)
So the uniformed people that took home more net income each check due to a reduction in their withholding and are now getting less back are pissed off at Trump? Is there no one smart enough to divide their tax bill on their return by the taxable income to see that the percentage they are paying this year compared to last year is most likely less?
One person commented on Twitter “we did not change anything on our W-4 and now we are getting less back”. DUH! You got more each check dumb dumb! If you wanted to continue to get $4000 back instead of whatever, then you should have changed your withholdings to have more taken out.
Lord have mercy, I can’t handle the level of stupidity that is overtaking this country!
P.S. My daughter reminded me that my generation might have been just as stupid. We just did not have social media available to communicate that fact to the whole world as we have today!
Social media does not merely expose stupidity, it encourages and multiplies it. Idiocracy is nearly here.
Rock & Roll does not merely expose stupidity, it encourages and multiplies it. Idiocracy is nearly here.
Tellevision does not merely expose stupidity, it encourages and multiplies it. Idiocracy is nearly here.
Video Games does not merely expose stupidity, it encourages and multiplies it. Idiocracy is nearly here.
True Dave, I actually agree with you on two out of three, except for the bit about rock and roll. Heavy Metal yes, Rap, yes. But not Chuck Berry and Sam Cooke and Elvis.
Here’s the problem with the Trump tax cuts, they haven’t done anything to noticeably fatten middle class paychecks. Trump promised stuffed wallets for working class America, but slightly higher take home pay makes virtually no impression on weekly or monthly bank deposits. 8% skimpier yearly tax refunds however ring warning alarms of unkept campaign promises. SHOW US THE MONEY will be a Dem election chant.
Jay, stop making excuses for the stupidity of people and especially those that advertise that on social media.
It is your responsibility to make sure that tax withheld from your checks meets your needs. If you want to get a $5,000 refund, then YOU need to make sure YOUR W-4 has the proper status, dependents AND additional dollars withheld to make that savings account (?) happen.
It is the respinsibility of the government to make sure the tax withheld from income equals the tax liability at year end. And that is based on one income generating the income per return. That means one person generating $50k per year is not the same when doubled as a return for one person earning $100k. Those with two incomes need to calculate what that means at the end of the year.
But we excuse stupidity by blaming others when negative outcome occur.
Do you beleive that more than a tiny portion of people who use their witholding as a christmas club AND do not do so deliberately vote republican ?
If you get a 4000 tax refund at the end of the year – you have probably never voted republican.
If you get a large refund by default rather than by planning – you near certainly never voted republican.
I do not think Trump or the GOP thought that the Tax cut would work out well for people like AOC.
So clarify your comments about tax refunds and voting republican.
I commented that it was the employees responsibility to insure they have the correct amount withheld to meet their needs and those complaining were displaying their own stupidity when they dont know their actual taxes went down.
You commented these people do jot normally vote republcan.
So its just democrats that are stupid?
“Here’s the problem with the Trump tax cuts, they haven’t done anything to noticeably fatten middle class paychecks.”
BZZT Wrong.
Growth is up almost a full percent. That means every man woman and child in the country is better than they would have been.
Further the evidence is that the benefits accrued primarily to working class families.
I did not listen to the SOTU, but it is my understanding that Trump spent a fair amount of time rattling statistics about the improvement in life for those in the bottom half.
Things such as 600K factory jobs.
“Consumer confidence plunges to lowest level since Trump’s election”https://thehill.com/policy/finance/426015-consumer-confidence-plunges-to-lowest-level-since-trumps-election
dduck, another way of looking at the same numbers.
https://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm
End of paragraph three. “Thus, it appears that this month’s decline is more the result of a temporary shock than a precursor to a significant slowdown in the coming months.”
The COnference-Board.org, begun in the early 1900’s is a 501-C-3 organization made up of many different industry leaders as well as staff. Their survey is conducted contacting 5000 households each month. The numbers are the same as used by the Hill. Only the assumptions made as to their meaning are very different.
Guess its another right/left thing. But I am not sure the Conference Board actually has a political tilt in their evaluations.
It is 92, It was 87 when Trump was elected.
It was only above 90 for 3 months in the entire obama administration – at the begining of 2015 before plunging.
It has not been below 90 anytime since Trump was elected.
It has been close to 100 most of the time.
Here, a news story that actually makes me sympathize with AOC. I want the economically absurd ideas of AOC (and progs in general) attacked relentlessly but not disgusting sleazy personal attacks. That will backfire big time and make her a hero.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/429251-ocasio-cortez-tears-into-intellectually-bankrupt-gop-over-targeted-rumors
I have come to the conclusion that AOC is not the trump of the left. She is the Ted Cruz of the left. Cruz as an incoming freshman left GOP Senators who had been there much longer in the dust and upset all sorts of apple carts. He was a general arrogant spotlight-hogging ideologically-driven pain in everyone’s ass, including the more experienced GOP senators and the government as a whole. The press was immediately obsessed with him, their new bright shiny object of the time.
I will bet that AOC has a shorter and lower impact career and does more harm to her own party than Cruz. Cruz at least represented a large state. AOC represents a few square miles.
She is also sort of the Michele Bachmann of the left, but Bachman had much less visibility.
The Right depends more on her continuing presence than the Left.
The Right is thrilled with her Jay…she validates everything that they say about the Left. And AOC even blamed the ridicule she got for the GND on
the Right (the vast right wing conspiracy, I suppose), as opposed to taking responsibility for rolling out a not-ready-for-prime-time document. Nancy Pelosi must want to strangle her.
Roby, I thought of Dave Barry when I read the GND line about not being able to get rid of farting cows and airplanes that quickly. “Farting Cows and Airplanes” would be a great name for a rock band.
“Farting Cows and Airplanes” would be a great name for a rock band. ”
Or a country song!
“Roby, I thought of Dave Barry when I read the GND line about not being able to get rid of farting cows and airplanes that quickly. “Farting Cows and Airplanes” would be a great name for a rock band.”
Farting Cows and Airplanes always bring me down, sung to the tune of the Carpenters hit Rainy days and Mondays.
Cruz, is not an idiot.
Like him, Hate him, he is still formidable in a debate.
AOC is an idiot. Her appeal is emotional not intellectual.
The Michelle Bachman comparison is more appropriate.
Much of the rest of what you say about Cruz is true.
At the same time the “more experienced” GOP senators have been a failure.
I would note that there is not alot of differnce on issues between Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee.
All are “libertarian conservatives” – Lee and Paul are more libertarian.
Paul too seeks the spotlight – though he manages to come off as more genuine.
Cruz is more intellectually formidable, but he comes across as nasty and arrogant.
But if you are in a debate and the criteria is facts, logic reason, you are better with Cruz than Paul.
I would also note – all of these are YOUNG. You are going to see them again. and again.
From Russia with Money: “The case for Russia collusion … against the Democrats”
“The evidence shows the Clintons financially benefited from Russia — personally and inside their charity — at the same time they were involved in U.S. government actions that rewarded Moscow and increased U.S. security risks.
The intersections between the Clintons, the Democrats and Russia carried into 2016, when a major political opposition research project designed to portray GOP rival Donald Trump as compromised by Moscow was launched by Clinton’s presidential campaign and brought to the FBI.
Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS research firm was secretly hired by the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party through their law firm, Perkins Coie.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/429292-the-case-for-russia-collusion-against-the-democrats”
Say it ain’t so, the Clintons as bad as Trump chasing those rubles.
dduck, seem to remember Dave posting many things about these same issues in previous comments, but I guess because its on the internet now it has more truth to it than his comments.
But unlike Trump, nothing will ever come of the Clintons involvement. For some reason even Trump is affraid of them because nothing ever came of ” lock her up”.
To get to that, an investigation needs to occur and that will never happen.
as for Trumps, that will come to a conclusion around November 2020.
I don’t pay attention to what Dave “says”, it is 99% wrapped in BS.
Corrected.
“I don’t pay attention to what Dave “says”, it is 99% facts and I have no interest in facts”
DD – absolutely I am well aware that you have zero interest in a fact – not even one that is self evident, unless you can get a talking head with credentials you accept to utter it.
You seem to be clueless about the fact that you can not actually outsource and abdicate personal responsibility.
No DD they are far worse.
We have been searching for 3 years and still find nothing even close to what is readily apparent regarding the clintons.
Are there any 500K payments to Trump or his family ?
Did Trump work with the russians one a deal that ACTUALLY HAPPENED ?
One that involved a direct conflict between their personal benefits and their public duties as Sec. State ?
We have actual collusion – out in the open regarding Clinton.
With Trump we are down to inaugural committee nonsense.
What should be self evident is that Mueller has been allowed to go where he never should have been allowed.
At the same time by allowing him to do so, he has proven that there WAS NO COLLUSION OF ANY KIND.
In the process he has F’d over anyone who got in his way, slapping them with Process crimes for failing to kjow tow to him in an investigation that to this date still does not have a basis in fact and evidence.
Truth or plain anti-Semitism, or free speech. Hmmm.
“Kevin McCarthy Promises ‘Action’ Against Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib ”
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/kevin-mccarthy-promises-action-against-ilhan-omar-and-rashida-tlaib-1.6917751
“The Republican leader in the U.S. House of Representatives said he would take action against two Democrats who have sharply criticized Israel if the Democratic majority did not do so.
“If they do not take action I think you’ll see action from myself,” Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, said according to Capitol Hill reporters writing for a number of newspapers. “This cannot sustain itself. It’s unacceptable in this country.”
I do not know enough details.
But from what I recall – Tlaib’s remarks are offensive.
They are racist and anti-semetic.
They are not criminal, nor barred by the rules of the house.
She should be condemned – as have some republicans for their remarks.
It is disturbing that democrats have not treated her the same as republicans have done with offensive republicans.
But the “punishment” for Tlaib is at the polls – for her and the democrats who enable her.
Being an enemy of israel is possibly a serious political mistake.
It is not a crime.
It is a legitimate political position.
At the same Time my guess is that McCarthy is not actually trying to get anything done.
What he is trying to do is to raise public attention to Tlaib’s remarks.
I have no problem with that either.
Tlaib and Ilhan are anti-Semites. They have a First Amendment right to spew their hate, and, if they were Republicans, they would already have been publicly sanctioned and pressured to resign.
The Democrat leadership has said nothing. A couple of Jewish Dem reps from NY, and Chelsea Clinton, whose husband is Jewish, have spoken out, but Pelosi has remained silent. The problem is that anti-Semitism and support for the destruction of Israel is an important value of far left extremism, and Pelosi knows that any public condemnation of this sort of hate will endanger her coalition. She assumes that Jewish Democrats will mostly accept her Ihan’s excuses, because they hate Trump.
The far left take a one sided view of the Palestinian situation, a sort of Howard Zinn view. But in fact the situation is very sad and terrible and anyone who believes that Israel is beyond criticism and has not in any way been cruel or oppressive has not read the history of the conflict with an open mind.
The Palestinian people are trapped. Its a trap that took many decades to unfold. They have been cursed by history. I am not justifying or ignoring the violent actions or paths of their leaders.
Pro Israeli American opinion simply ignores that there are actually two (at least) points of view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Its a frozen conflict. In some sense I see a parallel with America and its natives driven onto reservations by a far more technological culture.
I see an Israeli family nearly every day on Skype, my wife’s son, daughter in law and their child. I see a very smart incredibly cute 2 and a half year old kid whose parents have brought her up in a paradise of educational toys, music, art, science, friends, good food, nice clothing etc. She is having a wonderful childhood and is going to be a formidable person.
Not so far from her are other kids, Palestinian kids, and they get just about none of that. It sure as hell is not their fault. They have the same genetic potential to be cute, smart, educated, happy but are SOL. I do think about it when I see my happy Israeli family.
I do not know what the answer is, the sides are locked in. If someone thinks that there is some enlightened behavior by Palestinians that would make everything right they are being as simplistic as the American left.
Israel is not beyond criticism. But in American politics it pretty much is.
I do understand that, Roby. But, it’s not as if the US hasn’t spent billions to help the Palestinian people. The problem is that the Palestinian leadership is corrupt, and uses the money for purposes other than humanitarian aid. Nothing has changed, over decades. The old saying remains true: “If the Palestinians would lay down their arms, there would be peace. If the Israelis were to lay down their arms, there would be no Israel.” Rep. Omar does not accept the right of Israel to exist. Yet she now sits on the House Foreign Relations Committee. That’s a problem. Israel is not beyond criticism, but since Palestinians make the issue existential , there is no path to peace.
I do not want to speak of specific reps. because I do not know their positions well enough.
But we are dealing with something much bigger than Israel/Palestine.
Throughout the mideast Islamists have purged their countries of ALL who adhere to different religions.
As great as the conflict is in Israel – Israel is pretty much the ONLY place int he mideast where you can be somewhat safe if you are not muslim.
Israel is not beyond criticism.
To the extent what we are discussing is criticism of Israel – even wrong criticism of israel the absolutely that critism is not merely permitted but necescary – even if it is wrong.
Those criticising israel and those defending israel should be judged – not on whether they are criticising or defending. but whether they are right.
But I think this goes beyond israel. There is a problem because too many on the right, the left, and even jews themselves to not distinguish between criticism of Israel and anti-semitism.
And that distinction which should be clear, is blurry because – the various other semitic groups in the mideast – the arabs ARE semites (mostly), are doing more than criticising israel. They are killing those who disagree with them.
The mideast was religiously disparate for thousands of years. Though from its inception Islam has been violently hostile to those of other religions. Even past incarnations of islam have NOT been as brutal as those of the present.
In my lifetime the numbers of christians and jews as well as other religions in the mideast outside of Israel has gone from very large minorities, to almost extinct.
We are not talking about opposition to Israel. We are talking about violent religious persecution that has resulted in the death or departure of millions.
What has occurred in the mideast in the past 70 years is only dwarfed by the holocaust.
There is plenty of room to criticise Israel. But most of those doing the criticising are far more heinous than the jews they are bemoaning.
I’m in agreement with both Roby and Priscilla…
It’s a Russian Doll Of dilemmas.
“Rep. Omar does not accept the right of Israel to exist. ”
I’m not a fan of Omar to say the least. But, has she said that? If so that is a real issue. I find no reference to her having said that, including in her Wiki entry.
I don’t think her actions are going to produce any positive result. But my god a furor because someone said that money from a PAC influences politicians? That is news? Of course PAC money influences politicians. And you can say that with a megaphone and everyone will agree with you.
Unless you say it about a pro Israeli PAC, then its racist.
Good grief, the irony.
I tried to read through the history of the Jewish colonization of Palestine entry in Wiki once and got lost in a few minutes, it was like trying to understand the plot of the Marriage of Figaro or the history of the country of Austria. Hopelessly complicated. It was impossible to tell who was the “bad guy.” The Zionists won is the short version.
Some arabs live peacefully in Israel, as I saw on my visit to Haifa. Some native Americans live OK lives in the US, as I saw on a trip to New Mexico. For groups on the wrong side of conquests its a pretty wretched deal. THAT’S WHY THE #$^&#@ WALL IS AN ISSUE. No one wants to be on the wrong side of history because its terrifying.
If any of us had been born Palestinian in Israel we would understand that there is no way out really. Palestinians who might want to let bygones be bygones will come to a bad end in their own neighborhood. Regular Palestinian people have no way out, no hope. The left sees that and sees the pathos. The left has always had a large Jewish component. Calling “the left” anti-semitic because they see the plight of the Palestinians is not helpful.
“But my god a furor because someone said that money from a PAC influences politicians? That is news? Of course PAC money influences politicians. And you can say that with a megaphone and everyone will agree with you.
Unless you say it about a pro Israeli PAC, then its racist.”
BZZT, wrong.
The left – and you, think that you are allowed to decide based on YOUR political preferences when and who may use money to influence politicians.
This fight – which most everyone here jumps into with both feet, is not just about Israel.
Everyone seems to think that the money that influence politicians is Wrong, evil, vile when it is directed AGAINST their prefered policies, but is perfectly fine otherwise.
It is either always wrong, or always right.
And in fact it is always right.
It is always right because the only way you can preclude money influencing politics is to have a totalitarian state.
There are other reasons, but that should be enough.
Anyone born Palestinian in Israel could have easily been born Palestinian in Palestine – had the Palistinian leaders been interested in their people.
Palestinians could easily have had their own state long ago.
I would further note that this is NOT about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
Exclude the west bank and Gaza – which in nearly all ways have been governed by palestinians for much of my life, and All irael does is assure that “guest workers” do not come to work with bombs.
The left is Anti-Semetic – and not just because they are anti-Israel.
Actually the left is WORSE than Anti-Semetic – they are PRO-Islamic fundimentalist.
This is one of the weirdest bouts of hypocracy in the modern left.
The left has chosen to identify and support a group of people that make Jerry Falwell look enlightened.
They have chosen to get behind the most mysoginist, racist, homophobic intolerant groups in the world. They have chosen to get behind people who have driven anyone not of the same viewpoint much less religion out of their countries – by violence and murder if necescary.
I do not honestly have much sympathy for the Palestinians.
The Palestinians do not Want “their own country” – they could have that easily. They defacto already do, and it is one of those “shithole countries” – and not because of the Israeli’s
with the money pouring into Palestine – they could have made themselves incredibly proserous – the Israeli’s managed to come from abject poverty to first world status – without help.
“The left is Anti-Semetic – and not just because they are anti-Israel.
Actually the left is WORSE than Anti-Semetic – they are PRO-Islamic fundimentalist.”
An absurd sweeping generalization that you cannot begin to prove, because its right wing propaganda nonsense. Pretty disgusting really. Sure “the left” is all for Jihad. They hope to create a Caliphate. Sure. My mom is sending all her spare change to ISIS. So is the whole of the Vermont liberal population. Bernie Sanders is hoping to contribute enough that they name a street after him in their Islamic empire. That is perhaps the looniest and most disgusting thing you have ever stated, which is saying something. Nothing you can say about the left is strong enough, you have to top it somehow.
Your ranting deserve no respect.
I can’t prove ? Really ?
It is pretty trivial to prove.
And I did in the prior post.
I am hard pressed to think of any US religious figure more vile than Fred Phelps of West Borro Baptist church.
He deservedly earned the loathing of the left and just about everyone else.
Yet islam is as hostile to gays and women – even moderate islam as WBC.
To my knowledge Phelps has not opposed women driving. SA just permitted that.
From its inception right through the present Islam has driven out all competing religions.
It is not merely fanatically evangelical – it is VIOLENTLY evangelical. Yes, there have been a few centuries at a time of relative peace with islam – but the last century was not one of those.
Go look up the numbers – just about every islamic majority country has been purging itself of non-muslims over the past century.
Prior to 1980 there were millions of jews all over the mideast (and north africa) , and many more christians. Today there are only a few thousand jews in the entire mideast outside of Israel, and christians are fleeing the mideast fast.
Are there peaceful muslims – certainly – possibly even alot of them.
That does not change what is happening/has happened in muslim dominated countries.
And I have not mentioned terrorism at all.
I will bet in any given year – I can find more news and public chriticism of the WBC which has 70 members, than I can of anything remotely touching islam.
In the ideology of the left – you are either oppressed or you are the oppressor.
The left has decided that muslims are oppressed and therefore they are unwilling to contemplate any discussion of islam as oppressive.
WBC is legitiamtely on the SPLC hate group watchlist.
The only muslim groups on the SPLC watch list are actual moderates calling out the fundimentalists for violence hatred and bigotry.
The unwillingness of the left to be critical of islam is reprehensible.
If We changed the name of Islam to Judiasm – the left would be appoplectic and frothing at the mouth with anger and rage.
No this is not some right wing falsehood.
Pay attention to the news. You can get jailed in much of the mideast for publicly speaking of any religion but islam – and many many people are.
Is the left actively supporting islamic terrorism ? No.
Do they quite obviously tolerate conduct in the context of islam that they do not tolerate out of any other group of any kind ? Absolutely.
To be clear I am not looking to make a blanket condemnation of all muslims.
I have Muslim friends. Though a bit more mysoginist than most americans they are not what I am describing. Nor am I advocating for nut jobs to go bomb or shoot up mosques.
I do not even care if the left does not take note of the fact that Islam today is the most represive religion of consequence in the world.
I do care that the left is absolutely silent about pretty much every bad thing that happens to women, minorities, other religious beliefs if that evil is not being done by white christian men.
Every now and then Bill Mahr joins me in this criticism of Islam. I do not beleive anyone would call him a propogator of right wing propoganda.
I you are only willing to call out hatred, bigotry, homophobia religious persecution, religious violence, violence against women when it is done by white christian males.
Then YOU are not opposed to hatred,
You are not opposed to bigotry
you are not opposed to homophobia
you are not opposed to religious persecution.
you are not opposed to religious violence
You are not opposed to the voilence against women.
You are not opposed to the mutiliation of women.
You are opposed to white christian males.
And yes that is the modern left.
It is a hierachy of victimhood – never mind the facts.
What I find most amazingly interesting is.
In the 60’s Stokley Charmicheal said the only place for women in the movement is on their backs.
Then as today women are critical to the left.
Then as today women are subordinate to everything except white christian males.
What I am saying is looney and disgusting – it is looney and disgusting – because it is true.
It should not be true. But it is.
If Trump did a tiny portion of this he would have already been impeached.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/429292-the-case-for-russia-collusion-against-the-democrats
TECH DESTROYS JUVENILE BRAINS
Social media tech has produced a new generation of people as distanced from us as were the telephone-film-radio generation of the 1920s different from their horse and buggy ancestors.
Absolutely.
I have observed some of this in my son.
On the one hand it is near impossible to get him out of his room, and I am concerned that he is developing Agoraphobia.
At the same time – he has real meaningful – but different social interactions online.
He has friendships with people he has never met that have lasted for years.
There will be both positive and negative impacts of every single technological shift.
The net ultimately tends to be positive.
Interesting poll.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2019/democrats_warmly_embrace_green_new_deal
To quote: “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 81% of Likely Democratic Voters favor a Green New Deal that would focus on climate change, income inequality and racial injustice. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Republicans are opposed. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 38% favor a Green New Deal that emphasizes these issues, while slightly more (41%) oppose it.”
Why do the dems tie those three unrelated things together? It is idiotic, they are separate issues. Yes, I believe that climate change is a serious issue. (No I am not going to change my mind due to any argument presented here Dave.) But what has it got to do with racial injustice? Can we add the heartbreak of psoriasis and and the low performance of American students on standardized tests into it? Best I can figure Green here stands for Green Party, which is where I wish the progs would go: off to their own left-wing party.
I am surprised only 63% of republicans opposed it, especially in the form of a threefer.
Ron – it’s a Rasmussen Poll.
Today they have Trump at 52% Approval.
Average of their other Approval polling is mid 40%.
New Dem Slogan?
GREEN NEW DEAL!
More Green In The Environment
More Green In Your Wallet
Well I can remember a couple polls in the last couple weeks where his approval was in the mid 30’s, so Rasmussens increase from the mid 40’s to 52 would be expected if those others are up 10 points.
But if I remember right, rasmussen had the election closer than others in 2016.
Trump’s RCP average has not dipped below 40 in over a year. 3 Polls in the past 2 months have had Trump below 40 – 38,38, 39.
Since the SOTU his numbers have been rising.
The Hill has him at 47 and Rasmussen at 52.
On election day 2016 Rasmussen had Clinton up by 2% of the popular vote.
At the end of the day she won the popular vote by 1% and lost the election.
No poll was closer than Rasmussen.
Please explain why the current increase in earth temperature is different from increases in the past
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/climate.htm
When someone explains why earth has warmed and cooled in the past and we are coming out of a cool period with warming now being different, then I could buy the climate alarmist positions.
But no one can explain this other than CO2 and global warming. But what caused the increase thousand of years ago after a cool period and why is the warming different this time?
Not only is the current warming not different.
It is also not significant,
And it is SLOWING DOWN.
I can not find anyone providing a trend for the past 20 years – because there isn’t one.
We had 20 years of SLIGHTLY higher than normal warming (preceded by about 15 years of cooling) followed by 20 years of nothing.
I am not predicting, but there are many reasons to be much more concerned about future cooling than warming.
We appear to be at the inflection point of a 220 year cycle that is typically followed by significant rapid cooling.
IF – and this is alot of IF’s, human CO2 is actually preventing the 2.5C colling that usally follows the current solar minimum, We should celebrate.
The negative impacts of cooling – even small cooling are TEN TIMES as severe as warming.
“But if I remember right, rasmussen had the election closer than others in 2016.”
They have had good and bad years. 2016 was not a bad year for Rasmussen. 2018 sure was. The missed the House percentage by almost 10 points, they were the only pollster who had the GOP sentiment ahead. The were hinting at a pink wave.
They have flipped from -14 to +6 on trump in a matter of about 4 days: 20 points. Other polls have seen some improvement since the SOTU but nothing like that. They are clearly sampling a biased population. Polling is rapidly changing as technology has come to have a large impact on how to reach a representative sample. Rasmussen at present gives cheerful results for conservatives but its pretty wild stuff.
538 gives them a C+ rating and gives them a conservative lean of 6 points. Judging by the 2018 House results that is being generous. They may be off by as much as 10.
For the good and the bad see this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports
Given how badly 538 botched 2016 – why would you value their rating.
Rasmussen has been off sometimes,
They have also been nearly spot on.
If Rasmussen is C+ – Then everyone else including 538 is D- or worse.
I like 538 – but though their methodology is different – they are essentially a weighted poll of polls rather than an actual poll, there is no more reason to trust their judgement about Rasmussen than Rasmussens about them.
“But no one can explain this other than CO2 and global warming. But what caused the increase thousand of years ago after a cool period and why is the warming different this time?”
The best discussions I have found about the relationship between carbon and climate I found accidentally in books about the great extinction events in the Permian and Cretaceous. They were not books on global warming, they were not political books, they were books on paleontology with cheerful titles such as “The Permian extinction: when life nearly died”. Carbon dioxide levels have been all over the place as best as science can figure, as well as the levels of the other atmospheric gases. Climate has varied from cryogenic to super hot over the period of multi-celled life on Earth. Asteroids hits and huge eruption events have triggered different secondary effects that had truly radical effects. Smaller effects have occurred due to less spectacular causes. This science is far from knowing all the answers. In the times of humans on earth we have been in one of the 5 postulated ice ages that have affected global climate. No one has a very strong explanation of why this is happening during the Late Cenozoic. From Wiki:
“…The Quaternary Glaciation / Quaternary Ice Age started about 2.58 million years ago at the beginning of the Quaternary Period when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats. The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island
The definition of the Quaternary as beginning 2.58 Ma is based on the formation of the Arctic ice cap. The Antarctic ice sheet began to form earlier, at about 34 Ma, in the mid-Cenozoic (Eocene-Oligocene Boundary). The term Late Cenozoic Ice Age is used to include this early phase.[39]…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Major_ice_ages
The earth has been a lot hotter than its likely to get from our latest CO2 spike. But humans and the present ecosystems were not existing then. The question of how a climate on an earth that is several degrees warmer overall than now will affect humans and the present ecosystems is a whole new experiment. Read some of those types of books by paleontologists I mentioned if you are interested and then decide for yourself whether this is dangerous.
I am not going to argue with anyone about this, its futile. Intelligent people can do as much reading as they see fit and decide their own opinion. Dave will be along presently and have a spasm and claim that the facts show that this is all just BS. That is not my opinion. Science is a powerful system, I do not believe that scientists are either incompetent or corrupt as a group. Dave will argue otherwise and that he knows better and all the facts support him. Its a pointless argument. The climate will not be affected by opinions.
Thumb’s Up! I agree with your assessments.
Of course I hope the current scientific consensus is wrong, and the naysayers are right.
Either way – human effected climate change or cyclic climate change, I doubt at this time there’s anything humans can do about it. If severe shifting climate swings continue it will be disastrous for multitudes no matter who/what is responsible. Huge swaths of the nation could be Puerto Ricanized, and desperate Americans will be lucky to catch Rolls of paper towels tossed at them. Dystopian weather forecasts to follow…
The wisest thing said so far was that the earth would do what it was going to do without regard for anyone’s opinion.
Unfortunately what is most critical in that when the planet does NOT do as theory predicts – particularly when it does NOT for 2 decades, then it is long past time to reject the “oppinion”
and re-examine the theory.
All oppinions are NOT equal, some conform to the facts – some do not.
We can argue our oppinions. We can even argue about the facts.
The facts do not care.
“Of course I hope the current scientific consensus is wrong, and the naysayers are right.”
We are past hope. At this point they are just wrong.
“Either way – human effected climate change or cyclic climate change, I doubt at this time there’s anything humans can do about it.”
If humans are the cause – we can do something about it. If not that is less likely.
The scale of climate is huge.
The energy released by an average huricane in 1 day is the same as humans produce globally in a year.
“If severe shifting climate swings continue”
This is garbage sold by the left.
We are NOT experiencing severe swings. To the extent anything unusual is happening most things are moderating, not getting more extreme.
“it will be disastrous for multitudes no matter who/what is responsible. Huge swaths of the nation could be Puerto Ricanized,”
Even if the worst predictions of climate scientists – Actual scientists in real scientific papers – not screaming nonsense on media shows, were to come true – it is arguable that the world would be BETTER – with 1-4C of warming.
One of the scandals of the Obama EPA is they tried to put a cost on Global warming and they had to use totally bogus discount rates to end up with a cost rather then a benefit.
If you take the EPA’s papers and substitute the discount rates – basically present value of future money that are the norms througout finance, you end up with a result that Warming is beneficial – that should not be surprising – because it is.
Well I read wiki ice age link and I will come clean. Most of that was a foot over my head. But I did see comments about dinosaur gases, volcanoes and deforestation having impacts during different periods. In fact, I think there was a comment about deforestation during one of the ice ages since vegetation was killed off leading to the warming later.
Current analysis attributes global warming to fossil fuels.But in 1600 the earths population, during the little ice age , was 580 million or so. Today there are 7.6 Billion people. Massive amounts of deforestation has occurred over the past 1000 years. Massive increases in the number of animals on earth has occurrec.
So my issue with global warming is not that it is happening, but I see no one providing data that shows the impact on what contributes to the problem. They have a scapegoat ( fossil fuel) and only blame that.
I am a finance person. My career was decisions made on facts and figures. So I want to see someone providing information on how much global warming is caused by fossil fuels, humans, animals, lack of vegetation and other changes since the earth started warming again. Could it be we could reduce fossil fuel usage back to 1900 levels and still have no impact on warming because of the other influences.
Climate sceptics can accept warming is happening and be sceptical of why it is happening. Right now I am in that camp.
There is a difference between facts and analysis.
The actual facts we have of the distant past are THIN.
Pretty much the entirety of the analysis of the past that purports to support CAGW has been rewritten in the past 20 years specifically to support CAGW – and still some of it does not work out well.
The prior analysis contradicted CAGW – the truth is we do not know enough about the past to be certain. 100M years ago we do not know ANYTHING about day to day, year to year, decade to decade even century to century changes.
Some past catastrophic event could have taken two days or two thousand years and rarely do we have the means to know. That poor level of granularity makes it easy to concoct a wide variety of theories that conform to both the data and the outcome we want.
You note deforestation – the actual deforestation in the past 1000 years has been minimal.
But there have been some enormous land use changes. Roger Pielke Sr. and IPCC climate scientist beleives that 20th century global warming is caused by humans and is a result in changes in land use. The current global climate models – the lynchpin of CAGW have no factor in them for changes in land use. Nor is it likely they will.
Changes in land use would implicate humans, but it would diminish the importance of CO2
Further the land use changes are sort of reversing, and no matter what they have diminising returns.
Put simply few people explore Pielke’s work because it is politically incorrect.
Pielke may blame humans but he does so in a way that does not argue for a massive socialist takeover of the world.
I noted land use is reversing – sort of.
Humans are increasingly concentrating in cities and suburbs. We are using less land each year for farming not more. The US likely has more forests today than when the pilgrims landed.
There is no credible scientist – even on the left, who beleives that fossil Fuels had any significant effect on climate prior to about 1960.
Regardless, if CO2 is actually the cause of warming and the warming is large and the warming is bad – two of which are false, the better approach would NOT be to reduce fossil fuels but to sequester carbon.
One of the big unsolved problems of most renewable energy sources is that it can not be stored – not at the costs we need in the quantities we need.
Rather than use solar energy to try to power the world, use solar energy to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
In a perfect world – use solar energy to convert CO2 to fuels – now you have a renewable cycle. This is BTW essentially what “bio-fuels” do.
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is not a job that must be done during peak hours.
It can be done anytime – like when the sun is shining.
This of course presumes that we actually want to prevent warming.
And if you bother to look you can find plenty of books with entirely different explanations.
Historically (and pre-historically) high levels of CO2 correlate to thriving life on the planet.
We do know that CO2 and temperature correlate – but the historical evidence suggests that high CO2 is CAUSED by warming – which BTW makes perfect sense.
There is several orders of magnitude more CO2 in the ocean than anywhere else.
Even CAGW theory presumes that warming oceans will create a positive feedback and CO2 will be released from the ocean making the earth warm faster.
This does not explain why Warmists keep trying to prove that there is MORE CO2 in the ocean as a result of warming. But logic is not the forte of left wing nuts.
We do not know the causes of past mass extinction events.
Until more recent rewrites of science texts the presumption has been large meteor strikes.
And there is still fairly good evidence supporting that.
All tempertures past 1650 are from proxies not direct measures.
The further back we go the less fine grained the proxies get.
10,000 years ago we can only tell the average temperature for a century
1M years ago we are lucky if we know the average temperature for a millenia.
We do not really know whether mas extincions took place over a few years, a few hundred years or a few thousand years.
The longer they took – the more likely some factor like CO2,
The shorter the time period the more likely it is meteors or similar catastrophy.
We can not even rule out things like – some virus or bacteria.
Even in the modern era we seen speicies go extinct from natural causes.
One of the problems when you start speculating about something you have no real evidence for is that confirmation biases become enormous.
Regardless, the FACTS today falsify CAGW theory.
Even if something happened tomorow and temps shot up 4C by 2100 – what has occured in the past 2 decades FALSIFIES CAGW. We are far past the time when scientiests must rethink their theories and re-examine the data. But it is very hard to kill of entrenched ideas.
Particularly ones that tie so well to your political ideology.
But I predict that within the next decade CAGW will be replaced by the left with some new explanation for why humans are destroying the planet and left wing nuts must take control of everything to screw us over for our own good.
Unfortunately CAGW is not dying until the left comes up with a different stupid malthusian theory to replace it.
Still Global warming is the perfect IYI test. If you still buy CAGW today – you are clearly an IYI.
“Science is a powerful system, I do not believe that scientists are either incompetent or corrupt as a group.”
You are correct. But when you go beyond that – and CAGW requires going beyond that then you fail.
Science is NOT consensus driven. As Einstein noted – as single paper could disprove his entire life’s work.
It does not matter if 20% of scientists agree of 99.99% of scientists agree – facts are facts.
Historically science is NEVER advanced by consensus. It is advanced by the disenters.
Galleleo stood nearly alone. Even Einstein did for a while.
Just recently there was a Nobel in Phyics awared to an Israeli scientist that has been regarded as a total crackpot for 40 years. He challenged the established science of crystalography with inconvenient facts. Turns out he was right and established science was wrong.
Physics and crystalography are HARD science. They are far more mathematically and experimentally driven than climate science. Worse still Crystalography is HUGE – that is the science related to semiconductors, there is enormous amounts of money to be made getting this right – and still for 40 years the truth was regarded as crackpot – and not off in some obscure corner of an speculative science, but dead center in a very hard science.
In a field more akin to climate science – psychology is completely re-examining almost 70 years of experiments. Many very famous experiments turn out to have been frauds, and myriads of others are when efforts are made to reproduce them turning out to be either unreproducable or not statistically significant.
Much the same is happening right now in food science.
We are seeing the same in numerous areas of medicine.
There was a massive spike in cardiovascular disease in the west in the mid to late 20th century and this had an enormous impact on medicine. But the spike is fading, and it is doing so independent of what was presumed to be its cause. So we have learned that heart disease spiked – the reasons we thought we wrong and we do not know why and now the spike is going away.
More rarely as their is money involved and unlike leftist beleive, businesses rarely choose to go forward with something that does not work and try to hide that forever.
Still there have been a few recent drug studies that have been falsified – and drug studies are some of the best statistical work done Compared tot he way drug studies are done – climate scientists are complete statistical morons.
Science is important.
But science is inherently skeptical.
And if you want to play appeals to authority – how many nobel winners would it take for you to decide maybe CAGW is bunk ?
frankly though fewer the stature of outspoken CAGW opponents is much greater than supporters.
“Dave will argue otherwise and that he knows better and all the facts support him. Its a pointless argument. The climate will not be affected by opinions.”
Absolutely – for the past 20 years the planet has steadfastly refused to be swayed by the oppinions of climate scientists.
No all the facts do not support me. That is not how science works.
I am not trying to prove something. I am trying to disprove it.
To disprove a theory only ONE fact needs to be inconsistent with the theory.
To prove a theory NO facts can refute it.
“So my issue with global warming is not that it is happening, but I see no one providing data that shows the impact on what contributes to the problem. They have a scapegoat ( fossil fuel) and only blame that.”
Yes! There is a difference between being a skeptic and being a denier.
I have never met a person who denied that the earth has warmed in the past 200 years.
“Yes, I believe that climate change is a serious issue. (No I am not going to change my mind due to any argument presented here Dave.) ”
Do not listen to me – actually listen to the EARTH.
The climate change naturally.
The issue is CAGW – Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
If proven that is very serious.
It is not merely not proven it has been falsified – not by me, but by Gaia.
As of last month the planet has warmed .31C since 1975 – ALL of that prior to 1998.
That is about 0.08C/decade, at that rate earth will be 0.64C warmer by 2100.
At the rate from 1998 to the present the earth will be 0.0000000C warmer by 2100.
From 1750-1950 long before humans could have had had any effect the rate of warming was 0.11C/decade.
So in the time period that humans are supposed to have brought about catastrophe the earths warming has SLOWER DOWN?
Let me remind you 81% of democrats support the GND.
These are the same people who buy CAGW.
These are not people who should ever be given power over others.
God help us.
Democrats would vote for euthanizing all dogs if you called it the “all puppies go to heaven” bill.
Anyone asserting that democrats are smarter than rocks – just lost.
Priscilla- more Dem criticism for antiSemetic remarks
Meantime the 120 day deadline on Saudi Arabia sanctions and curtailing of the U.S. military support for the SA war on Yemen has been ignored.
Must be anti-SA sentiment in Congress. The Reps should call for apologies from those that dissed SA by challenging the WH kissing of SA’s a—.
If those criticizing Israel in Congress deserve the right to voice their opinions, then so do those in Congress pointing out criminal behavior by SA (currently being ignored).
I don’t think that the problem was criticism of Israel, duck. I think it was Omar’s implication that any US politician that supports Israel does so because the Evil Jooos are paying them. Omar’s tweet was that support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins, baby!” That is a far cry from criticizing policy.
DD – what did you expect.
There are few democrats that are actually interested in punishing SA.
I would imaging Pelosi will be on a Junket to SA soon enough.
The whole Khasoghi thing was never about SA. It was about embarrassing Trump
That is all.
Even Democrats are unlikely to do anything serious about SA.
They do not want to. They do not care. They never did care.
They do not actually want sanctions.
Maybe now and then some democrat will rail at Trump over the sanctions.
But neither democrats nor congress are going to do anything.
I do not think it is possible to find a nation in the mideast that does not frequently act Criminal.
Glad to see it, Jay. Because anti-Semitism is on the rise, not only in the US, but in Europe, and if one of our major political parties should begin to tolerate anti-Semitism within its ranks, we will be in major trouble as a nation.
Priscilla,
Get on the right page. Democrats are NEVER anti-semetic.
No matter how much they piss over jews and fawn over those who are openly anti-semetic.
Only Republicans can be anti-semetic.
Like Donald Trump – you know they president with the orthodox jewish son-in-law, whose daughter converted to Judiasm who is the first president ever to keep the campaign promise that every president has made to move the US embassy to jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.
Trump, Republicans, white men, if you are not one of those – you can not be anti-semetic, no matter what you say and do.
Good for them.
Though attacks on Israel are not inherently anti-semetic.
Pricilla, so I say that the Rep politicians ARE influenced by bucks that support the Israeli positions, just like the bucks from SA influence them and she has the right to say so and not apologize, if she has the balls that most men in Congress do not have,
And democrats take money from assorted wealthy donors and interest groups – including Israel and SA and are completely unifluenced.
It is probable that jews are disproportionately represented among political donors.
They are still a tiny influence overall.
Are we really going to go back to spewing garbage from “the protocols of the elders of zion” ?
When you attack someone for beleiving in something sufficiently that they are willing to put their one wealth behind it – YOU are evil.
Whether the target is Sorros, or the Koch’s or Israel.
When you say someone else can not make a donation, you are saying that no one can.
When you rant about the undue influence the wealthy purportedly have – you are spewijng garbage, hatred and envy.
Elections are won by VOTES. Charles Koch, George Sorros and Adelson each have one.
The same as you.
No matter how much they spend – when people go into the voting both – there is no one with them. No gun to their head.
If the influence of wealthy donors is so evil – then Hillary was the queen of Evil.
She outspent Trump nearly 2:1 and that money came from places like Goldman Sachs.
You are not concerned about the influence of money in politics – except when it is influence contrary to your views.
“Elections are won by VOTES. Charles Koch, George Sorros and Adelson each have one.
The same as you.
No matter how much they spend – when people go into the voting both – there is no one with them. No gun to their head.”
HA HA HA!
HO HO HO!
So – Voters are not influenced by political propaganda…
HEE HEE HEE 😜
There are other names for “influencing voters through political propoganda” – it is called free speach and persuasion.
I have no idea what Koch’s or Sorro’s “influence” was.
Nor do I care, Putin, Koch, Sorros, You, Martian’s are all free to “influence” others through persuasive speech.
The fact that you want to preclude anyone rich or poor, Russian or american from efforts at persuasion speaks poorly of you – not them.
In 1991 the american prospect – even today a pre-eminent forum for progressivism
ran the following editorial on free speech.
If the far left then found it necescary to defend the right to express hate speech,
if the far left then cited John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” – pretty much the defining text “On Liberty” and particularly free speech,
If the left then felt it necescary to Echo Progressive Justice Louis Brandeis’s assertion that is the quintessential constitutional understanding of free speech – “The remedy for bad speech is more speech, not enforced silence”
If the far left in 1991 grasped that just as lies can be called truth, truth can be called lies.
Anyone can call the speech they do not like “propoganda”, we must determine that by its merits – individually.
Neither you nor Roby, nor Priscilla nor I – nor the govenrment get to decide what is impermissible propoganda, and what is Truth.
I also find is hilarious that you can argue the rule of the majority as a principle at the same time you require political speech to be censored. If ordinary people are too stupid to the difference between truth and propoganda, they are too stupid to rule.
There is no space between the argument that you can preclude voters from exposure to what you call propoganda – because they might be influences, and the argument that ordinary people should not be permitted to vote.
I do not beleive the majority are sufficiently wise to be allowed to rule.
That is why we have a constitution to limit the scope of the power the people can give to government.
But I do beleive people are sufficiently wise that government should never be permitted to determine what persuasive speech they are permitted to hear.
https://prospect.org/article/remedy-more-speech
So, I suppose the fact that our longtime alliance with the only democracy in the Middle East has nothing to do with it?
Come on, duck. Omar invoked one of the most common tropes in the ugly history of anti-Semitism ~ that wealthy Jews “control” politicians of both parties. First of all, it’s primarily evangelical Christian organizations that lobby in favor of Israeli policy…secondly, this is not the first time that Omar has had to “apologize” for her anti-Semitic remarks. Just last month, there was this:
Her apology made reference to her own victim status as a Muslim, although I do not know of a single Republican or Democrat who pointed out either her race or her religion. Only her words.
Dems jumping on Northam too soon? Hmmm
https://account.nytimes.com/
“In a region where black and white people largely lived in different communities, Ralph Northam hung around black neighborhoods with black friends. He was one of two white players on the high school basketball team in 1977, his senior year. His class had 73 students — 37 black, 36 white.”
“As a pediatric neurologist and volunteer medical director at a children’s hospice, Mr. Northam visited the homes of hundreds of African-American families in crisis. And yet, many people who know him best now worry that he may have missed some basic lessons about the struggles of his black neighbors. Gerald Boyd, who is black and has lived on the Eastern Shore since 1951, said Mr. Northam’s case was a cautionary tale that the nation’s racist conditioning can snare even well-meaning people.”
Overreaction, Brett K would agree, or would he.
I do not care what your response is to Northam
I care whether you respond to Northam the same way you would respond to a republican who otherwise was similarly situated.
Personally I think Northam must resign. Not because Blackface 40 years ago is an unforgiveable sin. But because he agressively played the race card to narrowly beat Gillespie. That is hypocrisy. You should not be in ANY public office if you are accusing others of being racist on evidence that is far weaker than what can be drug up about you.
But again – I am not that interested in Northam.
I am not under the impression he is some evil guy.
But neither was Gilespie.
When you defame someone else there should be a consequence.
Even if you are a good person who has made a mistake.
But I am more interested in YOU.
Are you holding Northam to the same standards as Gillespie ? Trump ?
Are you holding Tlaib to the same standards as King ?
Are you holding Comey to the same standards as Stone ?
……
OK for those that want to know, I finally found some numbers for world wide CO2 emissions and the impact on the climate.
1. Electrical Power and Large Scale Heat Production 25%
2. Manufacturing 21%
3. Deforestation 14%
4. Transportation 14%
5. Agriculture 10%
6. Extraction, Processing, and Handling of Petrochemicals 10%
7. Onsite Residential Heating & Cooking with Fossil Fuels & Biomass 6%
So now I can ask this question. If electrical power production, manufacturing and deforestation represents 60% of the cause of global warming, why is it the only thing we hear is cars need to be smaller, they need to be electrical or hybrid and other comments making cars people want to buy harder to find. (Example, most everyone buying SUV’s built on truck frames). Why are we not hearing that people need to cut the use of electrical appliances? Remember years ago when people “were not green” we used the sun to dry cloths? Or we paid a deposit on bottles and returned them to the store for a refund. Now we use plastic (part of #6) on the list and most gets thrown away filling up land fills or ending up in the ocean.
And if electrical production is the number one cause of global warming, why are we eliminating nuclear power in this country when that is one of the cleanest for the amount of power it generates. Even cleaner than natural gas, which many power plants have converted to. In addition, China is the number one polluter from power plants. What are they doing?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706
Interesting, No?
While we were required to reduce output of CO2, China is going full run increasing!
Next, why are we not doing something about reforestation? Brazil has reduced their deforestation by about 84%, but that is after a large portion of their rain forest has been cut. Why aren’t the Greenies having a cow over that one?
It all comes back to politics. Oil and gas companies are good targets for the democrats, even though they are #4 and #6 on the list. Even added together, they do not exceed Electrical production.
So now I know the numbers and can present somewhat of an argument when I hear all the bad things about cars.
Slow down.
Before you start deciding to hack away at CO2 – you should determine if CO2 is a problem.
CO2 is a GHG – GreenHouse Gas, but there is no verifiable scientific or experimentally derived value for the effect of CO2. You can not go to a table of experimentally derived data and look up the ECS value for CO2.
The ECS is the climate sensitivity to CO2.
It is expressed as degrees C/doubling of CO2.
The exponential (or actually logrithmic) aspect is critically important and almost completely ignored by purported climate scientists.
Whatever the ECS value actually is there is ZERO question that it is a constant multiplier for each doubling of CO2 – mathematically that means the equation for the effect of CO2 on temperarture – controlling for everything else is a parabola on its side.
That observation alone should complete end this discussion.
The impact of rising CO2 levels should initially be very large and quickly taper off.
If we presume that the entire temperature increase from 1975 to the present is entirely due to CO2 – I do not beleive that – but that is still the BEST CASE FOR WARMISTS,
Then warming due to CO2 is pretty much done. We would have to increase CO2 levels to 800ppm to get the same effect 0.31C as we have had since 1975.
Also Assuming that the entire increase in Temps from 1975 to the present is due to CO2 then you get an ECS of about .6C/doubling. We would have to have thousands of years of increased CO2 to get to 4C.
The larger the portion of the temperature increase since 1975 is due to other things the smaller the ECS value is.
So why are you trying to reduce CO2 ANYWHERE when you are never going to pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cause significant warming ?
There are two other factors warmists try to rely on.
The first is positive feedbacks from water vapor.
Two decades ago warmists postulated that clouds would have an ECS of 3-4C/doubling.
And that warming would increase cloud cover and work as a positive feedback.
But we have developed alot of science on clouds and cloud formation since then.
CERN recently confirmed that Cosmic rays are a highly significant factor in cloud formation.
When the sun is active – as in the last 1/4 of the 20th century we get more clouds.
When the sun is inactive – we get less clouds.
There is still a debate over how great a contributor to the late 20th century warming clouds were. The larger the factor that clouds are – now that cosmic rays are a more significant factor in cloud formation – the more trouble CAGW is in becuase the lower the CO2 ECS must be. The conservative estimates are that Clouds were responsible for 25% of the warming from 1975 to 1998. Larger numbers are fatal to CAGW.
At the same time this has mostly rejected clouds as a positive feedback for CO2.
And the state of our knowledge of clouds has changed to an understanding that clouds are both a positive and a negative feedback. That low clouds cause some warming but that high clouds increase the earth albedo and reflect light and heat back into space.
That clouds function as a very complex temperature regulation mechanism that the can cause the planet to warm and then as it gets hotter to cool.
And that ignores the more prominent role of the sun in clouds today.
Regardless warmists who continue to use clouds as a large positive feedback are full of crap and spewing bad science – and they should know it.
Past clouds the other possible positive feedback is CO2 from the ocean.
Basically as the ocean warms it can hold less CO2 and so the human CO2 causes warming which causes the ocean to release CO2 which causes more warming. Basically there is some tipping point where we end up in out of control warming.
We still have the problem that the ECS is almost certainly much lower than climate scientists have claimed which precludes runaway warming.
Beyond that – our climate scientists have actually proved that the oceans are NOT releasing massive amounts of CO2 (they are actually, but they are absorbing even more).
Certainly you have heard climate scientists bemoan the acidification of the ocean.
That means the Ocean has MORE not less CO2. If we are moving towards a tipping point – the oceans should be becoming LESS acidic.
Regardless, there is no experimentally established value for a CO2 ocean offgassing based on temperature.
In otherwords almost nothing about CO2 climate science is experimentally derived.
Put differently it is an unproven guess, and we are expected to beleive it because the climate models – which demonstrate the change in climate based on the changes in CO2 levels assuming climate scientists guesses at all these values that have no experimental basis,
because those models reasonably accurately tracked global temperatures from 1975 to 1998 – that should mean the educated guesses for these constants are correct.
But since 1998 the model predictions and actual temperatures have diverged – the difference is now about 2.5 std devs.
Statistically that means the odds of the model being correct are less than 2%.
Please tell me why we are betting trillions of dollars on a guess that has less than a 2% chance of being right ?
Last I would refer you to my prior post on the EPA’s estimated cost of atmospheric CO2.
Using generally accepted discount rates rather than ones made up to produce a desired outcome results in a positive benefit to increased atmospheric CO2.
This should not surprise – CO2 has increased about 100ppm in my lifetime – and Plants have gone nuts over it – BTW that is a negative feedback. The more CO2 the more plant growth the less CO2 and the more oxygen.
Regardless no matter what the temperatures that Co2 might bring about – we should not be trying to stop it, if that is going to bring about a BETTER world.
Everything you have heard about sea levels rising by huge amounts is GARBAGE.
Even the IPCC projects the maximum SLR by 2100 to be about 80CM – less than meter.
We had that much rise in the 20th century. The world did not end.
Nor are the poles going to melt. There are few places in the artic and antartic where the temperate EVER reaches 0C. All ice melting in antartica is due to the massive weight of the ice on the continent – which is growing not shrinking.
The antartic thesis needs huge ice sheets to break off and move north to melt.
Which still will not do it, and is unlikely to happen.
The Arctic has been pretty stable, it does shrink – but then it expands again.
The year to year variation is small.
Further artic ice is SEA ice and it can not raise sea level.
Greenland is actually losing something like 30Gt of ice a year.
Though that has slowed recently.
At that right it will take Greenland 200,000 years to be ice free.
We will have another ice age (twice) before that.
I beleive the SLR contribution of Greenland is 0.3mm/year.
Nearly all of my numbers are from WARMISTS,.
There are still a few die hards trying to claim an ECS of 4, but most of the flaming left wing nut climate scientists are using an ECS of about 1.6, and more rational skeptical numbers range from 1.5 to .25. None of these will produce a catastrophe absent some tipping point which is pure speculation.
Dave, are you going to think the average voter is going to read what you wrote, or something like this, understand it and change their thinking and vote based on that info?
I say no. They would have no earthly idea what you just said.
They do understand:
1. CO2 is increasing
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3. Greenhouse gases cause global warming
4. Global warming will have catstrophic impacts on humans
5. Agreements like the Paris Accords or GND are the only saviors
So liberal media preaches the above 5 issues and over time, more and more people believe that since it is at the 8th grade level of comprehension.
So my point is we need the same level questions asked and answered to help people understand. Like ” why allow China to contnue increasing output while we have to cut back and cost Americans hundreds, if not thousands a year and reduced comforts of living”?
You are communicating at the PHD level while people comprehend at the middle school level for the most part.
Of your response – 4+5 are wrong.
3 is correct but scale matters greatly
The evidence does not support the claim that human CO2 has or will significantly warm the climate in the future.
Completely unaddressed by your comments is whether a warming climate – regardless of its causes is a good or a bad thing.
People are strange. Polls constantly tell us that people beleive completely idiotic things.
At the same time polls RARELY tell is the importance people place in those beleifs.
What appears to be true is that an overwhelming portion of people beleive things about climate than they have been sold by the press – that greatly outstrip even the lunatic claims of climate scientists,
While at the same time having little or no interest in actually doing anything about it.
BTW this is true of pretty much EVERY malthusian claim that has ever been offered.
People still today beleive that we are in the midst of a dangerous population explosion – yet we know the earth will peak at about 11B people, and that as population has grown nearly everything has improved.
Those are facts – but most people are not aware of them. At the same time despite falsely believing in a dangerous population explosion there is no impetus to do anything about it.
I would note that when Climate Scientists are polled about whether something needs done about Global Warming – a plurality support doing nothing.
Ordinary people hold oppinions that are driven by emotion and nonsense.
But in their actions and willingness to act (or not) they are pretty close to right.
I keep trying to emphasize over and over
“actions speak louder than words”
It is not what people say that we should judge them on. It is what they do.
Its a difference of opinion.
You believe most people understand the media communications ( my 5 listed items) are incorrect.
I believe a large % of people believe it.
You believe people ignore that when voting
I believe a large percent of people, mother especizlly, vote based partially on climate ans envoronmental issues.
I never said my list were corrsct. I said that was the BS the liberal media communicates. Say it long enough and vast number of times and it becomes truth.
The left communicates that stuff, the right just says ” thats not right, there is no proof, its just the left scaring people”.
The left delivers a message, the GOP does nothing to provide facts in opposition.
And AGAIN, why hasnt the right jumped on the Paris Accords issue with China allowed to increase through the mid 2030’s.
One thing for certain, the GOP is the most incompetent group of individuals when it comes to communication of alomost any group in America.
“You believe most people understand the media communications ( my 5 listed items) are incorrect.
I believe a large % of people believe it.
You believe people ignore that when voting
I believe a large percent of people, mother especizlly, vote based partially on climate ans envoronmental issues.”
No! What people actually beleive is accurately reflected in what they do – not what they say.
They can be wrong in either instance, but they are far more likely to be right in what they do, than in what they say.
Why hasn’t the right jumped on XYZ – because mostly the right does NOT want the accords.
Even in trade – YOU have argued that if China would give use the same freedom in their markets as we do them in ours you would be OK.
Atleast that is my read or your remarks.
There are unfortunately all to many enemies of liberty on the right.
But today the bulk of them and the threat is from the left.
It is not from conservatives. It is not from Trump., It is not from Putin or Russians, and it is not from China.
The left has two major advantages in communications
What they say does not need to be true.
It just needs to feel good.
“You are communicating at the PHD level while people comprehend at the middle school level for the most part.”
Really, no he isn’t. His facts are mostly not facts. Its just his usual “there is no…” with a high enough level of pseudo-scientific cherry picked gibberish thrown in to sound like he is an an expert.
But, his shtick will do if someone is already predisposed to not take the science of climate change seriously. To accept Dave’s version as being accurate you either have to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists are idiots who are all making the same stupid mistakes over and over for decades, or that the worldwide scientific community is involved in a conspiracy to destroy the US economy and the economies of Russia, China, oil and gas producing states etc.
I hope that you realize that neither is true. Science is science, its the same science whether its climate or molecular biology or chemistry. From where I sit science is the most powerful intellectual tool we have and I would think given all that it has achieved that people would understand that it ought to be respected.
Climate is a deeply complex thing, the basic form of the understanding that exists today could turn out to be wrong. But to believe the skeptics is to say that you believe climate scientists when its a small percentage of the field but are skeptical when its most of the workers in the field. So, if you have a sceptical nature be sure to turn it on the climate sceptics as well, or you are simply choosing to accept the ideas of scientists, that is, those of a small minority of the climate scientists.
The work of paleontologists has at least shown the kind of consequences that have occurred in the past when climate changes strongly. Climate is a very powerful force and human civilization has thus far lived in a cold rather than a warm period of Earth history. That ought to make any sensible person think seriously about the consequences if the majority view of climate scientists turns out to be a lot closer to the truth than that of the sceptics.
Asking about why the Chinese don’t agree to cut their levels more aggressively is a good question but its a political and economic question, not a climate science question.
I am doubtful I am going to change your viewpoint, all I can do is ask you to think of what the consequences might be if the sceptics are wrong.
OK, like I said, I understand the earth is warming. I also understand each time the earth cooled, it follwed many episodes of volcanic eruptions, followed by years of calm and increasing temperatures. One cyclical pattern only.
However, if I agree with the assumption that CO2 is the cause this time, then I want corrective action. Not political bull shit that we have experienced since Gore presented this issue years ago.
If the USA represents 15% of the worlds CO2 output and China represents 30% of the worlds output, which country cutting back is going to do the most good? If each country is allowed to increase, which cohntry is going to have the most harm?
And why do we have politicians like Obama willing to accept putting American economic conditions in jeopardy, while giving China free reign to do whatever they want?
Trump is trying to stand up to China on trade. The world needs to stand up to China on polution.
But that wont happen. The world is affraid of China and China will be able to do whatever.
So while the Greens in America accept cutting emissions ( say 10%), China will be allowed to increase (say 10%) for 20 more years, which has a net impact of a 5% yearly increase.
That does nothing to reverse the impact of CO2 as claimed by scientist.
So, lets just say I am sick of America being the worlds cop, spending billions in economic aid, allowing China to walk over the world in trade and all this resulting in America being.impotent when it comes to any climate agreements that really do any good.
“OK, like I said, I understand the earth is warming. I also understand each time the earth cooled, it follwed many episodes of volcanic eruptions, followed by years of calm and increasing temperatures. One cyclical pattern only.”
Lets not make the same kind of assumptions the left makes.
Seismic activity appears to PRECEDE cooling.
All volcanic activity results in cooling – but all cooling is not preceded by volcanoes.
Further volcanic activity is cyclic – it correlates strongly with solar cycles.
I beleive that it most commonly occurs AFTER periods of weak solar activity.
That is because weak solar activity corresponds to more balanced gravitational forces
I do not want to get into the details – While I understand the way that gravitational changes – due to the shifting alignments of the planet result in greater or lower solar activity.
And I know that volcanoes and earthquakes strongly correlate to the solar cycle.
I am less sure of exactly which parts of the solar cycle produce exactly which effects on the earth. Most if not all of the solar cycle is not magic, it is all about orbits and gravity. The eleven year solar cycle and the 22 years solar cycle and the 220 year solar cycle all
are driven by the orbits of the planets arround the sun – as are other longer solar cycles.
We have a much better understanding of this than when I was young.
But we have also known about how the solar cycles effect the earth – though not exactly why.
We are now developing a better understanding of why. Cosmic rays play a part, but the more significant force is gravity. As the planets move through their orbits arround the sun – their gravity effects the sun. For most of the 11 year solar cycle the center of the solar system is OUTSIDE the sun – the sun itself is orbiting the center of the solar system. But in one part of that orbit the center of the sun comes closer to the center of the solar system.
The closer the center of the sun is to the center of the solar system the weaker the tides are on the sun and the less solar activity there is.
All the above is about the sun – but gravity is 2 ways. The gravity of the sun and other planets effects the earth differently at different parts in the cycle. Both the sun and the moon cause tides in the water on the earth. But the gravity of the sun and planets as it changes also causes tides in the magma in the mantle of the earth, and changes the stresses in the
earths crust.
But beyond that – gravity is a form of energy – like light and electricity.
The changes in the gravity between the earth and the sun are ENERGY TRANSFERS – extremely large ones.
“However, if I agree with the assumption that CO2 is the cause this time, then I want corrective action. Not political bull shit that we have experienced since Gore presented this issue years ago.”
I do not think there is anyone that is claiming that CO2 caused changes in temperature prior to 1970. Yet we know that temperatures changed alot prior to that.
We can not know the scale of human effect on temperature without knowing the scale of natural factors – and we do not.
This is a great deal of what the “hide the decline”/hockey stick fight was about.
Mann and Co offered a recreation of past temperatures that was flat for 2000 years and spiked recently. When they concocted that recreation they deliberately obscured the fact that their proxies – which is the source of past temperatures suddenly all started to drop after about 1970 – hence “hide the decline”. Why does this matter ?
Because it demonstrates that the proxies are not tracking temperature.
If they are way off in 1980 – why do we trust them in 1000ad ?
The hockey stick purported to claim that for several thousand years temps were unchanged – and then suddenly recently human CO2 caused them to spike.
The “hockey stick” is very important – because if that is the actual pattern of the past 2000 years – the recent warming is enitrely human.
It is NOT the blade on the hockey stick that matters – it is the long flat shaft.
Most ever past reconstruction – including BEST has variations in past temps that correlate strongly with solar cycles – so does the planet have a natural warming/cooling cycle ?
If you beleive it does – then what part of modern warming is natural and what part is human.
If you beleive it does not – then it is all human.
“If the USA represents 15% of the worlds CO2 output and China represents 30% of the worlds output, which country cutting back is going to do the most good? If each country is allowed to increase, which cohntry is going to have the most harm?”
I accept that CO2 causes some warming. I do not beleive much.
I do not accept that the warming is BAD, or that CO2 is BAD.
It is on net good and we should not care how much CO2 China puts out.
“Trump is trying to stand up to China on trade. The world needs to stand up to China on polution.”
Chinese coal plants put out more than CO2.
“Really, no he isn’t. His facts are mostly not facts. Its just his usual “there is no…” with a high enough level of pseudo-scientific cherry picked gibberish thrown in to sound like he is an an expert.”
So many errors in such a short sentence.
If I claim something as fact, and you disagree – confront that directly.
At the very least specifically identify what you think I am claiming to be a fact that is not.
Merely slobbering – “his facts are mostly not facts” – is NOT an ARGUMENT.
You can spray that at anyone at any time. It is a method of dismissing actual argument without having to go to the trouble of making an actual argument yourself.
If something is “pseudo science” – that should be trivial to identify – DO SO.
The assertion about cherry picking is both in error and irrelevant.
Actual science can not be disproven by “cherry picking”.
AGAIN as Einstein noted “A single inconsistent fact can invalidate my entire life’s work”.
Science is not obligated to explain everything.
But any scientific theory of any kind that is CONTRADICATED by an actual fact is in ERROR.
What you call “cherry picking” is the normal method of actual scientific debate.
The takeover of some realms of science – generally the ones where lack of mathematical rigor is not tolerated does not change the rules and process of science.
Not only has CAGW been disproven by “Cherry picking” – it has been totally destroyed.
In my own short critique about – which is only a small portion of the gaping holes in CAGW, there are probably half a dozen “cherry picked” critiques – ONLY ONE of those needs to be correct to FALSIFY CAGW.
Since you wish to delving into semantics – ACTUAL SCIENCE is something that is FALSIFIABLE – that even if it can not be absolutely proven can atleast be disproven if it is contradicted by facts. ALL real science is falsifiable – i.e. the theory would be rejected if even on fact that was not refutable contradicted it.
Though we still use it Newtonian physics has been falsified. It is demonstrably incorrect at speeds approaching the speed of light. We still make use of it because in the normal world as opposed to quantum mechanics the error is miniscule.
CAGW has been falsified repeatedly and yet it will not die.
When something can not be falsified – it is RELIGION not science.
That is pretty much the distinction between religion and science.
Absolutely there are people who know more than I do about client – and many of those “beleive” in CAGW, Their greater knowledge changes nothing.
Falsified is falsified.
Recently a janitor from the UK falsified a significant portion of modern Psychology.
Several years ago he read a study and it felt wrong to him.
It took him several years to learn enough statistics, and psychology to converse sufficiently intelligently with the “experts”. It took even more time to find another psychologist who would collaborate with him to write a rebutal paper. It took another year to get that paper through peer review and publication.
But ultimately the paper was published – and ultimately it was determined that the english janitor was right.
But this particular paper had a ripple effect – throughout psychology and even into many other sciences. In the area of Psychology this paper caused the entire profession to question 70 years of psychological studies – and as a consequence large swaths of accepted psychology over that time have been found to either be outright fraud, or unverifiable.
I do not want to overstate the impact of a single british Janitor – because decades of challenges to accepted science often through unconventional channels have resulted in accross the board challenges to a great deal of science – from medicine, to psychology, to anthropology even to physics. For almost a decade a major effort has been undertaken accross many of the science to reproduce as much poublished and accepted science as possible – and the error rate has been shocking.
A major part of the problem is well reflected in the problems with climate science.
First – outside of a few fields – medicine notably, physics and chemistry – the quality of the math and statistics in published papers is quite litterally GARBAGE.
The average climate scientist has no clue what it takes to do a trustworthy regression.
You talk about “cherry picking” – you can NOT challenge a falsification with claims of “cherry picking” – real science must conform to all known facts.
But you can err by “cherry picking” to form hypothesis’.
And Climate scientists are consumate “cherry pickers”.
I have repeatedly here pointed out that the predictions of the Global Climate Models – which are the foundations of CAGW – because the entire validation of the theory rests on the ability of the models to accurately reflect reality, the predictions of the models are 2.5std dev’s too high. In REAL SCIENCE that is called FALSIFIED, That means there is less than a 2% chance the model is correct. Faced by an error of that magnitude REAL SCIENTISTS go back and revise their theory. That has not happened.
Climate science is non-falsifiable, it is RELIGION.
I do not profess to be an expert.
But as I have stated repeatedly – MY JOB in the real world is about facts, logic, reason.
I program embedded systems,. Further I am a private consultant – I am not employed in the aerospace or medical or transportation industries. I am hired by companies – large and small, usually when they have failed on their own and need an outside “expert”,
I do not survive and get work by knowing everything there is to know about J1939 ( a communications protocol used by vehicles) or JTTRS or 802.15.4, or Industrial lasers, or medical centrifuges. My work requires rapidly learning everything necescary in the specific field of the project I have taken on this quarter.
What I am very very good at – is learning how to learn. As well as separating the wheat from the chaffe. What I am good at is quickly learning enough to be able to converse fluently with the experts in any field and then be able to quickly determine whether they are bullshitting.
An awfull lot of people have understood that climate science was “pseudo intellectual bullshit” for several decades.
Further time has been our absolute allie – the odds of CAGW surviving long term were ZILCH. What is surprising is that though we have reached a point where ordinary people who do not grasp the math, science and statistics can look arround the world and say “everything has not gone to hell as we were told” And realize something is wrong.
Still despite the OBVIOUS TO MUST EVERYONE falsification of CAGW – left wing nuts continue to persist.
What is further disturbing to me is that CAGW is a fraud. Most of those pushing it were other sufficiently incompetent that they should never have received degrees, or they knew better and were allowing politics to distort science.
Those people should lose their jobs. We do not want people who are that incompetent or that fraudulent in science.
Yet because science has been subsumed by government, science is governed by the new rules of government – failure is rewarded and being right scorned and punished.
Those of us who have been accused of being “deniers” – the scientific equivalent of members of the KKK will not get vindicated – even though we have already been absolutely proven right. While those who have not only been wrong – and often knowingly wrong, but have persecuted those who they KNEW were right – they will end up being rewarded – because that is how government and increasingly academia works.
The Catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis is NOT SCIENCE.
It is religion. It CAN NOT be taken seriously.
If ONE of the dozens of facts that I and myriads of others have found that contradict it is true – then the theory MUST be revised or discarded.
That is “the scientific method” – “climate science” is dogma – religion, not science.
Those pushing it do a disservice to ACTUAL Science.
You are using the language and arguments of POLITICS in the realm of science – and that is absolutely why you are wrong.
While scientists have “oppinions” the work of science is proving and disproving hypothesis – which are “oppinions with some basis in science”.
There is no “equality of oppinion” in science. Either your hypothesis is strong enough that no factual contradictions exist – or it is not science.
The climate itself is actually extremely complex. It is so complex that it is beyond the ability fo humans and technology today to model at our current technological capability AND anything we will ever have in the foreseable future.
For a while I was involved in developing incredibly sophisticated hardware and software to model financial systems faster than real time. The hardware we developed was more sophisticated and powerful than what is used to run climate models. One of the other uses of our hardware was decryption – our equipment is in every FBI field office in the country.
Ultimately we were unable to attain the necescary computational capability to model financial systems in faster than real time.
Climate models are many orders of magnitude more complex.
Climate is a chaos system. Outside of climate it is generally accepted that chaos systems can not be predicted.
Climate models can only be run on current technology be vastly over simplifying them.
Even then they remain enormously complex and barely inside the capability of modern computer hardware.
You can pretend to criticise me regarding my knowledge of climate – but I am demonstrably orders of magnitude more expert in HPC and grid computing than ANY climate scientist.
As noted above one of the things I am very good at is systems analysis.
That is a process that is the same from field to field. The fields may be different but the analytical process is the same.
It is important for any field, but it is especially important in arrangements where errors would result in people dying. About half of the systems I work with could result in death of injury if I screw up. A discipline that very few scientists ever deal with.
You tend to get good at finding faults when mistakes could kill or injure people.
One aspect of systems analysis is that there are many ways to solve a problem.
The approach taken by climate scientists has been to model climate from the inside – to divide the planet into about 20,000 “cells” and to model each of these.
This is much the way we model and forecast weather today.
The models are very nearly the same.
But it is vastly easier and more accurate to model a region for a few days in advance than it is to model the entire planet for years in advance.
As noted there is more than one way to “solve a problem”.
Climate itself is a “chaos system”
But the earth from the outside can be treated using much simpler physics as a “black body”.
A “closed” system with measurable inputs and outputs.
Until early in the 21st century we did not have the instrumentation in space to make all the measurements necescary to “model” the earth as a black box using simple physics.
If you know the energy inputs and the energy outputs you can determine the temperature of the object as a whole. You can do it using physics no more dfficult than most of us used in High School.
Sometime after about 2010 we both had the instrumentation and sufficient collected data to start to do that kind of analysis.
The end result is that the energy equations for the earth do not balance for warming.
This is the so called “missing heat” that Trendberth and other climate scientists spent several years chasing through the oceans – it is not and never was in the oceans and anyone with a smidgen of physics would have understood that as you can calculate the total energy content of the oceans sufficiently accurately using sea level changes which we again have space based instruments that provide that to within a few milimeters. ‘
There is not sufficient heat to support the Global Climate models.
Climate scientists have known that for more than 5 years.
This is a problem that can not be tweaked by changing constants with the climate models.
The ability to instrument the earth from space provides the means to circumvent all the complexity of the climate models.
It is not possible from the outside to determine what the temperature of peoria will be next fall. It is only possible to know whether the planet as a whole is increasing in temperature or decreasing. It does nto specifically tell us the surface temperature or the atmospheric temperture – though we have much better ways to do those from space today than in the past. But it does tell us the energy flows of the earth as a whole and there is not sufficient energy that is not accounted for to support CAGW.
This should not be surprising. One of the reasons I quickly determined that CAGW was garbage many years ago, was because the BASIC ENERGY PHYSICS.
Every degree of increase in temperature for any object takes EXPONENTIALLY more energy than the previous degree. Whether it is a frying pan or the earth.
You can verify this in your own kitchen. You can verify that it takes exponentially more energy to heat water to 99C than to 80C.
Yes this is sufficiently basic that Climate scientists should understand it.
To get the warming that climate scientists claimed from models – CO2 would either have to increase exponentially,. or there would have to be some mysterious massive positive feedback. There are few processes in the natural world that involve unlimited positive feedbacks. We call those processes explosions. They are unsustainable.
The global warming postulated by climate scientists requires the earths climate to be fragile to a degree that it could not possibly have continued to exist for billions of years.
Any natural system that has not self destructed over millenia MUST be presumed to be SELF REGULATING. In otherwords the unknows MUST be presumed to work towards stability not instability.
“To accept Dave’s version as being accurate you either have to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists are idiots who are all making the same stupid mistakes over and over for decades, or that the worldwide scientific community is involved in a conspiracy to destroy the US economy and the economies of Russia, China, oil and gas producing states etc.”
You are approximately correct. And HISTORY both past and present tells us that as strange as that sounds that is not uncommon.
We have been warned by many of the same people for most of my lifetime about “the population bomb” – the earths population is 8B – that was purportedly impossible to sustain – and yet not only have we sustained it but 8B people have double the standard of living of 3.5B when I was a child. Population will peak at 11B shortly and then likely decline.
That may prove disasterous. Governments arround the world are already stressed based on policies that presumed an ever growing polutlation. In the US social secuity and medicare are among those.
Nor is population the only malthusian garbage that has ultimately proven false.
My guess is that most of you do not know all the malthusian pseudo scientific claims that have ultimately proven false – But you do know that for some brief period we were terrified of
DDT or silent spring or peak oil or deforestation or desertification or the destruction of ozone or ……
None of these have lead to the predicted disaster,
Most have just faded from consciousness – which is likely what will happen with Global Warming.
My point is that real science has been MASSIVELY WRONG many times just during our lifetime. Is it a conspiracy ? Is it stupidity ? Is it just politics or money ?
DOES THAT MATTER ?
If Kennedy was struck by a bullet that came from an angle or direction that could not have been from the Dallas Book Depository the thesis about Oswald as the lone gunman would be false. If not it would be true. The motives and explanations, would all be irrelevant.
A single bullet from the wrong direction would not prove the CIA did it, it would not prove the motivations, it would not even mean that atleast some of the conspiracy theorists were nuts.
But it would mean the official narative was wrong.
I do not need to explain why a large portion of scientists are wrong – though the number is smaller than claimed, a plurality of scientists beleive that Humans are causing INCONSEQUENTIAL warming. One of the problems with the “scientific concensus” claim is that it presumes all scientists believe disaster is coming.
NO! the “concensus” is that the earth is worming due to humans.
There is no concensus on how much it is warming, how much is attributable to humans, and how much of a problem that might be,.
The actual size of the cabal within “Climate Science” is quite small.
Which brings me to the next point – not only do we have the historical evidence of massive broadly beleived scientific error in numerous other malthusian prognositcations.
But as I have also addressed REPEATEDLY, we have myriads of other instance of broad scientific error, sometimes conspiracy, sometimes incompetence, and sometimes fraud, throughout science.
I have addressed that of Psychology today. Psychology as a science is busy right now re-evaluating most of 75 years of what was thought to be sound and established psychology.
The Smithsonian has pulled the Human origens exhibit for the 2nd time in two decades and it may not be back any time soon. What we KNOW is that the entire human origens theory of the past several decades is bogus – fraud. The result of politics, prestige and money.
Darwin is still right. man descended from Apes but much of the past 6m years of human history is being rewritten.
I noted that in the 80’s an Isreali physicist developed a completely new theory of the physics of crystals. It took until a few years ago to get that accepted. He was ridiculed as a crackpot for decades. Today he has a nobel prize in Physics.
We have been completely wrong about heart disease for about 60 years – we still do not know what right is, but we know that what we beleived for decades is crap.
Pretty much everything we think we know about food is being rewritten.
Yet much of this was GOSPELL for decades.
There is small group of european scientists who are rejecting Big Bang Theory – and purportedly they can both identifiy the mathematical and measurement errors that produced it AND demonstrate by measurable physical fact that it is wrong.
I do not know if they are right. But I do know that if they actually have the data they claim – then there was no big bang.
There are many many many more recent examples.
But even more – this is NOT some rare scientific fraud. This is the normal way science has developed for centuries. The greeks knew the earth revolved arround the sun – yet for a couple of centuries the state of science was that the sun revolved arround the earth.
While we focus on Galleleo we forget that inumerable very smart people beleived the sun revolved arround the earth for a long long time. You can still find a massive body of mathematics and models to explain how those orbits worked.
I can go on and on and on. Throughout the history of science some of the smartest people alive and at any given time the majority of scientists beleived something that today we would consider total idiocy. Sometimes that was incompetence, sometimes it was error, sometimes it was religion or politics, but for most of human history right through today there has ALWAYS been many things beleived by very smart people that were totally completely wrong.
Put simply your claim that so many scientists could not be wrong is patently false.
It is happening in many other areas NOW, and it has happened constantly throughout the history of science.
AS ALWAYS the burden is ALWAYS on those proposing a theory.
Regardless, this would neither be the first nor the most serious instance of mass delusion on the part of science.
“We have been warned by many of the same people for most of my lifetime about “the population bomb” – the earths population is 8B – that was purportedly impossible to sustain – and yet not only have we sustained it but 8B people have double the standard of living of 3.5B when I was a child.”
Didn’t doubling the standard of living of 3.5 billion humans add a volume of pollution to the planet? One that may indeed be a contributory factor in raising the planet’s temp?
To suggest that the byproducts of human industry have no effect on climate is fatuous. Small changes over time can cascade into dangerous outcomes. Even a tiny 100-mg dose of arsenic can be fatal to a 200-lb adult. As you have noted previously, science doesn’t yet fully understand the elements of scale that produce climate swings. Therefore we may have already passed the tipping point.
“Didn’t doubling the standard of living of 3.5 billion humans add a volume of pollution to the planet? One that may indeed be a contributory factor in raising the planet’s temp?”
Did it ? You ask a question – but it is pretty clear you think you know the answer.
While there are a few examples where pollution has gotten worse since 1960.
On net by every measure the world as a whole has improved – including with regard to pollution.
“To suggest that the byproducts of human industry have no effect on climate is fatuous.”
Straw man fallacy no one has suggested that.
What has been SAID is:
We do not know what portion of modern warming is caused by humans.
The odds favor it being a small portion of all warming.
But even if humans caused 100% of the warming since 1975 – that would be LESS warming per decade than the natural warming of the prior 200 years.
Further since 1998 warming has all but stopped.
Until 2016 1998 was the warmest year in history. 2016 beat it by 0.03C +-0.1C.
2017 and 2018 have been colder again.
If there has been a warming trend since 1998 – that is 21 years ago, it is the smallest warming trend in 200+ years.
“Small changes over time can cascade into dangerous outcomes.”
We are not talking hypothetically.
We have an actual climate and we have measured it.
We can fight over what portion of the changes to that climate are man made and which are natural – but there is very little debate over the small scale of the actual changes.
“Even a tiny 100-mg dose of arsenic can be fatal to a 200-lb adult.”
And yet it is also well know that humans can develop a tolerance to arsenic.
Regardless we have a real climate that we have measured – we do not need bad annaolgies as a substitute.
“As you have noted previously, science doesn’t yet fully understand the elements of scale that produce climate swings. Therefore we may have already passed the tipping point.”
Do not put words into my mouth.
You have altered what I have said and that changes its meaning.
Further you are making another stupid fallacious argument – and pretending it is mine.
You are basically fear mongering over the unknown.
The boogey monster could crawl out from under your bed tonight and kill you.
He may already be planning to.
Science is not speculation.
First you speculate that there is a “tipping point”.
Historicially the most likely dramatic shift in climate would be a sudden dramatic shift to cooling.
Significant cooling has occurred approximately every 200+ years corresponding to a 200+ year solar cycle. We are close to entering the cooling phase of that cycle now.
Maybe this time will be different. Maybe CO2 will save us from harmful cooling.
Or maybe not.
There are many more speculative reasons to fear cooling. The 70’s cooling panic – lead by mostly the same people selling warming, was less unfounded.
There is no “Science” indicating a “tipping point” The two proposed mechanisms by warmists have been falsified – Water vapor is Not on net a positive feedback. It likely was a positive feedback during the last 20 years of the 20th century it near certain has been a small negative feedback for the first 20 years of the 21st.
That result should not surprise – for all your fears – actual tipping points are nearly non-existant. If it were otherwise the planet would have become a permanently frozen rock or a molten inferno long ago. Natural systems that have NOT gone “over the edge for hundreds of thousands even millions or billions of years – MUST be strongly self regulating.
The exact OPPOSITE of your argument.
Regardless science is not magical thinking. If you beleive we are approaching or have reached a tipping point – you should be able to propose a mechanism for that out of control warming, and the evidence to back that that mechanism exists and we are near it.
Fear monger is pointless.
Please read some of my other posts.
The total human energy output of the world for an entire year is about the same as an average huricane for 5 days.
If we burned the entire global reserves of oil all at once – that would two orders of magnitude less energy than the solar energy striking the earth for one days.
Absolutely the impact of humans on the planet is entirely real. The amount of energy we consume is enormous – to humans. On the scale of the planet itself we are talking numbers that are not even rounding error.
Humans have had an effect – any argument that it is more than immeasurably small in comparison to nature must be proven. Because we are immeasurably small in comparison to nature.
Can we end this “small percentage of the field” nonsense.
A plurailty of actual scientists beleive that the earth is warming that humans have contributed to that warming and that the warming is NOT something to be concerned about.
But it would not matter if there was only ONE scientist.
Science is not determined by concensus. Theory is validated SOLELY by agreement with known facts. Any conflict with a single fact must be resolved or the theory is false.
That is called science. The CAGW theory is at odds with facts in MANY MANY ways.
It has been FALSIFED. It is time to go back to the drawing board with an open mind.
“The work of paleontologists has at least shown the kind of consequences that have occurred in the past when climate changes strongly.”
Absolutely false. For much of the time global warming has been debated Palentologists have asserted much the opposite. But this conflict has been going on for so many decades that the older palentologists have retired and knew ones who started with CAGW as a presumption have replaced them
The actual fact is that the further back in time you go the less granualar the data we have is.
Outside of the past 50 years we really do not know much about global climate, in fact even today for about 25% of the planet we may have only one data point every 1000 sq miles (or more). the oldest temperature measurements are less than 500 years old. There are no direct measurements that we can even pretend to be global that are much more than 50 years old.
That does not mean we know nothing about past climate – we know alot, but it is through proxy measures not direct measurement. The farther back in time we go the more we have to shift to proxies that are much less granular.
Palentologists do not have the information to know anything about climate on any scale beyond milenia.
In the past 2000 years we have had 4 what might be called “little ice ages” – possibly more.
Who can tell me whether the Thames froze over in 300ad ? 800 ?
4000 years ago those kinds of variations are no longer detectable.
It is not that they did not occur it is that we do not have the ability to measure that far past that precisely.
“Climate is a very powerful force and human civilization has thus far lived in a cold rather than a warm period of Earth history. ”
Actually FALSE. Human origins are in AFRICA. Not just Homo Sapiens, but all Homo, and the entire human lineage for millions of years originated in the warmest parts of the planet.
For much of human history we have fought a dificult battle – because colder climates are ABSOLUTELY DEADLY, but the tropical environs we originated in have been and are disease ridden and deadly too – yet that is where we were born.
We had to “adapt” to colder environments. Most of the planet was not habitable to humans prior to mastery of fire. Even today each year 10 times as many people die from cold as from heat.
“That ought to make any sensible person think seriously about the consequences if the majority view of climate scientists turns out to be a lot closer to the truth than that of the sceptics.”
Again the ACTUAL facts rather than ludicrously stupid false narratives would cause one to be SKEPTICAL.
There are reasons that even today – population density declines rapidly as you move towards the poles. Cold is deadly. heat is not nearly so. For much of human existance we put up with the diseases of the tropics rather than venture to milder climates – because we could not survive low night time or winter temperatures without fire and shelter.
What does it take for you to realize that these narratives you are selling are just crocks of crap. They are IYI’s taking their assumptions and trying to force reality to fit them.
Only reality does not fit.
The “birth” of Homo Sapiens occured near the start of the eamian period – that was the warm interglacial period prior to the current one.
BTW in the late Ordovician there was a long severe Ice Age with extremely high levels of CO2 – 20 or more times today,
More recently between the jurasic and creteaceous periods temps dropped by CO2 spiked.
This does not prove anything – our data from those periods is far far to large grained.
What it does prove is you can not draw the kind of conclusions that you are claiming palentologists are drawing. Conclusions they were not stupid enough to make 40 years ago.
“Asking about why the Chinese don’t agree to cut their levels more aggressively is a good question but its a political and economic question, not a climate science question.”
Or maybe you should ask why almost no one anywhere – not the US not china voluntarily on their own acts as if CAGW is actually something they beleive in.
You should judge peoples values by their ACTIONS not there words – how many times have I said that. Even christ judges us by our ACTIONS Matthew 25:31–46
This is why free markets are so important. It is not what people say that expresses their actual values and beleifs – it is what they DO.
It is why highlighting the hypocracy of climate scientists is so enlighting.
Ed Begley has actually tired to live an off the grid sustainable life.
Please name one of the high priests of CAGW who lives like he speaks ?
Dave, you keep making comments, but do not provide any links to your data.
You state “Or maybe you should ask why almost no one anywhere – not the US not china voluntarily on their own acts as if CAGW is actually something they beleive in”
So if the USA did not believe in global warming why did Obama agree to what was an awful agreement. According to the National Economic Research Associates, that agreement would have required a 30% reduction in emissions, reduced jobs by 2.7 milkion, including almist 500,000 manufacturing jobs, reduced steel output by 38%, natural gas output by 31% and coal production hy 86%. The total imoact on the economywould have been a reduction of $3T decrease to GDP.
“So if the USA did not believe in global warming why did Obama agree to what was an awful agreement.”
I appologize my remarks were obviously unclear.
I am specifically talking about PEOPLE, not governments.
Do you beleive that ordinary people in their own actions in their own lives act as if they beleive in CAGW ?
They do not even VOTE as if they beleive in it.
In the 2016 election fear of climate change ranked something like 19th on peoples reasons for their choice in voting.
My POINT is specifically about the differences between the way ordinary people act on the whole regarding their own lives and the way government acts when it acts for them.
I have over and over and over stressed that Actions matter – for the most part words do not.
My argument is that to assess peoples ACTUAL values – you should examine how they ACT, not what they say.
This point is important well beyond CAGW.
It is why Polls are not all that important. Polls are what people say.
Even voting – as important as it is to government, is NOT strongly reflective of peoples values.
To weigh values – which is why action matters. the cost of each value must be factored in.
There is only one way in which we show what we truly believe – and that is by the actions we take – when we have choices and those choices have costs.
“I am doubtful I am going to change your viewpoint, all I can do is ask you to think of what the consequences might be if the sceptics are wrong.”
Substitute asteriod impacting the earth for CAGW and what changes ?
We should not make everyone on the planet poorer to preclude the extremely remote possibility of disaster.
You are selling another fallacy.
BTW, in my work I have to confront the consequences of being wrong all the time.
The absolute last thing I am going to say on this subject in any way here is that I am going to assume that anyone who has been at all observant over the years will understand what kind of distortion field Dave can weave on any subject, the mixture of truths, half truths, and falsehoods needed to form his “there is no… arguments . I am not going to argue about Dave’s so-called facts, that is like arguing with Velikovsky. If someone does not see the pattern by now of Dave arguments then there are no words I can say to change that.
Anyone who wants to understand the majority view of climate scientists can easily find it online or in a bookstore. Most people probably are not going to feel like they have the time or perhaps the ability to sort this out, so, this is just a handwaving exercise. So, anyone can choose to put their trust in Dave’s picture of the debate, my arguments in favor of the majority climate science view or some other set of ideas and there is nothing I can say about that.
Time will tell.
My issue is not if or if not its happening.(climate Change)
My issues are with our government. (Like always)
Trade, I want fair trade. No tariffs on either side. Or if a tariff on ours is 10%, then our tariff on theirs is 10%.
Defense. If we spend 15% of our GDP on our defense, then they spend 15% of their GDP on their defense before expecting us to give them support.
Climate. If we are expected to cut 15%, then everyone cuts 15%.
What I am sick of is the USA being expected to be the protector of the free world and then have everyone run rough shod over us because we have weak leaders that make decisions for their careers and party and not for America.
And I think that is alot of the thinking that went into those that voted for Trump.
Now we have an election coming up in 2020 and the question I see being answered is “Do we elect someone standing up for America or do we elect another weak leader like Obama willing to sell us down the drain for political gain.
So in the democrat platform of 2016 it states “Democrats recognize the importance of climate leadership at the local level and know that achieving our national clean energy goals requires an active partnership with states, cities, and rural communities where so much of our country’s energy policy is made. We will ensure that those taking the lead on clean energy and energy efficiency have the tools and resources they need to succeed. The federal government should lead by example, which is why we support taking steps to power the government with 100 percent clean electricity.”
BUT where is the importance on global leadership and the “partnership” needed to reduce emissions world wide? Why just us?
The same activists who are most strongly interested in the issue of climate change have the most naive views of what it would take to cut emissions meaningfully. I have been saying that for more than a decade. When I took part in the Vermont Climate walk in, I think, 2006 I had just read a fat book about energy written by a real expert and had also pulled down the DOE spreadsheets about energy and CO2. The numbers you found are not wrong and your questions are quite good.,
Tansportation and the electricity are merely the low hanging fruit, the easiest places to make some real cuts. But, as I said long ago, even here, they are far from sufficient and even huge cuts in the US can easily be more than offset by increases in emissions by developing countries, China, India, Brazil high among them. The Green Party types are utterly naive about how easy this is. As well, they are fanatics about nuclear power, which is actuually one of the best sources of clean power, I am for it. I got nowhere trying to have any kind of intelligent discussion with the climate marchers about actual solutions.
So what are we supposed to do, nothing? Give up? Take solace in the ideas of sceptics and hope that they are correct.
Ron, Just do not confuse political activists with the actual climate scientists. There is very bad science on both the right and left, laughably bad science.
Take solace in the ideas of sceptics and hope that they are correct should have had a question mark after it. Its a rhetorical question.
“But, as I said long ago, even here, they are far from sufficient and even huge cuts in the US can easily be more than offset by increases in emissions by developing countries, China, India, Brazil high among them. ”
Yes, and thats the rub. We cut 10%, they increase 10%, net = increase. And, we have higher costs forcing more industries to lower cost countries (China, India Brazil), net =lost.jobs, negative impact on economy. And the increased manufacturing moving to these countries also increases electrical demands, which increase emmissions from dirty generation plants.
Why not force the major polluters to cut? Is it better to experience negative economic imoacts due to lost industries or experience the same by imposing economis and financial sanction on those that pollute rhe most until they change?
The numbers are completely irrelevant.
To reverse your own stupid analogy – are you prepared to make the entire planet significantly poorer – that WILL mean higher mortality rates, that will slow the improvement of medicine and other things that significantly improve our lives on the low probability that we actually do get 4C of warming and it is actually bad ?
I would remind you that in nearly every possible way – except MAYBE global Temperatures more CO2 is BENIFICIAL.
Of all of the things that come out of the tailpipe of a car or the exhaust stack of a power plant CO2 is near certain to be more beneficial than harmful.
Absent thousand fold increases it will not harm humans directly at all. You could breath air at 200,000ppm CO2 with no ill effects.
We know that even the small increase in CO2 over the past 70 years has had a significant positive impact on food production. It has also unfortunately caused everything to grow more including weeds.
One of the reasons that scientists are completely unwilling to explore other causes – even other human causes for warming is because only CO2 gives them the poltical power to take over peoples lives.
Do you think it is an accident that the GND is more about forced marxism than warming ?
I honestly do not care if people choose to produce less CO2 – I do not even care if they do so despite the fact that it is probably a stupid idea.
What I do care about is freedom. Whatever CO2 does to the planet it will do far less harm than the advocates for CAGW will do to us.
One aspect of the GND I find hillarious is that they want to reduce both CO2 and fracking.
That is right. The US – which has opted out of Paris thank god, and mostly refuses to agree to anything but voluntary accords is actualy meeting its targets – not because of government.
Not because of forced societal changes, but because franking has shifted us from being a consumer to a producer of energy and an awful lot of it is NG which burns substantially cleaner in every way – including producing less CO2.
I vigorously oppose the lefts “war on coal” – at the same time – Clinton is actually right miners in WV are losing their jobs NO MATTER WHAT. But the left should quit being stupid and trying to speed up the process – you do understand these people voted against you, and you are probably never getting their vote back ?
All things being equal coal is about 1/3 cheaper at producing electricity than anything else.
But all things are not equal. Coal must be transported by rail. NG travels in pipelines – which is far cheaper and less dangerous. Coal must be mined and there is just no easy and safe way to do that. NG is sucked out of the ground through a straw.
Coal plants take days to fire up and days to shutdown. If your energy source is purely coal you must always produce whatever your peak energy demand is.
You can bring up an NG turbine in a few minutes and bring it down as quickly.
Coal plants are typically a hundred miles from demand. NG turbines scale down incredibly.
Power companies, communities, and businesses are installing there own NG turbines.
We had a big fight here over hardening the grid some time ago. What about eliminating the grid ? People could have NG generators at their home, generating only the electricity they need and almost completely off the grid. They could run solar during the day when the sun shines and switch to NG the rest of the time.
And the left wants to end Fracking ?
IYI. Or maybe just I.
“Tansportation and the electricity are merely the low hanging fruit, the easiest places to make some real cuts.”
Nope.
Absent a cost effective very high density storage system you will not replace fossil fuels as the primary source of energy in the west.
You can pretend the laws of physics do not exist – but the laws of physics do not care.
It is probable that we will see improvements over time. But we are way behind the curve on improvements in the density and efficiency of energy storage.
There is no readily available substance that comes close to the energy density of oil.
The space for batteries in every single electric car ever made is many times that of gasoline. The weight is many times that of gasoline.
There are lots and lots of advantages to electric cars, and they are slowly growing on us,
but that growth will not accelerate until we have far better batteries.
The same is true of solar (and wind). The generation price of solar today is almost economical. But absent storage there is no system that can provide 24×7 power, and even if you can break even, you lose money when you add storage, and you have to replace the storage periodically.
Every single one of these problems will likely be solved eventually – but there is nothing you can do to change the timing. Innovation has very little to do with money. And everything to do with the right person with the idea no one else ever thought of.
You keep chiding me for saying “everyone is wrong” regarding climate. While that is not exactly what I am saying. It is still true that pretty much all the major advances in society EVER were the results of only a few people. We do know that greater freedom results in greater invention – otherwise Singapore would will all the nobel prizes. We also know that invovation increases with the number of people, and it increases with rising standard of living.
A billion people in china raised to the bottom of the first world has positive benefits for all of us that we have not even started to see.
But massive amounts of money do not. Nor does government trying to force the issue.
Maybe the miracle battery will appear tomorow – it certainly will eventually.
But the odds are against tomorow. Very smart creative people can figure out how to bend the laws of physics. But that does not occur on demand.
Put otherwise – there is no “low hanging fruit”.
Government has pumped billions into green energy – thus far it is nearly all waste.
The actual improvements have not come from government. And they will not.
No amount of force will change our CO2 emmisions without making us poorer.
And you saw how the french yellow shirts responded to that.
The “low hanging fruit” is not for you, and not for government. It will not drop because you wish it to. Someday – maybe soon the right person will find the right answer.
In the meantime you can do nothing but wait.
“So what are we supposed to do, nothing? Give up? Take solace in the ideas of sceptics and hope that they are correct.”
That is easy – I told you in another post that the history of science is the history of bad ideas like CAGW. But the history of humans overal, is one of improvement.
Free men and free markets make the world better – they always have and they always will.
In the unlikely event that CAGW should actually prove to be an issue – the markets will resolve it.
For the overwhelming majority of people on this planet life is better than it has ever been.
And for the children not yet born the future will be better still.
Just as we can count on society as a whole and science in particular chasing hobgoblins like CAGW – because that is the pattern of human history. We can also count on life improving for all of us. Because it always has. That is NOT the consequence of government or social programs. It is not even the conseqence of technology – in fact technological imprmovement is and all other improvement is a consequence of free people and free markets.
I find it hillarious you are afraid of the things that will save us and in love with the things that might harm us.
Priscilla, there is absolutely nothing wrong with “alliances” with Israel, SA, Turkey and others if it enhances or bolsters our national goals and strategies, militarily and economically. Although the extent to which these “alliances” work out in the long run sometimes is problematical.
I am for such alliance’s, but that does not mean we have to clap them on the back for every thing they do internally and externally.
It’s like I support the law and its officers, but criticize them when because of money and/or ambition, they look the other way when crimes are committed. Of course there are crimes and there are rationalizations and our American ideals don’t always agree with those of other countries and their current governments.
So yes, I agree with some of what Omar says as long as it is not a racial or religious remark.
Money to me is its own religion and politics is its favorite acolyte.
“Money to me is its own religion and politics is its favorite acolyte.”
You will get no argument from me on that, duck.
We may disagree on whether or not Omar is an anti-Semite or not, but we agree that should always be room to disagree on policy, whether it be an ally or an adversary. Open and free debate is something that has been vilified in today’s culture and politics, and that is a very bad thing.
I’m glad that we can still do some of that here.
It is acceptable – 75 years after Hitler to paraphrase the protocols of the elders of Zion on the floor of the house, but you can not review research regarding the inherit-ability of IQ at a college.
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind…”
J.S. Mill
Ignore every single thing I have ever said but please read and understand Mill.
The link below is to an illustrated modern abridged version of “On Liberty”
https://heterodoxacademy.org/mill/
“There is absolutely nothing wrong with alliances”
George Washington would disagree.
“It’s like I support the law”
All law ? Any law ? What are the requirements for legitimate law.
I have asked that repeatedly. I have offered my own views.
Our founders had theirs.
All discussion about the constitution is inherently a discussion of what constitutes legitimate law.
The entire american revolution was a rejection of illegitimate law, and the declaration of independence was their legal argument justifying that rejection.
yet you gloss over questions about law and what makes legitimate law is if they are of no concern or relevance.
This is not about whether you agree, it is about whether you even recognize the fundimental issue of the american revolution – that all law is not inherently legitimate, that law must respect and protect our “inalienable rights” to be legitimate.
You avoid the question.
“and its officers, but criticize them when because of money and/or ambition, they look the other way when crimes are committed.”
The people who make up government and law enforcement are people – ordinary people, like ourselves. They are not inherently better nor worse. They do not become superior by virtue of a employment by government.
Arguably government and particularly politics and law enforcement attracts alot of those who should never have power over another.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Madison Federalist 51.
I hope you are ambitious. I hope that you strive hard for money – or more accurately to improve your life, which is the purpose of money.
It is not a bad thing to be ambitious, nor to seek to improve your life.
Evil is the way in which you excercise power over others.
Lord Acton did not say money is corrupt – he said POWER is corrupt.
The social contract that the legitimacy of government rests on cedes some power – involuntarily to government. It cedes our right to initiate violence in return for protection of our rights and protection from the violence of others.
The only legitimate exercise of power over another person is to protect their rights and to protect them from the violence of others.
Just law empowers government to do precisely that. All failure to do so – including “looking the other way” which is little more than “prosecutorial discretion” in common clothes.
When Comey excercised “prosecutorial discretion” regarding Clinton – he was “looking the other way”. Possibly he was doing so, because her conduct was only different from his own in magnitude. Comey has admitted under oath to providing classified documents to people without a security clearance, and to mishandling classified information, and to emailing classified information.
But “Looking the other way” is only one of the lessor evils of wielding power.
The use of power beyond what the law may legitimately grant is far more dangerous.
The left spits and fumes about Trump the Authoritarian – and absolutely they should fear the excercise of power against others purely because you have power.
Thus far Trump has shown little evidence of doing so. While we are surrounded by examples of the prior administration doing exactly that. Whether it is the political witchhunt that we are still ensnared in, or pretending the law is bubblegum that you can stretch to ensnare whoever you do not like, or it is excercising prosecutorial discretion – “looking the other way” because you “feel” for the 800K of now adults who were brought here illegallly as children.
Or numerous other examples such as fast & Furious, and IRS Gate – we have real extralegal uses of power, and those are far far more dangerous, and the most dangerous of all are the abuses we justify as “good causes”.
Trump has threatened to “build the wall” on his own authority. He should not have that power, Whether he is right or wrong about the wall, the justifiable (constitutional) use of power in the US requires super majoritarian support. It requires the consent of 51% of the house and 60% of the Senate as well as the president, and the blessing of the courts.
Absent any one of these the use of power is illegitimate.
It is illegitmate when Trump does it, and Illegitmate when Obama did it. It is particularly dangerous when done for a purported “good cause”. Every Tyrant can manufacture a “good cause”.
Trump should not have that power – unfortunately he does. Laws passed by congress in the 60’s giver the president that power. Trump should not use it and congress should rescind those laws – and myriads of other laws.
“Of course there are crimes and there are rationalizations and our American ideals don’t always agree with those of other countries and their current governments.”
If something is an actual crime – it is within the domain of govenrment – any rationaliziation is irrelevant.
If something is not a crime – it is not in the domain of government.
Neither government nor you have the power to judge our “rationalizations”
“So yes, I agree with some of what Omar says as long as it is not a racial or religious remark.
Money to me is its own religion and politics is its favorite acolyte.”
Money is a religion – your fixation on it is evidence. But you do not seem to grasp that money is subordinate to power – politics, not the other way arround.
If the government constrained itself to the powers the constitution gives us – there would be little money in politics.
Power attracts money – not the other way arround.
Power corrupts, Power is the religion of politics – from the president through the rich right down to the lowliest “community organizer” all are seeking power. Money is just a means to rent that power.
BS piled on top of BS just makes a bigger pile.
This analysis of polling data by 538 on socialism is highly satisfying to me. In short, the word socialist has lost most of the meaning that political scientists have traditionally given it as ownership of the means of production. As well, 50% would not vote for a socialist including a lot of democrats, 38% (including me). Its still a semi effective rhetorical weapon, which is fine by me, although very few still use it as a synonym for commie or marxist. I think this follows from people understanding that democratic socialists in Scandinavian countries are not marxists, they are for BIG government but not in the Venezuelan/Chinese/USSR?Cuban sense. So, Americans see a broader meaning of the term than I had thought, and still are not too wild about socialists anyhow, which is also highly fine by me.
Honestly the term has become almost meaningless when removed from its original Marxist context. Many but by no means all Democrats see it as positive while many (but not all!) republicans see it as a negative. But almost none of them have a solid idea what it is.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-socialism-still-an-effective-political-bogeyman/
Of course you would support the destruction of meaning.
Would it be okay with you if the term “rape” lost its meaning and therefore the act became acceptable ?
Regardless I prefer not to argue over the semantics of the meaning of socialism.
It has failed everywhere it has been tried – no matter how broadly it is defined, no matter how narrowly it is defined.
In fact all action by government to restrict liberty – beyond restrictions on the initiation of force, limits on walking away for agreements, and requirements to make whole those you actually harm have ALWAYS done more harm than good.
GROW UP.
Those European social democracies you love – TRIED “Socialism Lite” – it failed – not nearly as badly as full blown socialism, but still failed, And they have been spending the past 3-4 decades trying to escape it, but it is very hard for people to end a drug addiction.
Bother to actually learn something about those “eurpoean socialists”.
Most of those scandanavian countries have near identical economic freedom to the US.
In some cases more. They have corporate taxes that are LOWER than the US – or were until recently. They have top margin income taxes that are the same or lower than the US.
They have “Big government” only in the sense they have a broader social safetynet than the US – one that costs their working class 50% of their income – income that is already 20-30% lower than that of americans. They not merely have substantially lower standards of living – but they have been falling behind the US at a rate of about 1% per year.
These countries have spent the past 3 decades trying to switch from herion additction to methadone before getting off the drugs.
Why is it that you want to inflict something that does not work even for scandanavians on the US ?
And just to be clear – I do not think the scandanavians are all that stupid.
Most of Europe – though it has mandated healthcare – which is an infringement on liberty that we do not have, at the same time most of the nations you cite do not have the totally F’d up basically government mangled disaster that we have.
Big government does not work – NOT IN ANY FORM, No Matter what you label it.
IF you bother to look into it there are HUNDREDS of economic studies of government size using the past 100, 200 years, using the US, each individual country in the OECD, all the developed countries in the world, Even marginal countries in places like Africa and the mideast. The findings are universal.
For every 10% increase in GDP that government grows, the rate of increase in standard of living decreases by 1%.
That may not seem like much – but ask yourself why the standard of living in Germany and France and all those nordic social democracies is significantly lower than the US ?
I would further note that your ideal countries are so lily white that 98% of the people are not merely the same race, they are the same tribe, and the same religion.
If you can not make socialism lite work in a monoculture – how do you expect it to work in the most diverse nation in the world ?
Big Government and diversity DO NOT COEXIST. Diversity requires liberty.
“Why is it that you want to inflict something that does not work even for scandanavians on the US ?”
You simply cannot read. Oh, you can recognize words, you just can’t understand what people are saying. Not humor, not sarcasm, not irony, not even the clearest most unambiguous statements.
I do not want scandinavian socialism. I do not want American government to get bigger. I could not have said so more clearly in many many posts. I can go through your responses to the things I post, you get things backwards reliably and then go off on a lecture that only actually says what I was saying but in a gazzillion words with a huge pile of gibberish thrown in. I don’t bother trying to correct you 99% of the time, like when you took my sarcastic statement that one can shout that PACS are using money to influence politics and everyone will agree, you just can’t say it if its a pro Israeli PAC. That was not a literal statement it was obvious sarcasm. You actually managed to think I literally meant that it is wrong to criticize Israel when that was the opposite of my point. Anyone else would get it. For you it was just a departure point into a harrange that said what I was saying while telling me what a nutty leftist I am and cursing the left to smithereens.
You nonsensify every discussion here.
I realize you were wired from birth to do this but it sure ain’t easy having any discussion with you, or even around you.
Presuming that I beleive what you are saying – all you are doing is pointing out the stupidity of saying anything different from what you actually beleive on the interent.
Written sarcasm is incredibly hard – and you are not johnathan swift.
Further you continue to post as “anonymous” which means you provide absolutely zero context to determine whether you are sarcastic as you claim.
You say it is obvious – I can find millions of left wing nuts on the internet – OR IN CONGRESS that say the same things you post DEAD SERIOUSLY.
I personally try to avoid Sarcasm, and misdirection most of the time.
But If I post
“Big Government is Great” as dhlii or jbsay – atleast there is context – other reads here know – I hope that such statements must be sarcastic or ironic because they know who they are from.
You are free to post as anonymous – I have had to do so sometimes when WordPress will not let me log in.
Speaking anonymously is a right.
But when you do so – you should not be surprised when your remarks are discounted and you are taken litterally.
Beyond that – I would say most of the remarks you are claiming are sarcastic – are NOT obviously so. As I said they could easily have come from most any democrat in congress – even the more moderate ones.
If you are claiming sarcasm – are you claiming the entire democratic party is total idiots ?
So stupid that you can play them straight and get irony ?
Absolutely my nature drives me to take things litterally – that is NORMAL.
99.99% of everything anyone ever says is intended to be taken litterally.
Absolutely my job as well as deliberate efforts on my part push me towards taking things litterally.
Computer do not joke. Nor does mathematics,
My sense of humor is not that of a comedian. But I have no problem making and responding to jokes.
But this is not a comedy club. Provide enough context or expect to be taken litterally.
Because that is what HUMANS do 99.99% of the time.
Seeing something stupid as positive does not make it positive.
Score one for McConnell. I think this is brilliant. Vote now of the GND resolution. End the posturing. Yes, the progs brought this manifesto into existence, now let them defend it outside their campus.
I want to know ASAP whether the Dem party is going to truly convert the Prog/Green party. I don’t want to wait a year to have that battle. Have it now. Its bitter medicine, but I hope it will be helpful in the long run and bring the Dem party back to earth. It quite possibly may not, we will see.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/429635-mcconnell-to-set-up-vote-on-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal
My hope for the democratic party was a return to their senses after the 2016 election. Instead they have doubled down on all the stupidity that lost them the election in the first place.
Regardless of which party has power – we need the other as a reasoned contrarian voice.
We need democrats to be a check against republican over reach when Republicans are in power. Just as republicans mitigated the worst of democrats while democrats have power.
Democrats took the house in 2018 by running candidates that were NOT extreme.
The party unfortunately has not regained its sanity, but democratic candidates in swing districts did, and by doing so they delivered a majority to the democrats int he house.
Yet wing nut democrats from the safest of deep blue seats are intent on doing everything in their power to assure that in 2020 voters outside those at the far left vote straight republican accross the board.
We are two months into democratic control of the house – and democrats have lost control of their own destiny.
Ron likes to say that democrats are better at messaging – and mostly they are.
But they have lost it.
Do you honestly think this is a party that can manage to win in 2020 ?
“By the end of the Green New Deal resolution [and accompanying fact sheet] I was laughing so hard I nearly cried,” tweeted the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel: “If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful.”
Which was my point.
You even managed to say something sensible, something I have been saying here forever.
“Regardless of which party has power – we need the other as a reasoned contrarian voice.
We need democrats to be a check against republican over reach when Republicans are in power. Just as republicans mitigated the worst of democrats while democrats have power.”
You do not get to be taken credibly when you say you have been saying something forever when you post anonymously.
every single anonymous post is UNIQUE. there is little means to determine whether it is from the same source as the last one, or any other.
Anonymous posts must be read standalone. They have no context.
You are free to post anonymously.
You are not free to demand that the rest of us use the context of our guess as to your identity as the means to understand your posts.
Not only is telling sarcasm difficult over the internet – it is 10 times harder when the poster is unknown.
Next – do you have a problem with being agreed with ?
The excuse does not pass the laugh test. You know who I am unless you really are denser than lead.
I don’t know why wordpress goes back and forth between Roby and Anonymous. I don’t even notice actually. Everyone here knows my style, especially you and your comments sayt as much.
Not a clever out.
“The excuse does not pass the laugh test. You know who I am unless you really are denser than lead”
No I do not. I can guess. But that would be just a guess. Further, I have no way of knowing whether any post by anonymous is by the same person as the last.
My point is there is absolutely no context to an anonymous post – beyond the text of that post.
“I don’t know why wordpress goes back and forth between Roby and Anonymous. I don’t even notice actually. Everyone here knows my style, especially you and your comments sayt as much.”
We are all aware of the deficiencies of wordpress.
You keep telling me that you are not a lefty statist – and now you are demanding that not merely I but every other reader here perform style analysis on posts by anonymous and then to guess who actually posts them – and no doubt you will call us to the carpet if they guess wrong.
Anyone is free to post as anonymous – deliverately or accidentally.
I have had worpress problems that have resulted in a few posts going in as anoymous.
But I am not so arrogant as to presume that everyone else is obligated to analyse those posts and re-interpret them in the context of the other posts I have made.
Further your demand above undermines your own argument that by putting these posts into the “context” of Roby – we should know they are “sarcasm”.
You have just demanded that I and everyone else here take on the task of sorting through anonymous posts to determine who the actual author is and then use that knowledge to re-interpret the post in a context that we had to guess at.
That demand is not particularly distinguishable from the litteral reading of the posts you say we are supposed to read as sarcasm.
Many of the Roby posts more recently show more skepticism of the extreme left, and more suspicion of democrats and government.
That is a NEW development. My GUESS is that is a reversion to your own actual values,
as your TDS starts to fade. But that is just a guess.
By default I take everyone who posts here LITTERALLY. This is not a comedy forum.
The “context” that one would presume for TNM is that people are saying what they think, what they beleive.
“Not a clever out.”
You want others to go to a great deal of trouble to decipher context – The obvious context is simple – you made stupid remarks in the hopes that others would grasp they were sarcasm – because they came from you – without identifying yourself so that context was discernable, and even presuming we somehow divined that context – it would not help you much as you have made similar remarks in the past – or is nearly everything you post sarcasm.
You do not want to be called a leftist, yet you make the burden of everything everyone else’s problem. That is pretty much the definition of a leftist.
Regardless, I am not looking to an “out”.
I responded to the remarks posted.
It is not a crime or sin or moral failure to respond to them as written.
The burden of communication is ALWAYS on the author – regardless of who the author is.
Dave, you Ditz – there are only 6 of us (including Pricilla occasionally) posting here.
Oh, right – you have Reasoning Deficiency Syndrome
“Dave, you Ditz – there are only 6 of us (including Pricilla occasionally) posting here.
Oh, right – you have Reasoning Deficiency Syndrome”
When you Assume – you make an ASS out of U and ME.
I do not make assumptions about anonymous posts.
I treat their posts standalone.
Further I think there are only 6 “regulars” here – there are people who drift in from time to time. Some post as anonymous, and some stay for a whole and then leave.
BTW “anonymous” being Robby does NOT help.
Robby has posted some pretty left posts.
He appears to have come more to his senses more recently,
regardless taking extreme leftist nonsense adding “robby” as the poster does NOT lead me to the conclusion that it is sarcastic.
Now if Ron was Anonymous – that would have been evidence of sarcasm.
But again when you make assumptions about an anonymous post you have a high probability of being wrong.
Your argument is that we shoud make assumptions.
Humm… I assumed you knew how to spell his name after all these years
“I want to know ASAP whether the Dem party is going to truly convert the Prog/Green party. I don’t want to wait a year to have that battle. Have it now. Its bitter medicine, but I hope it will be helpful in the long run and bring the Dem party back to earth. It quite possibly may not, we will see. ”
Yup.
Well I am not a politician, but I think McConnell is being idiotic taking a campaign issue out of the election. Once the dems go on record of voting against it, no matter how much Trump sits in the residence and tweets about TGND, it makes no difference.
Both political parties ALWAYS have a problem in every election.
They must appeal to their own base – or their bases stays home, and they lose the election.
They must appeal to voters toward the center or they can not get elected.
McConnell is forcing Dem Presidential candidates to choose between their base and most of the country. It is a lose-lose proposition.
It does not matter which way Democrats vote, it hurts them.
Both parties face some forms of the same problem.
AOC just walked the entire democratic party into an ambush.
If democrats vote down the GND in the senate – that will strongly negatively impact their support among young voters without whom they are toast. And though your reliably favors democrats, they do NOT reliably vote.
If democrats vote for the GND – the GOP can spend the next 2 years pummeling democrats as idiot socialists.
I do not think this is such a brilliant move it changes everything.
But it was a mistake.
And it is right out of Alinsky’s playbook.
Tulsi criticizes the GND and shows her foreign policy chops, separating her from the Dem herd.: “Tulsi Gabbard talks foreign policy issues in her first Iowa appearance as a presidential candidate”
https://www.desmoinesregist…
The only independent thinker so far.
Double standard? Israeli liberals think so:
“The Sick Double Standard In The Ilhan Omar Controversy
Read more: https://forward.com/opinion/419206/the-sick-double-standard-in-the-ilhan-omar-controversy”
“Yet almost all of Omar’s Republican critics in Congress endorse this bigotry. The 2016 Republican platform declares that, “We reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier” in the West Bank. In other words, governing Jews by one set of laws and Palestinians by another is fine. Last December, Republican Congressman Lee Zeldin, who has called for stripping Omar of her committee assignments, spoke at a fundraiser for Bet El, a West Bank settlement from which Palestinians are barred from living even though it was built—according to the Israeli supreme court—on land confiscated from its Palestinian owners.”
Law in the west Bank and Gaza is determined by the palestinian authority.
If there is disparity – it is driven by the palestinians.
Many – I beleive several million palestinians live in Israel and have since 1948.
Those palestinians are treated the same and have the same rights as jews.
They vote, they get elected, ….
Absolutely Israel is internally conflicted about how to deal with the west bank and Gaza.
A small minority of nut case jews essentially want to drive the palestinians out.
But the vast majority of jews want to recognize the west bank and Gaza as a Palestinian state in return for recognition of Israels right to exist.
Are the Israeli’s occupiers – in the most nominal sense yes.
For the most part they occupied the teritory of people who actually attacked them in a war, and are fully prepared to return it the moment those people promise not to do that again.
Most of us think that is reasonable
At the same time they do not interfere significantly in the Palistinian authorities administration of Gaza and the west bank.
OK here is an article that will help provide some context to a continuing debate we have here, OR it might just add more fuel to the fire.
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/state-the-planet-better-ever
We have one side commenting about how much worse the earth is today than in the past. Then we have the other side saying the world has improved. Separate from American politics, I have to agree with that position.
Yes, we have pockets of issues, like the excessive use of plastics.
Ron
Thank you.
BTW you can find dozens of editorials like Moores each year.
If you are on twitter – follow @humanprogress – you will get numerous posts and graphs each day demonstrating the world is better not worse.
Pretty much every issue we fight over here – is MUCH better than 20 or 40 years ago.
Even many of the things I complain about are BETTER than before.
Further we know WHY things are better – and it is not government – except to the extent that the failure of socialism has brought about greater freedom and FREDOM is what drives our improving standard of living.
Nor are we dealing with a question of oppinion.
There are specific things in specific places that are WORSE,
We can all find examples – nearly all of which have to do with government.
I think the Obama administration was a FAILURE.
But not because it made everything worse accross the board.
It did not. Under Obama MOST things got better.
Obama is a failure – because the rate of improvement was MUCH LESS than Trump or most 20th century presidents.
Even Soviet Socialism did not actually fail.
It just failed to keep up.
“If you are on twitter – follow @humanprogress – you will get numerous posts and graphs each day demonstrating the world is better not worse.”
I have twitter, but seldom use it. I dont like a system where you cant see other peoples comment (tweets) like one can see on Facebook.
Then you can read their web site.
https://humanprogress.org/
Is this lefty socialist serious?
Oh, sorry, he’s a righty capitalist
(Running for GOP Prez again?)
https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/02/13/marco-rubio-just-went-off-on-corporate-stock-buybacks/
Jay, I am not going to get into the weeds on why stock buy backs a good, but I will list a couple things.
A large number of pensions are invested in stock. Federal, state, local government and private industries and unions
Stock buybacks occur when there are sellers wanting to divest. Instead of other investors, the company buys.
Stock buybacks reduce cash and reduce the number of stockholders. If for instance the stock sells for $10 and they buy back 10%, in many instances the stock price increases to $11.
If the dividends are determined by earnings and outstanding shares, in many cases the dividend will increase due to fewer outstanding shares.
And all of this is good for the investors. And unlike the liberals on the left that will spin this as a gift to the rich, those benefiting most are those invested in retirement funds.
If SS invested in the market, it would be much more funded for years to come, But the fanatics on the left only attack the stock market and Rubio has fallen into that trap since it appears he has little knowledge if the impact of stock buybacks.
Thanks for the info, Ron. But that doesn’t address the thrust of the argument: the huge tax cuts didn’t produce the economic results Trump said they would. Some stockholders may have benefited, but US citizens in general did not.
Jay if president through history had done what they said they and there policies would do, we would not need God, Allah, Confusius, Buddha or any other God like figure because we would be living in Paradise.
To explain why most individuals who have an IRA, Defined Contribution Pension, Defined Benefit Pension, Government Pension and pure stock holdings, which when adding all these together, make up a large percentage of Americans has been benifitial is too complicated.
Needless to say, for those leaning right, its a good thing. For those leaning keft, its a bad thing. For Rubio to criticize, he is showing me that my support for him earlier might not have been wise.
Rubio is making the fundmental mistake of the left and myriads of posters here.
He is presuming that market transactions are zero sum – that if there is a winner that there must be a loser.
No market transaction is a guaranteed winner for either the buyer or the seller.
Sometimes one or the other or both lose.
But the overwhelming majority of the time BOTH win.
Sometimes one more than the other.
Rubio has succumbed to the natural paranoia of the left.
He has presumed that if a corporation is doing something it must be benefiting (True), and that means someone else must be harmed (false and fallacy)
“Thanks for the info, Ron. But that doesn’t address the thrust of the argument: the huge tax cuts didn’t produce the economic results Trump said they would. Some stockholders may have benefited, but US citizens in general did not.”
If that is as you say – the thrust of the article – then the article is WRONG!.
While I will happily agree that republicans EXAGERATE the benefits of tax cuts ALONE.
They are still unarguably NET beneficial.
But EVERY government action produces winners and losers – even if you and your article are completely confused about who the winners and losers are.
Tax Cuts are inarguably NET beneficial.
Spending cust are inarguably NET more beneficial.
Ron, your initial response to Rubio was likely more astute.
If he challenged Trump for 2020 run, I hope you’re not suggesting you’d vote for Prez Bold Faced Lying SOB Trump. Say it ain’t so, Ron.
My suggested Rubio slogan-jibe at Trump:
Liar, Liar – Jock Strap On Fire.
Jay, you know my thoughts on Trump. But Rubio was my first choice and I voted for him in the NC primary. Had he made comments about corporate tax cuts not being good and high tax rates being better than stock buybacks,which he is basically saying here, then I would have supported another on the NC primary ballot.
Unless Trump is not running, Rubio wont
Corporate stock buy-backs are morally and legally neutral.
They are a type of bet regarding the future. Whether they prove wise depends on the future.
If they are at record levels – that means that the managers of corporations think their future is brighter than shareholders.
Regardless, buybacks improve a companies credit. They enable it to borrow more easily in the future.
Borrowing money is OFTEN a good thing.
Paying debts back – is a good thing.
I doubt lower corporate tax rates have much to do with buy backs.
I suspect that the improved tax treatment of foreign income does.
I would note that stock buy backs were high under Obama as were corporate profits.
I can’t answer Joe’s questions…
But I’m betting someone will squeeze out some rationalizations
Why do you presume that Manafort lied – much less did so intentionally.
Even Mueller has not actually asserted in most of his indictments that the lies he has charged were intentional.
Why is Manaforte risking spending the rest of his life in prison ?
That is pretty easy. Because Mueller does not give anyone an actual choice.
As both Stone and Corsi have stated. Manafort “caught” them in meaningless minor inconsistencies and is trying to leverage that using criminal charges to get them to lie.
Maybe that is true – maybe it is not. But lets presume for a second – I know this is hard for lefties, That Manafort, Stone, Papadoulis, Flynn, …. do not have anything to give to Mueller that he wants. In that case they have no leverage. It is near impossible to negotiate when you have nothing to offer.
The most likely answer to Walsh’s question as to Why Manaforte is taking all of this risk – is there is no risk. He has nothing truthful to give to Mueller.
Regardless, this will all end soon.
And my guess is that ALL the people Mueller has charged are praying for a pardon.
I expect there prayers will be answered
They should be.
Flynn, Papadoulis, Stone should be pardoned.
Manaforte should have his sentence commuted.
I suspect Trump will let Cohen rot.
Dear Doubting Dingbat Dave:The JUDGE says he LIED!
https://apnews.com/7950884c7ef24fdf9defc6238b492708
Jay.
Go beyond newspaper headlines and read the actual ruling by the Judge – that is NOT what she said.
What she ACTUALLY said is that Manafort entered a plea agreement that required him to co-operate with the Prosecutor and that the determination as to whether he had cooperated etc. was at the SOLE DISCRETION of the prosecutor, and that both sides are agreed that the prosecutor does not beleive he cooperated. Therefore portions of the plea agreement no longer are binding.
Fundimentally this is not a finding that Manafort Lied.
It is a finding that he agreed that for the purpose of the terms of the plea agreement, Mueller ALONE gets to decide.
Jackson relied pretty much entirely on the text of the plea agreement and the agreement of the parties that they were at an impasse on several issues.
You can read the decision, or you can read the headlines.
I think Jackson’s conduct of this trial has been poor. Though in several instances she is handcuffed.
I think Muellers conduct has been completely unethical.
Manaforts efforts to find corroborating witnesses are NOT witness tampering.
If anything Muellers efforts to preclue Manafort from seeking cooperating witnesses are unethical and criminal and witness tampering.
But Mueller controls the grand jury – Jackson does not.
And the law on bail – law that I think is HORRIBLY WRONG, requires Jackson to revoke bail merely because Manafort was charged. Jackson has no legal authority to challenge the strength of the charges.
I doubt she would if she could – Jackson does not seem to have the desire to protect individual rights that Ellis does.
But my personal doubts do not alter the fact that for the most part she has followed the letter of the law, even though the law is wrong.
Beyond that – I am no particular friend of Manafort.
But there is a difference between being reprehensible and engaging in actual proveable criminal conduct.
Manafort has not acutally proveably committed any crimes – the jury was quite obviously wrong and quite clearly did not apply the actual law or standards.
Anyone may legitimately seek to pay the least possible taxes – that is not a crime.
Wanting to pay the least taxes – is not a crime.
Going to great effort to pay the least taxes – is not a crime.
Borrowing money from yourself to reduce your taxes – is not a crime.
Doing so BADLY – is not a crime.
Failure to dot your eyes and cross your tees MIGHT subject you to taxes you would not otherwise have avoided.
Tax evasion is supposed to hinge on Lying about your revenue or lying about your expenses.
Manafort did NEITHER.
Persuing a legitimate means of paying less taxes is NEVER a crime.
Doing so BADLY is NEVER a crime.
Criminal tax evasion is not proven by the intent to pay the least taxes. That is an intent that nearly every ameican has. It is not a crime it is a virtue.
It is proven by evidence of actual income that is not counted, or reported expenses that are not real.
To the extent Jackson erred – it was allowing the tax evasion claims to go to a jury.
Mueller presented no evidence that Manafort had hidden income, or exagerated expenses.
The entire case rested – as much of Muellers investigation on overly broad interpretations of the law.
Any american is free to restructure their finances in whatever way that confroms to the law that results in the lowest taxes.
Doing so badly is not a crime.
It is not a crime no matter how reprhensible you are.
I expect this to be over soon.
I expect that Trump will pardon Manafort.
And he should.
The actual crime that everyone on the left beleives that Paul Manafort committed was helping Trump win the election in 2016.
That is completely unforgivable to many of you.
That we have allowed Mueller and the left to stretch the law and use it as a cudgel to try to change a legitimate result that we do not like – that is an actual crime.
One of us is a dumb fuc- I think it’s you.
“What she ACTUALLY said is that Manafort entered a plea agreement that required him to co-operate with the Prosecutor and that the determination as to whether he had cooperated etc. was at the SOLE DISCRETION of the prosecutor, and that both sides are agreed that the prosecutor does not beleive he cooperated. Therefore portions of the plea agreement no longer are binding.
Fundimentally this is not a finding that Manafort Lied.
It is a finding that he agreed that for the purpose of the terms of the plea agreement, Mueller ALONE gets to decide.”
Read page 3, Dave. Where the judge says she agrees WITH the prosecutors in 3 of the charges of lying, etc. She disagreed on 2.
To make her decision she noted (a paragraph or so above) she had EXAMINED the evidence Mueller presented. SHE DOESNT DENOTE THE LIES, but says he DID lie, per the evidence she saw.
Dont be a Shithead, Dave- admit when you’re mistaken.
So according to YOU
Jackson says that the PROSECUTORS LIED TO THE COURT 3 times out of 4 ?
If you accuse someone of lying and the court finds you are wrong – isn’t that lying ?
If we are going to play this kind of game would that not require Mueller to withdraw ?
Lying to the court is a serious ethical violation for any prosecutor.
Can we quit playing these nonsensical games of trying to micro analyze the minutia of the minutia to get to some desireable end ?
First there is no charge against manafort that has anything to do with the 2016 campaign
The outcome of anything manafort related has no bearing on Trump, the 2016 election, or russian collusion.
Manafort’s entire prosecution is entirely and obviously an effort to get him to roll on Trump.
I do not have a problem with prosecutors trying to get criminals to roll on other criminals.
But that is NOT carte blanche to manufacture prosecutions and crimes – which is the real reason that even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a strong distaste for “process crimes”.
We must seek a balance in the power prosecutors are given.
And we long ago lost sight of that balance.
You may not like this – but in criminal law – according to the foundational principles – but not unfortunately standard practice today,
The defense represents the defendant. The sole interests of the defense is the interests of the defendant. Short of committing a crime, the defense can do whatever it takes to get their client off. That is not merely what they do – it if not “sleazy” it is actually a moral obligation.
And it is your obligation as a defense attorney – even if you know your client is guilty.
Conversely the prosecution is NOT charged with winning – though most every prosecutor seems to think so. Their job is to seek justice.
If Manafort or his attorney’s made a false representation – that is at most a minor ethical violation. All lies – even all lies to the court are not crimes.
If the prosecution misrepresented anything to the court – that is extremely serious.
That include leveling accusations of lying.
What I have said is the principles of criminal law that are almost 1000 years old.
Those principles have not ever changed.
But unfortunately we have so whittled away at them in practice that we have flipped almost everything. Prosecutors are free to lie and cheat. It is littlerally the defense attorney’s job to catch them.
As the law stands today the requirement to assure that a defendant get a fair trial rests with the defense attorney. If the prosecutor does something unethical – it is an ethical failure for the defense attorney to not find out and catch him.
You like to bring up my wife. She is a criminal appelate lawyer – she files hundreds of appeals and PCRA’s. These generally fall into one of two catagories.
The judge errored in applying the law. Or the defense attorney was ineffective
Quite often for failing to catch some sleazy manueaver of the prosecutor.
In the rare instances she wins – either the judge seriously erred on the law, or the defense counsel was ineffective – for not catching the prosecution in something improper.
If the prosecutor hides evidence – and is caught – the case will likely get overturned.
But the decision will be that the defense counsel was ineffective for allowing the prosecutor to hide evidence.
“SHE DOESNT DENOTE THE LIES,”
When you accuse someone of lying you are OBLIGATED to be specific and back your claim with evidence.
A false accusation of a lie is itself a LIE.
It is not enough – even for a judge to float an assertion.
If you can not say – this statement is a lie, and these are the facts that establish it as a lie – then I have no interest in you claim you have found a lie – not even if you are a judge.
Clapper lied to congress – we can all find his testimony and we all know the evidence that demonstrates his testimony was false.
Clinton lied to congress – again her testimoney is readily available, everyone can hear it.
And the facts that make her statement a lie are all available to all of us.
While it will not likely change my overall assessment of this entire witchhunt.
I am perfectly willing to accept that Manafort is a lying sleazebag and criminal.
But before I take his property and freedom – I want more than my moral judgement of him – I want proof. Evidence.
Whether Manafort is a lying sleazebag and criminal – does not help the left in their efforts to “get Trump”
Alone among those Mueller has prosecuted – Cohen has “turned on Trump”.
The left has claimed that he was deeply involved in russian collusion.
But what has turncoat Cohen provided ? A claim with no legal foundation that he and trump violated campaign finance laws by acts that do not violate campaign finance laws.
Either all of these people are unbeleiveably loyal to Trump – willing to fall on their swords for him to cover up this great conspiracy – or the real reason they have not been able to cooperate with Mueller to muellers satisfaction is that they can not give Mueller what he wants – because it does not exist.
You asked Why Manafort would risk all of this ?
That is a good question. If Manafort has actual information damaging to Trump – do you have any doubt Mueller would give him a free ride ?
Manafort was part of the campaign for 1 month. He has no reason to be loyal to Trump.
They have no consequential long term ties.
Even if Manafort was certain of a pardon from Trump – he must sit in jail in solitary atleast until this is over which seems to be never.
If I were Paul Manafort – if you were Paul Manafort – if most anyone was Paul manafort we would tell Mueller anything he wanted to get out from under this.
But there is a problem with that. Telling Mueller what he wants does not help.
Even though I think Mueller is a crook – there is so much public scrutiny that whatever Manafort tells Mueller MUST BE TRUE, or it will be of no help.
That BTW is the problem EVERY person Mueller flipped has.
In my County court a plea bargain to flip and tell lies about a codefendant will likely fly.
There will not be the eyes of the nation trying to sus out the truth of falsity of whatever testimony you provide.
But if Cohen as an example says he was in Prague in August 2016 – he must provide dates places and they will be scrutinezed thoroughly .
If he lies he will be caught and things will be worse.
People are not flipping on Trump – not because they are loyal, but because they have nothing to give. There is no there there and there never was.
The crime is the investigation.
A bunch of process crimes does not change that.
I asked for evidence – not hearsay. Not even by judges.
Adam Schiff stated publicly 2 years ago that he had seen evidence that was more than circumstantial that there was collusion between Trump and Russia.
So far NOTHING. I think that people who produce evidence to back up what they say are credible. I think those who do not are liars.
Dave in this day and age, you dont need proof. All you need to do is say it and people believe it if they are of the opposite political persuasion. How many people do you think are asking, “Why didn’t Shiff provide proof of collusion?” Bet more are saying “Shiff said he has proof Trump colluded” right now.
The people who elected Schiff deserve him.
The rest of us do not.
I have not looked at all of the nuances of all of this.
But as best as I can tell – the defense has not opposed any of this – and in fact it is arguing with the prosecution on most points.
What I beleive just occurred is that Jackson invalidated the plea deal – primarily with the agreement of the defense.
I beleive that Manaforts defense team has essentially said that it is not possible to conform to the plea agreement because the prosecutor alone gets to decide what constitutes conformance, and therefore they want the plea agreement gone.
I beleive what you are seeing as a loss for Manafort is the restoration of his right to appeal.
Jackson is now free to sentence Manafort outside the terms of the plea agreement.
But manafort is now free to appeal the conviction, the sentencing – everything.
Which he could not do so long as the plea agreement was inplace.
Essentially Manafort appears to be overtly doing what Flynn has been trying to do covertly.
Manafort has backed out of his own guilty plea.
Flynn continues to try to wrap himself in its protection while asking the court to throw it out.
That has frustrated Judge Sullivan. I beleive that many of Sulivans remarks were highly inappropriate – but he has walked those back.
But essentially what Sullivan has been telling Flynn is:
If you want me to examing issues of prosecutorial misconduct and to consider the possibility that you are innocent – then YOU must walk away from your guilty plea.
Because so long as YOU say you are guilty, you can not expect ME to explore much less find that you are innocent.
I think that Sulivan may be correct on the law.
Though I am not sure.
It is the obligation of the court to do justice. Not to do what the prosecutor wants or what the defense wants.
If Sullivan beleives that Flynn did not lie to the FBI – and the evidence is pretty compelling that he did not, then it does not matter that Flynn continues to assert he did lie in order to protect a plea deal.
Justice is not about Flynn or Mueller.
Justice means the court can not convict an innocent person – even if they plead guilty.
Why is Joe Walsh lying about Russia ?
There is no meaningful Trump/Russia story.
It is pretty much dead.
Duh
Is there no end to this investigation? It looks a lot like the Clinton investigation.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123653000
Twp SP’s found nothin about whitewater, but a new investigation having nothing to do with Whitewater or anything connected ( other than Clintons penis) found him screwing around with another woman.
Ibam sick of the whole thing and could care less what they find. He wont get reelected anyway, so why waste the money for less than a year(nothing will be settled until late 2020).
Trump is getting re-elected
Democrats are doing everything possible to assure that.
“So, “collusion” aside, we have irrefutable evidence that”
Is this an admission there is no collusion ?
“–Trump’s team sought Russia’s help w/election”
Presumably you mean that Trump met with Natalia in the hopes of dirt on Clinton.
Not a crime, not collusion. Appears to be a setup, Not only Natalia, but the Russian with her have been tied to the Clinton campaign.
Regardless, The Clinton campaign was meeting with EXACTLY THE SAME people.
Further while Trump “sought” dirt on Clinton.
Clinton BOUGHT dirt on Trump – worse still fraudulent dirt.
DJR was atleast smart enough to be able to tell that what Natalia brought him was worthless.
“–Russia helped Trump win the election”
Not true and not relevant.
Russian efforts were inconsequential and approximately balanced
Russia attempted to stir up trouble – and you allowed them to.
But lets assume that Russia actually decided to “help Trump”.
Does that invalidate the election ?
Are you going to dictate a new election law that – if Russia favors a candidate they are automatically disqualified ?
You would give Putin enormous power. Under your rule Putin could have elected Trump merely by coming out for Hillary.
“–Trump & team covered up Russia’s help & sought to obstruct investigation”
-Nope.
Mueller has been busilly digging into massive amounts of things that are none of his business at all and have nothing to do with his mandate.
Trump has railed about this witchhunt – but Unlike Clinton and Nixon who fought everything to the supreme court, Trump has not gone to court to preclude ANY of Mueller illicity investigation.
Obstruction is an act. Railing at prosecutorial misconduct is NOT obstruction.
It is legitimate anger.
“–Trump & team have embraced unprecedented pro-Russia policies”
Innarguably Trump’s policies towards Russia have been harsher than Obama’s.
Russia invaded Georgia just prior to the 2008 Election.
Obama did nothing.
Clinton provoked a Coup that lead to a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Obama did nothing.
Obama/Clinton worked with Russia to provide them with control of significant US Uranium.
Obama then tanked an FBI investigation into Russian corruption to prevent it from interfering with the U1 deal.
There has been no “russian reboot” under Trump.
There is not a single way in which Russia is getting more from the US under Trump than it did under Obama.
If this is your idea of “Pro-Russia”.
If Trump was anti-russia that would require a nuclear war.
This is your idea of Evidence ?
Dave, “Mueller has been busily digging into massive amounts of things that are none of his business at all and have nothing to do with his mandate.”
Well that is because Rob Rosenstein, in naming Mueller SP, added the catch all in his mandate, something like “and other things found during the investigation” (Not the words, but close enough.
Now we learn from an interview with McCabe( and maybe earlier it was reported but I had not payed any attention), that Rosenstein offered to wear a wire to get enough info on Trump to invoke the 25th amendment.
So Rosenstein has had it in for Trump since the beginning and instead of limiting this to just Russia, he opened it up to every possible piece of dirt that could be found through his open ended mandate and that has allowed Mueller, who I believe is in cahoots with Rosenstein to bring down Trump, to delay and extend this investigation well past anything associated with Russia.
Note 9th paragraph
But there is only a couple of us (2-3) here that might accept this thinking.
What is disturbing is that so many people think all of this is OK.
The president has the constitutional authority to fire anyone in the executive branch.
Further he has the constitutional authority to direct the DOJ/FBI to investigate whatever he please or shutdown whatever investigation he pleases.
Past presidents including Thomas Jefferson have done exactly that.
There are checks on the power of the president.
The political check is with congress. Just as the president can fire whoever he pleases or terminate whatever investigation he pleases – the congress can impeach him for whatever reason they please. Further voters are a check on both. If congress makes impeachment too political, the people will punish congress – as they did to Gingrich in 1998.
If the people do not support the president – they can vote him out at the end of his first term.
If the offense of the president is ACTUALLY constitutional rather than political, the courts provide a check on presidential power.
The 25th amendment was OBVIOUSLY not for the purpose McCabe and company discussed. Absent an actual incapacity – some mental of physical deficiency that was not present prior to election anyone in the executive having the discussions mccabe was having should be fired, and possibly prosecuted. What was being discussed was a political coup. I am not aware of such a thing ever being discussed in our government before EVER.
I would take the same position if post 2008 DOJ/FBI discussed applying the 25th amendment to Obama.
Further we have McCabe waxing endlessly about protecting “the russia investigation from Trump”.
Huh! ?.
Just about everything that we know NOW, McCabe and company knew in 2017.
We have McCabe and Comey and Rosenstein and company discussing how to protect an illegal investigation outside the constitution and DOJ/FBI guidelines.
Adrew McCabe is making it perfectly clear that the DOJ/FBI was politically corrupt.
Not just in 2017 but in 2016 and 2015.
McCabe’s remarks cast the conduct of the DOJ/FBI through the entire Obama administration into question.
“Well that is because Rob Rosenstein, in naming Mueller SP, added the catch all in his mandate, something like “and other things found during the investigation” (Not the words, but close enough.”
Same catch all used by special prosecutors in Nixon and B.Clinton investigations, right?
He didn’t ‘add’ it – he copied it.
Jay, whatever, You and I will never agree. But when things come out like Rosenstein wanting to wear a wire to “get” trump so the cabinet can invoke the 25th amendment and he was the one naming the SP, then I dont see anything independent in this.bI see a preplanned hatch job.
By the way Janet Reno handled the Clinto probe correctly. ” Jan. 16, 1998: Starr contacts Attorney General Janet Reno to get permission to expand his probe. Reno agrees and submits the request to a panel of three federal judges. The judges agree to allow Starr to formally investigate the possibility of subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones case. ”
She did not give Starr free reign to runvroughshod over Clinton without prior aporoval from judges.
The wire remark is evidence.
The entire issues is that they were plotting to remove a president.
McCabes remarks make it even more clear – while he “sounds” reasonable on 60min – until you start to think what his words mean.
I did what he did – because he was afraid.
He was affraid because of what he beleived.
Not because of facts, evidence.
If you can justify actions by fear – you can justify anything.
Starr was an IC – the IC law was broader than the SC law.
Yet inarguably Mueller is able to do more with less supervision that Starr.
Worse during the Barr confirmation democrats made absolutely certain that they wanted NO SUPERVISION.
I would suggest we fix the IC law as follows:
To appoint an SC – there must be an application – I will specific, that the president, the AG, or the highest unconflicted appointed officer in DOJ, or either chamber of congess can request the appointment of an SC.
Then I would have a rotating panel of three justices from the DC court of appeals review the application.
If they approve it – THEY draft the authorization.
All subpoena’s, all warrants, all arrests, all indictments, must be approved by that panel.
BTW these are protections that all of us should actually have.
Our constitutional rights and what constitutes a basis for an investigation should NOT be determined by a single person, or a single branch of government.
I would bet that Jay – and certainly all on the left (and some on the right) would be happy to agree with all the criteria you think are necescary – when the target is someone they like,
and not when it is someone they do not.
I like your new SC revisions. I think I will write Tom Tillis and Richard Burr. Nothing will come of it , but I can at least say I did it.
There are two issues.
Much of what I wrote – should apply to ALL prosecutors and law enforcement.
A warrant REQUIRES constitutionally that the facts justifying the warrant are SWORN as true, by the prosecutor or police officer.
I would say when we have garbage like the Steele dossier SWORN by law enforcement as true to the courts – THERE MUST BE CONSEQUENCES.
What should be more disturbing still is that these types of lies in SWORN court filings are not even rare. They happen all the time, everyday in every magistrates office in the country – and no one is EVER held accountable.
Our founders did not demand a warrant to create some patina of legitimacy. They did not demand that the facts be SWORN to, and that they meet the standard of probable cause because they wanted that ignored.
They demanded a sworn statement by the police or prosecutors – because sworn falsifications are supposed to have consequences.
Where there are no consequences you can expect things to get worse.
This stuff is important. The innocent people Mueller prosecuted BEFORE being appointed SC, had their lives destroyed – one committed suicide.
When you destroy someone else’s life with false prosecutions – you should at the very lease lose the respect of decent people.
There must be consequences for abuse of power.
There is no problem with the “catchall” – it is pretty normal.
Prosecutors are not required to ignore unrelated crimes they find as a result of a specific investigation.
The problem is with the presumption that the catchall empowers Mueller to investigate whatever he wishes.
The “catchall” requires an investigation confined to its legitimate scope, uncovering sufficient evidence of another crime.
Mueller can not as an example say – I want to investigagte the Trump inaugural committee.
He was tasked to investigate illegal conspiracy between the russian government and the Trump campaign. To look at the inaugural committee he MUST find EVIDENCE that a crime was committed involving the committee as part of the narrow scope of what he is permitted.
In many instances – as with Cohen if he actually and legitimately encounters evidence of a crime that has nothing to do with his mandate, and no legitimate connection to his mandate – such as the Cohen mess – he MUST pass that off to other prosecutors.
as I recall Ken Starr was obligated to go to the courts every time he sought to expand his investigation and persuade a court that he should be allowed to continue.
Your assertion that this clause was part of prior investigations is FALSE.
Starr was an IC not an SC – a completely different low.
The IC purportedly had much more power than the SC – and the IC law was unconstitutional and everyone knew it.
The SC law was passed when the IC law expired and was supposed to reign in the SC.
It has failed. Mueller is LESS accountable by far than Starr or any other prior similar situation.
Nixon (and Reagan and Bush) were all dealt with under much older law that was even more narrow in scope.
The “clause” you are fixating – is a throw away. It was not necescary.
It is the norm of law that you can always follow where EVIDENCE leads.
Fear, guesses, speculation ARE NOT EVIDENCE.
If a prosecutor uncovers an unrelated crime – that does NOT make that crime unprosecutable.
The only question is who prosecutes it.
This is not directly about “The coup” though to some extent it is.
As you keep hyping this “evil russia justifies everything” – remember that in every single age group and every political affinity, americans want an end to endless war, they want a less agressive foreign policy.
I am not sure how many of those americans grasp that – clearly few posters here do. But McCabe’s justification for investigating Trump was because he was “weak on Russia” – is pretty much what voters accross the spectrum want.
They do not want us in Syria – even if neocons think that somehow serves Russia, or ISIS
They do not want us in Iraq,
They do not want us in Afghanistan – even if the Taliban returns.
If as is possible – our leaving somehow benefits Russia, or ISIS, or Taliban or …
We are prepared to deal with that in the future – when that happens.
Or if whatever happens is not all that bad – not deal with it.
It is not our role to save the syrians from themselves, from ISIS or from the Russians.
It is not our job to save the Afghans from the Taliban.
It is not our job to keep the europeans from doing stupid things with Russia.
When we confront the Taliban violently – with our military, it is because they committed an act of war against us.
We want other nations to remember that and respect that.
going beyond retribution for acts of war to nation building destroys the respect and fear created by our removal of the Taliban from power.
http://time.com/5532307/worlds-apart-foreign-policy-public-opinion-poll-eurasia/
Why do you presume Manafort didn’t lie deliberately?
Do you think he’s a paragon of virtue?
https://goo.gl/images/KvbgEF
When you are attributing statements to me – please cite what I have actually said.
To my knowledge there is no evidence of Manafort lying – not deliberately, not accidentally.
The judges ruling you cite as evidence reads to me as nothing more than both sides agreeing the plea deal is off the table. That is all.
Regardless, I am not making broad claims about either manaforts words or his intentions.
I am addressing the EVIDENCE. I have not as of yet read a credible claim that Manafort has lied in any significant way.
No I do not think Manafort is a paragon of virtue
Nor Stone, not Corsi, nor Axlerod, not Jarret, nor the podesta’s nor simpson, nor Mccabe, nor Strzok, nor Comey, nor Clinton.
Nor even Trump.
If we are looking for saints – we are going to have to look somewhere else.
The question is not whether Manafort is a good person – there are no “good people” in this. Possibly no good people in politics.
It is not whether Manafort is a liar.
It is not whether Manafort is a criminal.
It is whether these allegations against Manafort have been proven.
There is as an example more evidence that Justin Fairfax raped two women than that Manafort evaded taxes. In point of fact had Manafort dotted his eyes and crossed his tees he not only would not face jail but he would not face the loss of his property and money.
Apparently you do not have a problem with government confiscating peoples property and throwing them in jail for improperly handling paperwork ?
Or do you reserve that only for republicans or people you do not like ?
Regardless, can you tell me exactly what it is that Manafort did that is your big problem.
From the facts – he was paid well to provide political advice and to funnel money to US lobbiests. Both of those are legal. The lobbiest he funded was Tony Podesta – if there was a crime – and there isn’t – it was committed by Podesta. Manafort did no lobbying.
The money manafort made – like the money ANYONE makes outside of the US is not taxable in the US until it becomes income in the US. Of all countries in the world only the US attempts to tax someone’s foreign earnings becuase that is an incredibly stupid idea.
Like Myriads of others – including Apple, Manafort loaned himself some of his foreign earned money so that he could use it in the US without paying taxes.
Unlike Apple he did not dot his eyes and cross his t’s on the loan paperwork.
So for failing to do perfect paperwork to comply with a bad law – Manafort faces essentialy life in prison and the confiscation of a lifetime of wealth.
And as best as I can tell the CRIME he committed was helping Trump win the election .
But if you have ACTUAL eveidence – please present it.
I would not be surprised to discover that there are crimes that Manafort has comitted.
He is most definitely not a paragon of virtue.
But we do not confiscate peoples property or take away their freedom because they are not virtuous enough for us.
We do so for crimes we can prove.
Sigh. Conversing with you is futile.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
Sigh. Conversing with you is futile.
Your problem is not with me. it is with yourself.
Trump believes Putin, not his intelligence people on Russian interference in 2016 election.
Besides being ludicrous, he said it to the world in Helsinki: “A Call to Putin, and Russian TV Changed Its Story”
Here’s another world leader’s take on Putin and his hand’s on KGB type power, from Matteo Renzi former head of Italy. Other European nations also worried about Russian interference, BTW.
““Does it seem reasonable to you that Russia Today often uses headlines that are not true?” he asked Mr. Putin in a phone call. “Why do they have to have reports today on some protest against me, if that square is full of my people, defending our reform?”
“Mr. Putin paused and responded: “Matteo, you know that it is not up to me what journalists do. But I’ll try and see if I can help you.”
Two hours later, the Russian network had corrected the headline” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/world/europe/matteo-renzi-putin-russia.html
Of course quibblers will say: well that was onside Russia, he doesn’t control what goes on outside Russia. (Yeah, like he doesn’t order murders of reporters and others like attempts in England using Novichok .
Sad that deniers have to toe the line even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I am pointing at Reps, Dems and Liberts.
I do not beleive US intelligence. Nor is that unusual.
They have a long track record of being WRONG.
BTW James Comey and large portions of the US IC disputed the conclusions of the purported IC report (we now have those emails) – something actually crafted by three lieutenants of Brennan and Clapper by an unusual process.
You are also suffering from a bad case of binary thinking.
The fact that the IC is wrong does not make Putin a good person.
Nor does it put Trump in bed with him.
The fundimental point of disagreement between Trump and the IC is over the global importance of Russia.
Trump thinks China is far more important.
The IC is trapped in a world of its own making. It has spend nearly a century fighting Russia.
It is unable to see that Russia is no longer public enemy #1.
Before Trump was elected you understood that.
The IC report asserted that Russian interferance in 2016 was of no greater magnitude than prior elections.
So if as you say Trump is at odds with the IC – doesn;t that inherently mean Obama was too ?
After all Obama was far friendlier to Russia than Trump.
Was Obama a “manchurian candidate” a Putin sock puppet ?
Or maybe are you just blowing hot air.
Overwhelming evidence ? Of what ?
Russia spent 10M on the 2016 election.
That is less than Gil Cisneros spent on his House election in 2018.
Russian efforts were mostly targeted at issues not candidates and mostly the took positions on BOTH sides of those issues.
Russian efforts were pathetic.
That is the EVIDENCE.
Hypocritator in charge Trump, wants Omar to resign over her remarks and innuendos, Will Trump do the same????? No f—– way.
“Trump, No Stranger to Jewish Stereotypes, Rejects Ilhan Omar’s Apology”
“During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump’s final television commercial featured grainy images of George Soros, the Hungarian-born financier who has become a potent symbol for anti-Semites; Janet L. Yellen, then the chairwoman of the Federal Reserve; and Lloyd C. Blankfein, then the chairman of Goldman Sachs — all of them Jewish — as Mr. Trump warned darkly about the “global special interests.” Shadowy figures, he said, “partner with these people who don’t have your good in mind.”
“In July 2016, Mr. Trump drew fierce criticism when his campaign released an ad about Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, which depicted her superimposed on piles of cash, with a six-point Star of David and the phrase “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!”
“He famously said there had been good people on both sides of a deadly white supremacist march in Charlottesville, Va., which featured anti-Semites and racists chanting, “Jews will not replace us.”
I know, I know, he has a Jewish son-in-law and people from Goldman Sachs too.
You see, he is not an anti-Semite, he just loves money and fame too much and will say anything; no moral compass.
Omar may be an AS, but without a lie detector test we don’t know how many in Congress may also be. Money influencing politicians should be fair game whether it is about Israel or SA. I don’t like her, a lot, by the way.
Grow Up – attacking George Sorros is not Anti-semitism.
You idiots on the left keep trying this repeatedly.
Sorros was a nazi sympathizer. He has made repeatedly clear that he is about as unjewish as you can get – yes he is genetically jewish.
Regardless, you are the one who bemoans the influence of Rich people in Politics.
Guess what Sorros is one of the loudest rich voices in politics.
So is it the influence of the rich you oppose ?
Or is it just the influence of people you disagree with.
Regardless, Sorros has attack Trump.
Trump has attacked Sorros.
It is about politics.
Are you saying that one can not criticise someones political views if they are genetically jewish ? I guess we must accept the views of homosexuals as gospel too ?
Does that apply to conservative homosexuals ?
And Blacks ? Does that apply to conservative blacks.
Omar has said some stupid things that deserve condemnation.
But while her attacks on Israel are political and often stupid.
Criticising Israel is not inherently anti-semetic.
Saying that rich jews hypnotize people – that is.
“Sorros was a nazi sympathizer.“
He’s a Holocaust survivor, dummy.
The anti-Israel charges are right-wing agitprop from people like Netanyahu & Hungary’s prime minister Orban, and conservative religious assholes who back Trump.
Have I told you lately to GFY?
Jay;
Two problems with your assertions about Sorros.
What I have SAID – is little different from what Sorros has said about himself.
And you continue to change what I actually said into something different.
Sorros himself has SAID that he is Jewish only genetically. That his parents not only were not practicing jews – they were anti-jewish.
That he does not identify with jews and he has pretty much nothing to do with jews or Israel.
I have no idea what the “definition” of “hollocaust survivor” is, but comparing Sorros to people who lived in the jewish Ghettos, went to the camps, and were exterminated is an obscentity.
He was young – 13-14. You can make excuses based on that. But you are still excusing extremely bad conduct.
He posed as a christian, wore a Nazi Uniform and helped Nazi’s confiscate jewish property and load them onto trains for camps.
He has openly repeated the typical nazi rationalization – that he did not feel responsible, because someone was going to do it anyway.
There are other jews who have done the same – or worse to survive.
We try not to judge people who have done as he did under circumstances such as his.
But most of us do not call them “Hollocaust survivors” either.
The only distinction between Sorros and many others who did what he did, is that had the nazi’s found out he was jewish he would be dead.
Regardless the point is not whether Sorros was a nazi.
But whether it is reasonable to consider attacks on Sorros as anti-semetic.
According to my DNA I am about 50 times more Jewish than Fauxchantas is indian.
When you criticise me – are you anti-semetic ?
I did not say Sorros was “”anti-jewish” I said he was UNJEWISH.
He has said the same thing about himself many times.
I would probably take it seriously it Netanyahu says he is anti-israel.
Regardless I did not say that.
But NGO Monitor has, as have many many other groups.
Click to access soros.pdf
My major point is not about Soros himself.
It is that you can not convert criticism of Soros to anti-semitism
doing so is intellectually bankrupt.
When people start hurling insults at you, you know their minds are closed and there’s no point in debating.
Judith Martin
“Grow Up – attacking George Sorros is not Anti-semitism.
You idiots on the left keep trying this repeatedly.”
Then you actually complain that people insult you. Given your style I am only surprised that people manage to restrain themselves as much as they do.
You have a voluminous load of shit to dump on almost every comment here. Your amazing level of contempt for other opinions and total infatuation with your own words lead to the natural result that any attempt to discuss anything rationally with you or actually anyone here always veers into the weeds of personal remarks between you and someone.
If someone falls for the bait and attempts to argue with you based on facts and logic, you simply lie, invent your own facts, deny solid facts and then stand atop your frothy pile of nonsense that is simply your own opinion. Finally, you crow about how good you are at facts and logic and how incapable we all are.
You poor devil, you are hard wired to have a completely obnoxious manner of talking to people, and you are always talking.
Yes, we all know how you will respond to this criticism. But, the source of this problem is You, You are the TNM champion of all the faults you see in others, most especially the ad hominem posts. If you disappeared from TNM the level of personal remarks would fall to near zero.
“I love it when someone insults me. That means that I don’t have to be nice anymore.”
Billy Idol
Absolutely – the fact free garbage that is spewed by some, the constant ad hominem and fallacy, the compete unwillingness to engage in an actual argument, the complete absence of facts, and the assertions so vague that you can not source them offered as facts – frequently frustrates me and causes me to lash out.
Ad Hominem – BTW is insulting a person rather than their argument.
Calling an argument stupid is not ad hominem. Though it is a claim that you should be able to defend.
Calling the person who makes a stupid argument an idiot – is ad hominem.
I will offer Billy Idol as my justification.
My “style” as you say is to rebut fallacious arguments. Calling a stupid argument stupid is not a fallacy. It is an assertion – one that I frequently support. One that is often self evident.
You are doubling down on pretty much the same error you are making in you Omar/Trump comparison.
You are pretending that two things are the same – when they are obviously not.
If things actually were as you claim they are. Trumps comments and Omar’s were the same. If the ad hominem spewed here and my responses were the same – discussion would not be possible. Everything would be hate speech, everything would be ad homimen.
There are two or more sides to every argument.
The presence of two sides DOES NOT make them equal.
Pretty much always one argument, one oppinion is more right, correct, factual, truthful than the other.
If you are going to compare to things and claim they are the same – they need to BE THE SAME.
If you are going to say that two things are equally wrong they need to be EQUAL.
If you are going to claim that verbally criticising Soros – after he has come after you is the same as saying that “rich jews hypnotize the world”. then one can not ever criticise someone who is jewish.
If you are going to claim that “I’ll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years’?” is the same as “Legal immigrants enrich our nation and strengthen our society in countless ways,” the president said. “I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.” that both are racism – then one can never talk about immigration.
That “voluminous load of shit” as you say is primarily fact, and arguments.
You may respond as you wish.
Is there something wrong with holding fallacious oppinions in contempt ?
The distinction between my posts and others is that most of the time I make arguments with facts of logic. At the very least I make assertions that can be tested factually and logically.
You do not like it when your arguments are attack – I get that.
But there is no right to be free from criticism.
If you make an argument – you should expect others to criticise it.
You can expect that those who criticise it will be dismissive of it.
I do not care if your feelings are hurt because your argument is false.
The error in fallacy and ad hominem is NOT that it is insulting.
It is that it is NOT argument.
You rant about my style – well I put assertions facts and arguments out there.
They are in the open and exposed to your criticism.
To the extent I am offended when all you do is insult them – that is because nothing is served by that. We learn nothing from your feelings.
Ad hominem and fallacy provide no information.
They only change the minds of toddlers.
If you do not like my criticisms of your arguments. If you think my assertions are wrong, if you think my facts are wrong, if you think my arguments are wrong.
COUNTER THEM. The majority of what I say can be checked against primary sources.
Or you can even come up with bad argumets and sources – but atleast if you respond with facts and arguments – there is a debate and the possibility of learning something.
Your emotions – My emotions are NOT THE POINT, and not relevant.
Facts and arguments do not care how you feel.
I point out all the fallacy and ad hominem – not because the insults make me “feel bad”,
but because they are not argument. They are typically the responses of people who have no argument.
I do not care much that you insult me.
I care that you are unwilling to make actual arguments.
“If someone falls for the bait and attempts to argue with you based on facts and logic, you simply lie, invent your own facts, deny solid facts and then stand atop your frothy pile of nonsense that is simply your own opinion. ”
If any of that were true – it would be trivial to prove.
Regardless, meaningful discussion is about facts and logic.
It is not “taking the bait” to respond with facts and logic.
It is the means by which we test propositions.
Not how they make us feel.
Not how good we are at insults – whether they are mine or yours.
If I have “invented a fact” – point that out.
The use of a false fact in an argument comes very close to destroying the argument.
But you must demonstrate that by more than insult.
I have oppinions and express them – but everything is NOT oppionion,
and all oppionions are not equal.
The purpose of debate is to sort facts from oppinions and to discern the probability that an oppinion is correct or not.
It is not about WHO is right, it is about WHAT is right.
“Finally, you crow about how good you are at facts and logic and how incapable we all are.”
First – irrelevant.
I can not make music – you are quite good at that.
I wish I was as good as you are. But I am not.
A small part of that is lack of effort, but most of it is lack of talent.
We are not equal. I am good at somethings and bad at others.
As are you. You should be proud of what you are good at. I am.
Second: I do not.
When you attack – you can expect a defense.
Most of your posts are like this one full of assertions that what I have argued is piles of shit, nonsense, phony facts, ….
You are free to make those assertions. You are not entitled to expect I will let them lie.
You are not any more entitled to be believed that I.
Whether you are beleived SHOULD be determined by the accuracy of what you say, not how it makes others feel, or the number of adjectives you have used.
I might be more credible if I entirely avoided loaded language – but no one posting here does, and it makes up a small portion of my posts and quite often ALL of the posts of others.
“You poor devil”
I have not asked for your sympathy.
I am happy.
“you are hard wired to have a completely obnoxious manner of talking to people, and you are always talking.”
You are offended by the truth – I can not help that.
I fully understand that when your core beleifs are challenged by facts, logic, reason, that it makes you angry and that you will lash out at whoever is challenging you.
If you are unwilling to allow your beleifs to be challenged – they are not worth having.
It you are unwilling to reassess them when facts demand it
then you are holding on to a religion.
“Yes, we all know how you will respond to this criticism.”
What criticism ? What I read is a long whiny rant. There are no fact in sight.
“But, the source of this problem is You, You are the TNM champion of all the faults you see in others, most especially the ad hominem posts. If you disappeared from TNM the level of personal remarks would fall to near zero.”
Absolutely, if you could convert TNM into your own bubble – everyone would agree on everything nearly all the time.
Any values and principles that you have that are worthwhile will stand up to being challenged.
Like it or not challenging your values is NOT inherently abusive, nor is calling your beliefs stupid when they are.
The theme of the day seems to be your near universal propensity to try to make things that are not the same identical.
All of Omar’s remarks are legitimate free speach.
Most of them are stupid
many of them are wrong.
Some are not anti-semetic.
Some are.
Similar things can be said of Trump’s remarks.
Except that no remarks of Trumps that have been cited are anti-semetic.
Nor racist, nor …..
My posts and your posts share some of the same invective.
That does not make them the same.
Your desire to live in a bubble is not a right.
“Do you really think the only way to bring about the peace
Is to sacrifice your children and kill all your enemies?”
“They Cry Peace, Peace but there is no Peace”
Jeremiah 6:14
Real peace only comes through truth.
If you are unwilling to look for truth, you will never find any peace that is worthwhile.
Dave, It was a given that you would excuse in yourself what you damn at length in others. I would not call that intellectual honesty.
You are endlessly frustrated that I don’t argue with you. There are two reasons. One, the basic premise you have, that you are here to prove that you are right, is one I don’t usually have. I am here to state my opinions and hear the opinions of others. I rarely have the idea that I am going to argue with someone here and prove them wrong. Others here make posts that they believe support their point of view. If the source and subject are of interest to me I may read it. Sometimes I have been swayed by the facts in a link. Never by a poster here, and I mean no disrespect by that. People are mostly here for similar reason to mine, a place to state opinions, vent, talk with others, perhaps be pointed in the direction of a source of facts. That the the main reason I am not going to argue with you.
The second reason is that I Have argued with you and it was not worth the time. You believe you use facts and logic and reason. If only. Alex Jones believes he uses facts and logic an reason as well. You abuse facts and logic and reason. Its painful to listen to. You have been here trying to win an argument for what is it 11 years? I have never seen you win an argument, persuade someone, although you congratulate yourself on your successes on a tediously regular basis.
You will have to find another sufferer to enter your funhouse mirror.
Once again the same fallacious garbage that two things that are obviously different are the same because – or your feelings.
Certainly not on the basis of evidence.
I am not attempting to justify the same conduct you in myself that you engage in.
Our conduct is not the same – you admit that, You will not support your arguments.
With rare exceptions your posts are nothing but ad hominem and fallacy.
On occasion I respond to ad homimen and fallacy with more adjectives than are necescary.
Not even close to the same.
The bulk of your claim that there is some parity between our conduct is that you FEEL insulted. Your feelings are not facts. They are not evidence, they are not reason.
If facts, logic and reason cause you to feel insulted – that is your problem.
Conversely – if your arguments are nothing but ad hominem and fallacy – that TOO is your problem.
Credibility is not earned by your feelings.
Read your own response.
It can be cut and pasted anytime you do not wish to defend your beliefs assertions of arguments.
As I said with climate – if something can not be falisifed – if there is no possible set of facts that would disprove it, then it is religion, faith dogma – not science.
That applies equally here.
You can call anyone “intelectually dishonest” as an excuse for not defending your own positions. We determine “intellectual honesty” by FACTS, LOGIC, REASON, not by naked assertions.
When you put forth a premise and preclude any means of testing it – that is religion, dogma, beleif.
BTW you continue to pretend to know what I “feel” – given how absymal you are at representing what I say – why should one trust your clairvoyance ?
“One, the basic premise you have, that you are here to prove that you are right,”
FALSE – and fallacy and a mild version of ad hominem and irrelevant.
I argue to find the truth – that is how truth is discovered – by subjecting an argument to the test, by trial by fire.
I do have confidence in my arguments – because I and others have tested them for centuries and they have yet to be found wanting.
Confidence in arguments that have been tested for centuries and not found wanting is not hubris.
“is one I don’t usually have”
I do not know your thoughts, only what you say, only the assertions and arguments you make. I do not care “why you are here” – it is irrelevant.
Even if your lunatic world was reality – and I was here to prove I am right – if I am, my motives are irrelevant. And if I am not – they are still irrelevant.
“I am here to state my opinions and hear the opinions of others. I rarely have the idea that I am going to argue with someone here and prove them wrong. Others here make posts that they believe support their point of view. ”
Obviously false or you would not respond at all much less with vitriole
But lets address your fairytale world.
In robby world people come to TNM they spray out oppinions, Maybe they read those of others.
but no one is actually interested in determining the merits of these oppinions.
We offer our oppinions – because we beleive they are correct.
We support our point of view – because we beleive it to be correct,
We offer our views and provide support because we hope to persuade.
If those are not true – then you are just posting to read your own posts.
Your argument carefully tries to elude to fact that in reality – to me, and to YOU, the truth actually matters.
That discussion is about more than free floating oppinions or shared kumbaya’s.
If you want to escape conflict – get out your guitar.
As you typically do, you are trying to claim the moral high ground.
To be clear – I have ZERO problem with that.
But it is fascile to pretend you can do so without conflict.
I have told you again and again – if you step onto the moral soap box, expect me to kick it out from underneath you.
You try to do the same
“The second reason is that I Have argued with you and it was not worth the time. You believe you use facts and logic and reason.”
fact, and logic are not particularly subjective.
It is irrelevant what you “beleive”.
“If only. Alex Jones believes he uses facts and logic an reason as well.”
I do not care what Alex Jones beleives – I do not think I have ever watched him – atleast not more than a few seconds, I can not speak to Alex Jones in any way – other than that the left loathes him.
“You abuse facts and logic and reason.”
More nonsense – facts are facts, logic has rigid rules, Something is a fact or it is not.
There is no “abusing it”. If something is a fact we are stuck with it – like it or not.
Eroneous logic is relatively easy to expose. Doing so is not “abuse”
When facts and logic produce results you do not like – we do not resolve that by bemoaning how the facts and logic are used. Either you demonstrate the facts are false, or the logic in error, or you accept the results.
“Its painful to listen to.”
More substituting “feelings” for reason.
“You have been here trying to win an argument for what is it 11 years?”
You have this fixation on “winning and losing”.
I do not consider getting things right to be “winning”.
Though getting things wrong is “stupid”.
Regardless, being “right” all the time, is relatively easy.
Check facts before you use them. Do not make invalid arguments.
It is exactly that simple.
“I have never seen you win an argument, persuade someone, although you congratulate yourself on your successes on a tediously regular basis.”
You are fantasizing. Once again you continue to offer clairvoyance as argument.
“You will have to find another sufferer to enter your funhouse mirror.”
You make your own choices.
And I would suggest you reread your own post – you inflict your own suffering on yourself – not I. I do not have a fraction of the ego attached to this as you presume.
Mostly I am enjoying myself.
Your presumption that I fixate on being right – is in your head.
Though some of the discussions we have here are truly about things that are just oppinions or that are not actually provable one way or the other.
Many are not, and the largest number fall into a catogory where there is no absolute truth – but it is possible to determine the probability of one thing being more true than the other.
I care about whether A is true and B is false or A is more probably true than B – not because of ego. but because our actions and choices have consequences. Good choices produce better outcomes than bad ones.
It is not personally being right that is important.
It is getting things right that is important.
Personal ego has nothing to do with it.
Whether we get it right or wrong has consequences.
An example – the 2.3% growth the CBO projects is poor. It is particularly poor compared to the 3.5% growth that was the 20th century average or the 7% growth that was the 19th.
If we had 7% growth right now – No one would be discussing “illegal immigration” – we would be trying to figure out how to encourage more people to immigrate.
Higher growth means more jobs, and more wealth and a higher standard of living.
It absolutely means a plethora more Bezo’s but it also means more and better jobs for those at the bottom. It means better and cheaper goods and services. Mild deflation ruled in the 19th century. Higher growth means living better for the same amount of work, or working less to live as well as you do now. It means being more productive with less effort.
And it is inextricably linked to greater freedom.
If we had 7% growth we would not be worried about deficits of Social Security.
We would both have no problem affording social security – we also would not needed it, our own resources could more than provide for our retirement.
If we had 7% growth we would not be fighting over Obamacare – we could again Both afford it and would not need it. We could take care of our own healthcare.
A much younger Paul Ryan understood that and stood up to a president delivering 1.8% growth and told the truth to power that nearly every problem we have was manageable at 5% growth.
2.3% growth is poor. If that is the best Trump can deliver – he is a lessor president that Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. If that is the best he can deliver we will be much less well off that we could be, We will have less uber rich people that we otherwise would, those of us at the bottom will have less oportunity, and they will work harder to have less than they otherwise would – we all will.
As bad as 2.3% growth would be – it is 1/2% better than that of 8 years of Obama. And better than the 2% average or 8 years of Bush.
It is important to figure out why Bush and Obama did poorly and why Clinton and Reagan did well.
Just as it is important to figure out why Harding and Coolidge did well and Hoover and Roosevelt did poorly.
It is not important because of ego.
It is important because being wrong has CONSEQUENCES.
Not just for ourselves – but for the very people you personally claim to champion.
What kind of champion are you if your “benevolence” leaves them less well off than they would have been otherwise.
If you are not interested in figuring our what actually makes life better – what leaves us better off, what raises our standard of living. What gives us more time to make and listen to music – whether we are rich or poor – then get the F#$K of the moral soap box because whatever you are selling – is toxic.
Getting it right matters – not because of ego – but because getting it wrong is IMMORAL.
If you want to F$%# it up in your own life – go ahead, you are free to.
When you use force to make choices about other people you have a duty to get it right – failing is immoral.
You are NOT FREE to use force to F#$% over other people. You are NOT FREE to be wrong when you use force. You are NOT FREE to wrap yourself in good intentions when you F$%$ up other peoples lives.
Am I wrong about some part of that ? Is that “abusing facts or logic” ?
Ha, every sentence I write requires paragraphs of denial from you.
You are being played.
Trump has attacked Pelosi – does that make him anti-italian ?
He has also attacked his own chairman of the Federal Reserve – I am pretty sure he is a WASP. He has attacked his secretary of State, he has attacked his secretary of defense.
He has attacked Hillary Clinton – is she a jew ? He has attacked …..
Grow up and get a clue.
It attacking alot of people by name – some of whom happen to be jewish is anti-sematic, then attacking Israel is about as anti=semetic as you can possibly get.
BTW Trump has never attacked “jewish special interests” – Omar HAS.
Your NYT article just demonstrates that NYT is round the bend.
Lets save accusations of racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, etc. for ACTUAL racism and anti-semitism.
Omar’s remarks are indistinguishable from Kings.
Trumps are distinguishable.
All disagreement is not racism.
Typical head in sand response of those off their meds.
Let us compare Trump and Omar.
Which would move the US embassy to Jerusalem.
Which has specifically refered to rich jews(by ethnicity) as hypnotizing people.
Which has close relationships even family members who are jewish.
Which went to the synagogue in Pittsburgh after the shooting ?
Which pardoned a Jewish businessman ?
Hate is not about what you say. It is about what you do, how you live.
Once again you expose why Trump won in 2016.
Trump voters understand that criticising a jewish person is not anti-semitism (nor is criticising israel), that opposing illegal immigration is not racist, that opposing terrorism is not racist,
The argument that Trump is hypocritical about anti-semitism would not allow criticism of anyone who is not a white male straight christian.
Some of Omar’s remarks attacked JEWS – not specific people she disagrees with, nor israel.
Can you find an instance of Trump attacking jews, homosexuals, women, blacks or hispanics ?
Trump attacks people. They are not immune from attack because they are jewish, hispanic, black, women, or homsexual. They are not being attacked for being jewish, hispanic, black, women or homosexual.
Omar has attacked people specifically because they are jewish.
Omar is an impolitic politician whose words are going to bring trouble if not ruin upon her party.
Am I surprised that a muslim has strong negative views about Israel? No. And Israelis have their own strong opinions about muslims, does anyone think they don’t?
In the lab where I got my doctorate we had many Chinese grad students and post docs. Then we got a Japanese post doc, the most polite friendly capable person you could want to find. I was at first surprised when one of the Chinese students told me that she hated Japanese people and did not even like to look at them. But then I thought about the history and was less surprised. And so on all over the world between members of groups that have been in conflicts.
Omar was dead on in her response to trump. She nailed him. The GOP voters who have managed to rationalize all his many disgusting comments about all kinds of people, but most especially women, may find that their shock and disapproval of Omar (and the other muslim lady with the foul mouth) get less sympathy than they once would have and have less impact than they once would have.
I do find it ironic that in reacting to muslims conservatives etc. suddenly find such a passionate desire to fight sexism and racism. Not that many conservative are not actually perfectly modern on these subjects and sincerely opposed to real abuses of women and American minorities, but they so often turn a blind eye to the members of their own group on these issues.
The fact that two groups hate each other MIGHT be a reason to carefully examine what they write it is NOT a reason to presume that what they say has identical merit.
The Israeli’s are not right in absolutely everything they do, and the palestinians are not wrong in everything they do. But generally the israeli’s are behaviong as a civilized western people under extreme presure in a hostile world. While the palestinians are behaving like violent children who are unable to govern themselves, and intent on murdering those they do not like.
I am honestly surprised the Israelis did not DECADES ago unilaterally renounce any sovereignity over the west bank and Gaza. Draw the boundaries where they pleased and tell the palestinians – they can grow up and be a nation or they can fail as they please.
There is one goal that the Israelis have in their negotiations with the Palistinians – formal recognition of their right to exist. That is the only consequential request they have made of the palestinians in return for most everything the palestinians have requested.
So No – this is not a conflict between two equally moral or equally immoral antagonists.
Why is it that you presume because there are two sides to every conflict they are equal.
I have not seen Omar’s specific responses to Trump – only the Wapo and other stupid stories trying to pretend there is somehow parity between them.
There is not – and it is not even close.
Some of Mar’s comments – her attacts on Israel, are not inherently racist or anti-semetic.
Those comments are pretty much exactly the same as those of Trump that are purportedly racist or anti-semetic.
Omar should not be accused of racism or anti-semetism for criticising israel.
Just as Trump should not be accused of racism and anti-semetism for criticising Soros.
Just as Soros should not be accused of racism and anti-semetism for claiming that Israel and the US are the cause of anti-semetism.
This flawed comparison between Oar and Trump exposes the deep flaw within the ideology of the left and why they lost in 2016.
Many of Trump’s remarks are stupid. Many of them are wrong.
But they are not prima fasica hate speech.
Many of Omar’s remarks are stupid. Many of them are wrong.
Some of them are unequivocal hate speach.
Yet the left is doing more than asertting they are the same – the left asserts Trump is worse.
Why ? Because Omar is a member of a purported victim class, and Trump is not.
Ignoring the fact that while muslims are occasionally victims of persecution, they are concurrently one of the most significant oppressor groups in the world today.
The merits of ideas are not determined by what group is identified as victim and oppressor.
More importantly the victim status of any given individual DOES NOT make any criticism of them hate speach, nor does victim status give any authority to what you say.
Actual hate speach – Some but not all of Omar’s remarks that are purportedly anti-semetic, should be condemned.
None of Trump’s speech is overtly racist, anti-semetic, homophobic, …
You can oppose illegal immigration – and not be racist.
You can oppose ALL immigration and not be racist.
That is important – not because it is true of Trump – but because it is true of large numbers of americans.
The left has been trying to greatly restrict what can be said and even thought.
The left explicitly and overtly seeks to silence all dissent.
It has moved from Class as the distinguishing characteristic of oppression to most any form of victim status. And it forces on us a world view that victimization alone makes one superior to others and that one can not speak absent membership in a victim class, that speach should be evaluated based on ones hierarchy in the victim scale,
and that any criticism of the ideas or actions of a victim is itself hate.
To a small extent the left is right.
I HATE many of the ideas that the left espouses.
But I hate those ideas – because the ideas themselves are vile, and immoral and destructive.
In some instances my hatred of those ideas comes close to hatred for those espousing those ideas. Few of us would fault someone for hating Hitler.
Hatred of evil people is not inherently wrong.
But hatred of bad ideas, even hatred of bad people, is not the same as racism, homophobia, …
Moral authority does NOT come from victim status.
Nor is an attack on a member of a class for their ideas or actions an attack on that class.
Omar’s actual attack’s on jews as jews – is anti-semitism.
Her attack’s on Israel are not inherently anti-semetic.
Trump has quite obviously never attacked Jews as Jews, Hispanics as Hispanics, or blacks as blacks. He has attacked ideas he beleives are wrong, acts he beleives are wrong, people he beleives are wrong. – and he is often right about that.
I would not advise you to count on voters to hold Trump accountable for your false conception of hate speach.
Given that the left has already labeled much of the country as racist, homophobic, mysogyinst – and did so BEFORE Trump, it is pretty ridiculous to expect the people you think are racist to hold Trump accountable for saying the same things they do.
I do not think that conservatives are rushing our to fight all the ism’s you identify.
Republicans are reveling in the left’s self destructive hypocracy.
Absolutely Republicans are cheering.
Absolutely they are pointing out the total hypocracy of the left.
Absolutely they are demanding the left to hold itself to the same standards it holds others to – that is right out of Alinsky’s rules for radicals.
Absolutely the right has learned to read and apply Alinsky – and the left is now “hoist on its own petard”.
That is “ironic” but the irony has nothing to do with conservatives.
There is no requirement to beleive a stupid idea, in order to demand that those who do beleive it be held to the same standard.
I do not think that many republicans think that VA Gov. Northam or his AG must resign for wearing blackface 30 years ago.
Some of us do think he must resign because he won election by false accusations of racism leveled at an opponent that he knows is not any more racist than he himself.
I do not think many republicans think Fairfax must resign over multiple accusations of rape.
But they do think that democrats should be force to hold themselves to the same standards they hold republicans to – OR admit those standards are WRONG!!!.
I think most republicans in the country would be happy to have democrats say
“We appologize” our persecution of Kavanaugh for decades old uncorroborated allegations was not just wrong – it was evil”.
Though I would note the allegations against fairfax are more recent are more specific
They are probably still too old to be certain. But it is much easier to attempt to corroborate or disprove them. We have dates, and places, and times. Though Fairfax has not commented on the specifics, he does not deny that he had sex with these women. The questions regard the specific instances and whether it was consensual.
The actual legal standard we use – not one that I think is correct, but still the standard, is that when the only dispute regarding the facts is over whether their was consent we tend to beleive the women.
In a criminal case I do not beleive that is a high enough standard.
But even that standard was not met with Kavanaugh.
It has easily been met with Fairfax.
And yes Republicans are gloating.
There is BTW an even more Cosbyesque accusation against a Democratic member of the house of representatives that has not gotten the same attention.
Well, well, well. Company led by Mr. Liberal cant take the heat and wont locate where he cant get corporate welfare.
http://time.com/5529733/amazon-new-york-headquarters-hq2-cancelled/
Damn hypocrite. Bet he wont locate one in a lower cost state where conservatives set a conservative agenda, but he wont locate a multi billion dollar company in a high tax state without millions in tax cuts.
“TAX THE RICH, EXCEPT ME AND MY COMPANY”
Ron, I thought you were a conservative who believed in accommodating big business to create jobs and cash flow into local economies. That doesn’t apply to ‘liberal’ owned big business?
The New York state and city incentives for Amazon would have amounted to around $3 billion, but mostly in performance-based incentives over the next ten years.That was chicken feed for an investment in Long Island City that would have generated multiples of $billions in jobs, and $billions more to the retail stores, landlords, utilities, etc., who would benefit from those jobs.
Guess who’s really happy ‘liberal’ Amazon now will relocate much of those assets meant for Long Island City? National Landing in Arlington, Virginia – they’ve already announced they’ll be happy to give Amazon additional tax relief for those jobs,
Hummm do you think a lot of Long Islanders are considering moving down south for employment, and better weather, and bbq?
OK first of all lets get one thing perfectly clear. Virginia is not noted for BBQ. And unless your in southern VA, you might find it hard to find any BBQ, let alone good BBQ. Virginia is more noted for oysters and crabs, with chicken thrown in. Southern rural Va is ham, bacon and sausage.
So now you state “Ron, I thought you were a conservative who believed in accommodating big business to create jobs and cash flow into local economies. That doesn’t apply to ‘liberal’ owned big business?”
Where the hell did you get that idea? I am a fiscal conservative, meaning no one gets tax breaks! You cant pick winners and losers! Corporate welfare is worse than citizen welfare! My thoughts on taxes is every business it treated the same. No special deductions for job creation, no special deduction for depletion allowances, no special deductions for green products, NO SPECIAL DEDUCTIONS! And on the private side, one tax rate from $10’000 to $1,000,000,000. If the average tax taken in is 25% for income and SS, then everyone pays 25%. In that regard I agree with Buffett. But not more for anyone. Everyone pays the same, but no one pays less unless you make less than a specific low income amount. AND, if your a student earning money for school but not exceeding the cost of tuition if it exceeds to low income exemption.. But the low income level is LOW, like $10k.EVERYONE HAS SKIN IN THE GAME!
I dont.know what that stuff is in the pictures here, but it dosnt look like southern pork BBQ or western Beef BBQ I have seen.
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g28970-d450378-Reviews-Rocklands_Barbeque_and_Grilling_Company-Washington_DC_District_of_Columbia.html
Ron, Rockland’s has really good bbq; rated as one of the city’s best.
(I’m making ribs in the Instant Pot tonight, so bbq is on my mind)
But I’m sure any New Yorkers who move down there for Amazon work will be happy for the seafood too.
Jay, I suspect they might have good BBQ, but Va not noted for that.
There is even debates on who has the best BBQ in North Carolina and South Carolina. We all make the fresh pork ham or butt roast the same (better ham), but its the sauce that makes the difference. In Eastern NC they claim their sauce is best, Western NC claims theirs is best and SC has their own.
Eastern NC is vinegar based, Western NC is tomato based and SC uses a mustard based sauce.
In this neck of the woods, we prefer the vinegar based and to try an get a recipe these days would take the treat of harm on your kids to get it. Restaurant owners may give up their wives before divulging their sauce recipe. Some will “share their recipes and you can find them online, but there are always a couple of key ingredients left out.
But since you have shared so many recipes in the past, I will share one here, without giving up my wife! It comes from an old cook book published in the late forties that my wife had from her mothers collection. Don’t remember the author, but it was a local Winston Salem N.C. lady and the book was “My Today’s’, Your Tomorrows” written before Pork BBQ was even thought of as a commercial product.
Start with your fresh pork ham or butt roast (ham best) & cook at around 200- 250 on a grill where the coals are to the side of the meat. (Having the meat directly over it unless 8 inches or so away will end up making the bottom of the meat very dry. I usually put my meat on aluminum foil, punch a couple small holes under the meat and then spread a few coal occasionally under the meat and let the fat drip onto the coals to create some smoke. Then the rest of the coals are stacked to the side of the meat. (Don’t have a smoker grill, just a 55 gallon drum cut in 1/2 with the top 1/2 hinged for the lid) In addition, I spread some hickory chips soaked in water over the coals occasionally to give it a hickory smoke flavor. Cook the meat for 8-10 hours or more to make sure it falls off the bone.
Remove the meat, let it cool so you can handle with you hands, rip the meat from the bone and using a meat cleaver, chop the pork into small pieces and place in a large bowl of pot.
Now for what separates the great from the good.
Pork BBQ sauce
1 3/4 cup cider vinegar
1/2 cup lemon juice
3 Tablespoons liquid smoke
1 teaspoon pepper
1 teaspoon cayenne
1 teaspoon garlic powder
1 teaspoon onion powder
4 tablespoons dark brown sugar
4 tablespoons granulated sugar
1 1/2 teaspoons paprika
3/4 teaspoon salt
1/4 cup water
Combine all dry ingredients and blend in vinegar to make a paste. Add remaining liquids and using a wisk, blend thoroughly. Bring to a boil stirring constantly because the sugar will burn. Cook 5 minutes, let cool and refrigerate. We usually make this 24 hours before cooking pork as the flavors intensify over a longer period of time..
Keeps indefinitely, so we always make a double recipe when making it,
And don’t try to “be healthy” and reduce salt, sugar or any ingredients. Doesn’t work and pork BBQ is not know for being “healthy” anyway.
Now you can take as much pork as you want for that dinner, add the sauce to completely cover the meat and enjoy. Can add to all the meat as it keeps good after adding to meat as it does in a jar in the refrigerator.
Guess you could cook meat in oven,if really needed, but a lot of flavor is lost without the grill smoke flavor over 10 hours.
And Texas Pete hot sauce on the meat after being placed on the bun adds that last spark to make it totally enjoyable.
Enjoy!
.
Thanks for the recipe Ron.
I like the spices in your bbq sauce.
They’re similar to spices we used in competition chili cook-offs years ago. When I lived in Dana Point, I was part of a chili cooking team. We competed all over CA and Nevada. In competition chili cooking you don’t use Beans – only meat & spiced sauce – and our secret ingredient: tequila!
We’d add the tiquila to the pot with spurts from tequila filled squirt guns. Everybody dressed up in cowboy attire for those shows and we carried the squirt guns in holsters – which we would draw and discharge into the waiting open mouths of spectators – notably pretty women who asked foe a secret ingredient taste. we’d also feed them sample bowls of chili after the judging was over. Although we never won a major trophy, needless to say we were first place in the hearts and gullets of our tequila oiled fans.
Damn. I hadn’t thought about that in years. I better see If I have any tequila on the shelf for dinner, which needs attention now.
I’m renaming this recipe, Ron – to
AMAZON SHORT RIBS
For every rib you eat you get a short tax kickback
Instant Pot – Beef Short Ribs
20 min Sauté & Prep
35 min High Pressure. Quick release
INGREDIENTS
•2 teaspoons kosher salt, more as needed
•1 teaspoon coriander powder
•1 teaspoon ground black pepper
•3 to 4 pounds bone-in beef short ribs
•1 tablespoon olive oil or other fat (like bacon fat or duck fat), more as needed
•3 leeks, whites only, chopped
•2 large fennel bulbs, diced
•4 garlic cloves, minced
•1 tablespoon chipotle chile powder
•1 tablespoon tomato paste
•1 cup dry red wine
•½ cup pitted prunes, diced
•Fennel fronds or sliced scallions, or both, for serving
PREPARATION
-.If time permits, rub salt, coriander and pepper all over beef and let marinate in refrigerator for 1 hour, or, ideally, overnight.
– Set electric pressure cooker to sauté function and add oil (or use a large skillet on the stove over medium-high heat). Sear beef until evenly browned on all sides, about 2 minutes per side. You’ll probably have to do this in batches. Transfer to a plate as the pieces brown. Or if using a skillet, transfer them to pressure cooker.
-Add leeks, fennel and pinch of salt to hot pan and cook until soft, about 8 minutes, then add garlic, chile powder and tomato paste; cook until fragrant, 1 to 2 minutes. Pour in wine. Add prunes and beef (or add prunes and fennel-wine mixture to the meat in the pot).
-Cover, then cook for 35 minutes on high pressure. Manually release pressure. If sauce seems thin, pull out beef pieces and reduce sauce using sauté function. Serve with fennel fronds or scallions, or both, for garnish.
“Ron, I thought you were a conservative who believed in accommodating big business to create jobs and cash flow into local economies. That doesn’t apply to ‘liberal’ owned big business?”
While Ron can speak for himself – I do not recall his ever identifying himself as a conservative.
I also disagree with characterizing Bezos as “liberal” – except in the classical liberal sense.
Dave
“While Ron can speak for himself – I do not recall his ever identifying himself as a conservative.”
I have said before I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal for the most part. I think that is somewhat close to many Libertarian positions. But I am not a full blown libertarian and anything as close to it as you are. That is not being critical, just a difference of opinion,
As for Bezos, I characterized him as liberal and still believe that since most of his donations to political candidates are those on the left.
Ron;
You can wear whatever label you choose.
There is no such thing as a “full blown libertarian”.
I would further note that you should already have some pretty good clues that there is a gap between what I argue and what I am willing to live with.
Compromise is a tool – not a value – but it IS a tool.
A UBI is almost as much a violation of the NAP as the social safetynet.
But I will get behind the UBI as a lessor evil.
When and if we ever have a UBI – Then I will work to get rid of that.
I am really for open borders. But they are politically impossible and practically impossible without vast societal change or disruption. If you do not have open borders, and we continue to have stupid drug laws and “caravans” of people crossing our southern border “illegally” then a wall is one of several things required to reduce chaos and restore the rule of law.
Regardless, I would “compromise” in a second to get immigration reform.
I want congress to sit down and develop better immigration policy.
I will argue for specific policies – I would prefer bringing in more educated people and less low skilled labor. I would also prefer more legal immigrants rather than less.
I would prefer to give preference to religious and political disidents.
I would not likely give much preference to victims of natural disaster or non-government violence. But our government gets to decide those things. If the house senate and president sit down and decide that we will take no more indians and chinese, while favoring hispanics and africans. If they decide to favor victims of natural disaster and domestic abuse.
So long as they decide – and they make rules that work.
We can not concurrently limit the amount of time that the government can hold a family that immigrated illegally and preclude family separation. Doing so just means that any family group that can cross will see CBP as a speed bump, nothing more.
Decide what immigration is legal and deport those who are not.
That is what illegal means – YOU CAN NOT STAY HERE.
If you do not accept that – then come out publicly for open borders.
Hypocracy is pretending that you can decide what the law is and then not enforce it.
“There is no such thing as a “full blown libertarian”.
OK, so then I would define that person as “one who accepts all of the Libertarian party platform”
Then the are degrees of Libertarian depending on how many one might choose to agree with.
But I would think you would agree you are much more Libertarian than I am based on your belief that government regulations of consumer products are not heeded while I can not accept that for certain industries.
I do not even keep track of the “libertarian party platform”.
My idea of what is libertarian is rooted in classical liberalism
Adam Smith, John Locke, JS Mill
If you are not 100% aligned with the democratic platform are you banned from the democratic party ?
It is NOT hypocracy for a business to seek the best deal it can get.
I do not 100% agree with Bezos, but to a very large extent I do.
He is not a liberal, he is not a conservative.
He is generally libertarian.
He may not be exactly my libertarian – but I am not quibbling.
His JOB is to look after the interests of Amazon shareholders.
He is obligated to do anything legal to do so.
He is not obligated to constrain those actions to what SHOULD be legal
only what is.
Government is responsible for what the law is, and what it should be – not amazon.
In my view it is completely IMMORAL for government at any level to offer any person or any business some special treatment that is not available to everyone.
That is a constitutional constraint on GOVERNMENT not on private actors.
I do not beleive that outright bribery of a public official by a private party should be a crime.
Amazon offers me discounts for subscribing to Amazon Prime – there is no difference between offering benefits to customers and suppliers and offering them to government.
But any public servant accepting a benefit to perform their job diffferently has betrayed a public trust.
Paying for better service is not a crime. Giving better service for money when you have a duty to others – that is a crime.
Dave, my point in the Amazon issue is his positions he takes on support of democrat candidates and then he wants the government to support his company, just like democrats want the government to support people.
If he is a Libertarian, then I REALLY need to reevaluate my thinking about being a Libertarian because his thinking is nowhere close to mine.
Yes if you own a business, you do everything to maximize profits. Like Amazon getting millions back on 2017 income taxes even though their liability was -0- and owing nothing in taxes in 2018. This even though they had revenue of $177B in 2017 and net income of $3B in 2017.
But I don’t like hypocrites. On one hand he speaks with liberal tongue and on the other he practices anti tax right wing conservatism.
Ron;
I am not aware of all of Bezo’s liberal pontificating.
When he bought WaPo he made some changes – he got rid of several left wing nuts who no longer have WaPo as a platform. He brought in Volokh and I beleive Radley Balko. Though both have subsequently left.
But he did not lock stock and barrel change the culture of WaPo
Trump has taking personal aim at Bezo’s specifically because of WaPo editorials.
Maybe Bezo’s is responsible – maybe not.
Real libertarians actually support free speech and free press – even left wing nut jobs at WaPo. Regardless WaPo has mostly NOT being as falling off the left edge of the world as NYT.
Maybe Bezo’s actually agrees with some of the editorials in WaPo. OK.
As I tried to make clear in my remarks regarding bribery.
There is no libertarian hipocracy in taking every single benefit you can get from government.
This lunatic argument was used on Ayn Rand. She must have been a hypocrit – she accepted Social Security!
Sorry when government steals from you – you take back every penny you can get without violating the law.
More recently I put forth JS Mills compelling argument that voting is not a right, it is a duty.
You are not obligated to vote – but if you do you are obligated to consider that the effect of your vote will be the use of force against others.
As a voter you have such a duty. There is no such duty with respect to taxes or the interests of business.
I will fight against government offering businesses bribes to get them to locate in one place or another. But it is not hypocracy for even a libertarian business person to seek every legal advantage they can. It is not hypocracy for Jeff Bezos to within the law avoid all the taxes he possibly can. Nor is it illegal for Paul Manafort to do the same. The loaning himself money from offshore tactic employed by Manafort was done by innumerable businesses – because it is legal. and it should be legal. loans are not income, and making incestuous loans illegal will only make getting arround that LEGALLY slightly more difficult.
Lets say that instead of borrowing money from himself Manafort had borrowed Money from a cayman island bank and spent that money in the US, while securing the loan with his foreign earnings.
He would not owe taxes – loans are not income.
He would have dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s and the only things that would have changed is some bank in the caymans would have made a small amount of money on a sure thing loan.
I do not specifically know that Apple and Amazon do this too.
But I would be shocked if nearly all multinational businesses do not routinely loan themselves money to reduce taxes.
The stupidity is that they have to do this.
No other nation taxes the foreign income of its citizens and businesses.
That is an incredibly stupid idea that drives money OUT of the country.
Finally – I do not see libertarian as DOGMA.
Libertarian is big enough to encompass Walter Block, and Jeff Bezos – if they want to identify as libertarian.
Though still a long shot, libertarians are the greatest threat to the 2 party duopoly.
That threat will never become real if libertarians have a narrow litmus test.
Cass Sunstein sometimes calls himself a Libertarian. Matt Zwolinski leads a group of “Bleeding heart libertarians”.
I provided you with links to Cato papers arguing for a UBI to replace the social safety net.
Not as a GOOD Policy, but as a much less bad policy than what we have.
WSJ: “U.S. Tax Revenues Fall, Deficit Widens in Wake of New Tax Law
Treasury has attributed the weaker revenue—including lower corporate and individual income-tax rates—to the tax law that took effect in January 2018”
“But the effects of last year’s fiscal stimulus are also expected to fade in 2019. The CBO estimates the gross domestic product will grow at a 2.3% annual rate this year.
The U.S. is on track to record a $900 billion deficit this year, CBO said, and annual deficits are expected to top $1 trillion starting in 2022.”
2019 2019 2019
Tax $ billion change pct
Income Taxes 2,443.8 68.5 2.9 %
Social Insurance Taxes 1,487.7 74.9 5.3 %
Ad valorem Taxes 1,580.2 102.5 6.9 %
Fees and Charges 555.7 19.6 3.7 %
Business and Other Revenue 469.4 -7.2 -1.5 %
So 2019 revenue is UP by something just short of 300B.
The CBO estimate is the LOWEST estimate for 2019 growth.
Growth for the 8 years Obama was president averaged 1.8%,
So the WORST CASE for 2019 is 1/2% HIGHER than Obama.
CBO numbers are notoriously bad. In fact government numbers are notoriously bad.
I am not going to make any assertion beyond – higher than CBO and less than Trump claims.
And more than enough to win re-election.
WSJ: “North Korea Keeps Stockpiling Materials to Make Nuclear Weapons, Report Finds
Finding is a reminder of Pyongyang’s ability to increase its nuclear arsenal should diplomacy falter”
“In a January report that used commercial satellite imagery and other open-source data, the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, Calif., identified six factories thought to be linked to North Korea’s missile program. Last month, the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington found about 20 undeclared missile operating bases, including one researchers think serves as a missile headquarters.”
And maybe they should, dealing with Trump is a golden opportunity to do whatever.
Kudos!!!!
You are using private intelligence assessments and analysis.
BTW the private analysis is that it is less than 50% probable that the hack of the DNC was the source of the Wikileaks emails, and it is not possible to attribute the hack to any source.
Absolutely things in NK could get worse. That would be a problem of Clinton, Bush and Obama’s creation.
I should think we all hope Trump resolves it.
Absolutely the North Koreans are going to try to cheat.
If the Wall justifies declaring a National Emergency, so will Gun Control and Climate Change.
Bye Bye congressional oversight..
But I’m sure there will be mental dwarfs who will defend Trumpilstilscan if he declares it
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-emergency-declaration-border-wall-funding-not-national-emergency/
I would hope congress gets its head out of its ass and passes legislation reigning in this action and a ton of other stuff they have allowed presidents to do in the past.
We dont elect kings, but we are very close to having one that can do anything they wish. E.O.’s should be included and anything the president does should have congressional overview and approval.
Agree, Ron, Congress has been too lazy or worse.
Although sometimes an EO is really needed for speeds sake. How do we save that if we throw the baby out with the dishwater.
Well we have exceeded Word Press comprehension with 400+ comments, so this is my second try in posting this. Guess I will go back to writing comments on Word, coping the comment and pasting to Word Press so I dont have to retype stuff multiple Times.
“How do we save that if we throw the baby out with the dishwater.”
Has to be a way all those overpaid DC attorneys can develop that would be as ironclad as a prenup between rich people.
Start with congress approval required within 30 days. Maybe just a committee approval. And that would be for anything significant. There are many E.O like declaring a day in honor of someone that would not reach “significant”
Start with congress approval required within 30 days. Maybe just a committee approval. And that would be for anything significant. There are many E.O like declaring a day in honor of someone that would not reach “significant”
As Turley notes below:
The fundimental problem is that congress has largely abdicated its role by passing laws that empower the executive.
The courts long ago should have established that congress can not delegate its powers to the executive.
Turley won challenges against Obama similar to the challenges to Trump’s emergency declaration. But Turley notes Trump will win on the Wall because Congress has already authorized what he is looking to do.
You propose a 30 day review. I have no problem with that.
The Emergency powers act has a congressional review privision.
But it requires Congress to act to STOP the emergency.
The DEFAULT is that the president gets to do it.
Again why Trump will prevail.
I am OPPOSED to pretty much anything government does that is on autopilot.
If we even allow congress to delegate power to the executive the Default on review should be FAIL. If in 1976 Congress had said – the president can declare a state of emergency – but it Congress does not authorize the emergency spending after 30 days the president must stop.
But what they said was if congress does nto agree – they must vote the emergency down.
Over and over the left – and sometimes the right have taken the supermajoritarian provisions of the constitution and our law and inverted them. Rather than requiring government to get and sustain suport majority support to continue to do something.
The law that we have and bad SCOTUS decisions essentially say that once something is done whether by presidential decree or a log rolled simple majority in congress – it is forever and impossible to undo.
The constitution gives a great deal of power that is excercised by the president to congress.
Congress can take that power back anytime it wants.
And that is exactly where the problem with National Emergencies lies – bad law.
Some of what congress has abdicated to the executive the courts should never have permitted. There is no constitutional authority for the executive to write laws or regulations.
That is a congressional power.
“If the Wall justifies declaring a National Emergency, so will Gun Control and Climate Change.
Bye Bye congressional oversight..
But I’m sure there will be mental dwarfs who will defend Trumpilstilscan if he declares it”
Prior to 1965 Trump could not have succeeded in this. Pres. Truman tried this and failed.
But unfortunately Congress passed law that opened this oportunity.
Contrary to some – as best I can tell doing so would not be illegal.
You might be right that it would justify another president to declare an emergency regarding Climate Change or Gun Control. I do not think so – because the window opened in 1965 is not that wide. At the same time we should have learned from Harry Reid pulling the Nuclear Trigger or Obama using his pen and phone, that any power grab of one administration will be expanded by the next.
At the same time – this is not an end to congressional oversight, it is an end to congressional control of the purse strings. Meaningful congressional oversight died long ago.
No Trump should not go forward using an emergency declaration,
If he is not happy with the compromise bill, he should veto it and shut government down again.
Every idea that is legal – is not good.
OK everyone, since Rick is no longer around to monitor and referee, can we do it ourselves?
Can we try to debate issues and not personal attacks? I know its hard sometimes, but this site has been the only one I have found that is 90% fact and debate driven, while others are more than 60% personal attacks.
We have a good representation of those on the left of issues and those on the right of issues and some in between in our small group.
Today has been more personal attacks than debate of issues. Maybe that is because those posting today have all been male and this is Valentines day, one that drives many males crazy. Could be just getting frustration out anyway possible.
And Yes I have been guilty of calling other “bleeding heart liberals” and other things in the past, so my hands are not clean either.
So I just ask if we can do better and keep our small group together and not end up with no where to discuss anything other than sites that only have those that think exactly like ourselves.
At one time we had many more posting comments, but personal comments convinced them to leave earlier.
Thanks
You can propose something – but I can already goes how it goes – each of us has our own different opinion of what ails TNM.
Further it is self-evident from some posts yesterday that there are radically different perceptions.
I would as an example agree that banning ad hominem and insult would be a good thing.
But it is clear we do not agree on what that is.
Is calling an idea stupid the same as calling a person stupid ?
Nor do I regard all conflict as inherently bad.
While Anonymous AKA Robby and I have argued vigorously yesterday.
And I think most of his arguments are wrong – he did actually make arguments.
Granted it was mostly arguments about how to argue, but even that atleast touches on important issues.
I may be the poster that Robby is most offended by – but Robby is not the poster I am most offended by.
I would rather TNM had 1000 posters making bad left leaning arguments, than one who posts little beyond short insults.
Dave, you have your idea of what TNM should be used for and you have been trying force me and others into that mold for a very long time with no success. When will you learn? Shall I quote Einstein about the meaning of repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result?
Rick also must have had an idea of what TNM should be used for when he started this, I doubt his idea and yours overlap much.
Ron, I feel your pain. But truly there is no answer to this. Every sentence I write has been and will be buried under a humongous pile of repetitive objections. To make it more interesting the objections won’t even be to what I actually said or what my political positions actually are. So, what is there for me to do? I’m trying to have a little fun with it instead of getting really sore. I’m sure its a bother to wade through but so are the countless off-target obsessive words that land on every conversation.
All the people who send Dave into a frenzy could simply withdraw, that would leave only you and Dave and sometime Priscilla. You would not like that I don’t think.
So, we are stuck. You do have my sympathy.
Who has used FORCE ? Certainly not I.
Is there a gun to your head ?
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
John Stuart Mill
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind…”
John Stuart Mill
That you wish things were different does not create a right.
You fixate on my intentions – what of yours.
You are openly seeking to silence a view you do not like.
You think that is OKAY ?
It is not – what you claim would improve TNM would be immoral.
This is fascinating. Einstein is apparently not the author of the famous quote about repeating the same action and expecting a different result. One of the 12 step cure agencies was. If you want something Really well investigated apparently quoteinvestigator.com will do it as well or better than anyone.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/23/same/
Dave, no, calling an idea stupid is not the same as calling a person stupid. Calling an idea stupid should also be followed by why one thinks that. Then the other person can address that issue.
As for Anonymous, WordPress sucks! If you are posting through the WordPress screen, you need to scroll down each time to see your ID info is present or its says ” you are responding as xxxx” or something to that effect. Sometimes it says that and drops that during the upload.
“Nor do I regard all conflict as inherently bad.” I can only say it is my opinion that conflict might not ge bad, but personal conflict generated by sociak media promoting comments one would not make in person is bad.
But the I was raised at a time when one was taught “If you dont have something nice to say, then dont say anything at all”
Just sayin’
No Jay you are not “just saying” you are totally completely insulting.
You post like a 4 year old – and your button is the prefect example.
I would be completely embarrassed to have made most of the posts you have. But like a toddler you revel in your ability to insult – despite the fact that you are not that good at it.
Go back and read your own posts.
“Dave, you have your idea of what TNM should be used for and you have been trying force me and others into that mold for a very long time with no success.”
No force involved – so that would be a FALSE statement.
“When will you learn? ”
Lear what ? You are the one who asserts that I am desparte to use force to persuade. Once again as is typical your entire argument rests on your clairvoyance.
“Shall I quote Einstein about the meaning of repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result?”
That would be meaningful if I expected different results.
Einstein’s argument applies better to you.
You are the one who continually expects different results.
You expect me to magiacally post differently because you have insulted me.
You expect bigger government to work – even though it never has.
In area after area, you keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.
“Rick also must have had an idea of what TNM should be used for when he started this, I doubt his idea and yours overlap much.”
Rick gets to speak for himself – just like you or I.
“Ron, I feel your pain. But truly there is no answer to this. Every sentence I write has been and will be buried under a humongous pile of repetitive objections.”
Nearly all my objctions are specific to the things you write.
Is there some right I am not aware of to write whatever erroneous nonsense you please and not have anyone respond ?
Try rereading the emporer has no clothes.
” To make it more interesting the objections won’t even be to what I actually said or what my political positions actually are. ”
Oh. but they are. Or more accurately you are pretty inconsistent.
“So, what is there for me to do? I’m trying to have a little fun with it instead of getting really sore. I’m sure its a bother to wade through but so are the countless off-target obsessive words that land on every conversation.”
Someone complain that you are having fun ?
“All the people who send Dave into a frenzy”
Do you think that it might be possible that I am “having fun” too ?
Is “fun” inherently deceptive ?
If you say what you think – are you inherenly having a bad time ?
“Dave, no, calling an idea stupid is not the same as calling a person stupid.”
And this entire “witch hunt” should end there. Scrolling up and down only a few pages will make it clear that some posters insult people ALL THE TIME.
While I attack arguments.
I would prefer to attack arguments of substance.
I attack your arguments and priscilla’s sometimes – those are not attacks on you. I agree with a significant portion of what you say.
And even when I do not pretty much all your comments are about issues and facts.
“Calling an idea stupid should also be followed by why one thinks that.”
Quite frequently I do. Though you are postulating an absolute.
There is no absolute. Several hear complain about my volume already.
If each of us must respond at length as to precisely why each argument we call stupid is stupid – we would have no time to breath.
Nearly everyone hear has called the GND stupid.
In fact – of everyone here – I have come the closest to DEFENDING it.
As written it is crap, but the idea of a UBI as a replacement for the rest of the social safetynet has merit. It is LESS BAD. than what we have.
Regardless, my point is we all find arguments stupid. We do not typically follow that with an explanation. And if following an insult to an argument with an explanation is the criteria for whether it is misconduct – I am guilty of misdemeanors and most of the rest here are felons.
“Then the other person can address that issue.”
That is always an option. One I welcome.
“As for Anonymous, WordPress sucks! ”
I understand that completely
I have my own problems with WP.
I am not looking to get into that.
Nor am I blaming anyone for posting anonymously.
I DO NOT CARE.
Expect your remarks to have the context necescary to differentiate sarcasm when you post anonymously is unwise.
As is bemoaning that your sarcasm was missed and that it should have been obvious as everyone knows who you are.
Regardless, the limitations of WP are something we all have ot live with so long as TNM uses WP.
If we want to have a general bitch about WP – count me in.
But of you piss on me because problems with WP lead to confusion do not expect me to take you seriously.
You do not get to use the problems with WP as an excuse to make demands of others.
““Nor do I regard all conflict as inherently bad.” I can only say it is my opinion that conflict might not ge bad, but personal conflict generated by sociak media promoting comments one would not make in person is bad.”
I left twitter because almost everyone there is an asshole.
Pretty much every tweet is like the posts here that I find the most offense.
To those here who do not want long posts and who want four year old biting comments – I would sugest twitter. It is a perfect fit.
Instead oflinking to the latest tweet of the latest never trump neocon – you can just retweet it to all of your followers.
You can revel in TDS to your hearts content.
Tweets are limited to 200+ characters so you never have to fear that someone will dismember your stupid remark in great detail.
I am not telling anyone what to do just asking – why is it you want to make TNM into twitter – there already is a twitter.
Ron, unlike you I am not inherently hostile to social media.
My guess is that the english were not happy that printing presses sprung up all over the colonies either.
Regardless, freedom comes with costs.
I want government out of the drug business. I fuily understand that bad things will happen. But good things will happen too.
My desire does not mean I want to shoot heroin.
It just means that I grasp that the bad things that come with freedom are outweighed by the good.
I am hard pressed to think of what is good about twiiter.
But that is not my call.
I would further note that before I was born my grandparents were lamenting that evil negro music, and my parents complained that Rock was rotting our minds. I am old enough to remember tipper gore.
And computer games were going to destroy our kids.
Each of these came with bad – and good. The world did not end.
Mostly I think they have made the world better – though I am not headed back to twitter – its is just not for me.
Which brings me back to “why are we trying to make TNM into Twitter ?”
“But the I was raised at a time when one was taught “If you dont have something nice to say, then dont say anything at all”
Sounds good, but actually a bad idea.
It inherently means the first person to speak controls the agenda – because criticism is not allowed.
That wasn’t you Ron. 🤡
Social Justice run amuk in Canada
https://quillette.com/2019/02/11/how-social-justice-ideologues-hijacked-a-legal-regulator/
Ron, good thoughts on “policing” ourselves. But, that will be meaningless if we all don’t tell Dave/whatever to limit himself in words and multiple comments. With that done, or his absence this could be a very good blog, up from a poor one.
Thanks. I have kearned to limit comments by reading the first couple of paragraphs in the email and then deleting.
Sorry, not enough, we are/have been dealing with a pig. Why are you reticent to call him out? He pisses on every commenters leg.
What am I missing?
dduck, I believe you may have commented at The Moderate Voice years ago when I made a brief appearance. Not sure what I commented under, but it may not have been Ron P. Anyway I made somewhat the same type comments there as I do here and was on the end of the “dumb-ass”, “pig”, “drunk”, “pothead” and others not this mild. So I left and found this site. At that time there were many more commenting but over the few years I have been here, there were those that used personal attacks and those on the receiving end left. Then those useing the personal attacks left, leaving what few we have here. So I try to ignore comments I dont want to address or get into the weeds. I read a few sentences and delete the email. If there is one I am interested, I will call out who ever made the comment and ask for proof. I have also called out Jay for his use of Tweet copies and he responded it was easier than other ways of commenting.
But I really try to stear clear of personal comments because I was the one on the receiving end.on a few other sites. And I was not conservative for ” The Lonely Conservative” and commenters ran me out if that one also.
This is a pig.
Words have meaning.
You are dealing with speech that you do not like.
Nothing more.
Any claim beyond that is both a lie and ad hominem.
But that apears to be OK with you.
Your demand is that TNM must be as you wish it to be.
You are constantly demanding things you have no right to.
Fortunately you also have no power either.
Get over yourself.
I can not FORCE you to listen.
I can not FORCE you to think.
I can not FORCE you to reason.
I can only attempt to persuade you.
I use facts logic and reason to do that.
And still I fail.
You use fallacy and insult.
Do you expect to do better ?
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fanimalia-life.club%2Fdata_images%2Fpig%2Fpig5.jpg&f=1
If there is piss on your leg you should visit a urologist, because it did not come from this blog.
Bad metaphors are not arguments.
“Sorry, not enough, we are/have been dealing with a pig. Why are you reticent to call him out? He pisses on every commenters leg.
What am I missing?”
Are you completely incapable of distinguishing between civility and volume ?
Robby appears to have switched from posting as anonymous to posting as a new name each time.
Lets say I do the same and post under 10 different persona’s ?
Or I persuade 10 other libertarians to come here and I post 1/10 as much but each of them posts much the same as I would with zero net change in the volume.
There is absolutely no relevant issue with “volume”.
We are dealing with an effectively unlimited resource.
The PROBLEM we have here is a complete lack of civility.
It is those who think that the are free to call other posters “pigs”.
It is those who think that they are entitled to a forum where THEY ALONE can say whatever they want without fear that anyone will demonstrate the errors of their remarks.
I found it odd that so many of the poster here who absolutely loath Trump are pretty much EXACTLY like him.
Dave, sorry, I was not clear in my comment. When I said I limit the comment and read the first couple paragrapghs, that lets me know if it is something I am interested in or not. If not, I delete. If I am, I read more until I am not interested.
And yes, it is getting like the Moderate Voice here which I hate to see happen. I enjoy debating everyone here and those that left, like JB and others.
It is obviously false that someone else’s speech in a public forum without limits in any quantity or quality harms you
This hits the spot from a CNN article on the pitfalls of the prog loon women.
“There’s also a learning curve. The Republican-selected witness for the hearing, former Federal Election Commission chairman Bradley A. Smith, tells CNN Ocasio-Cortez misinterpreted his public statements about campaign-finance law. “She didn’t know what she was talking about. She thought her own campaign funds were dark money. They weren’t,” Smith says. “She didn’t seem to be aware of how PACs operate, and she would have been a person who really should have been trying to learn in the hearing and she wasn’t.””
In other words she is a prime example of the campus left culture. F%$# us. Both parties batshit crazy.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/15/politics/all-the-freshman-ladies/index.html
Its pretty weak stuff actually but at least its a start to timidly criticize the prog loons. I wonder how much their tone will stiffen when the damage these nuts are doing becomes clear?
I wrote by e-mail to 2 of 3 of my legislators (didn’t bother with Sanders) asking them to stand up for sanity before AOC and Co. do to the dem party what the trumpies have done to the GOP.
Still no reply from them.
The nut jobs from my own side of the spectrum almost cause me more pain than those on the right.
I would suggest geting beyond whether something is labeled “progressive” or not.
I have repeatedly asked everyone here to do the same thing with respect to government.
When in Doubt DON’T.
Whether it is the GND or new abortion restrictions or using emergency funds to build a wall or sending troops to foreign countries.
If an action of government is going to restrict someone’s liberty – and virtually everything government does restricts liberty.
Think LONG AND HARD first. Whether it is driven by democrats or republicans the ACTS of congress pretty much NEVER deliver the benefits promised and pretty much ALWAYS infringe on liberty more than expected.
So unless you are SURE – DON’T.
Trump can manage fine with $4B of Wall funding he can get without declaring an emergency.
We are not all going to die if the GND does not pass – no matter what Progs say.
We shutdown 1/4 of governmetn for 5 weeks and the MOST you can say is the some government employees did not get paid and some of the rest of us were very mildly inconvenienced.
Growing government even further is certainly not a good thing.
I have supported Trump’s tax cuts. We need to cut taxes even more.
But we need to cut spending too. Even military spending.
When in doubt with respect to government DON;T.
If we restricted govenrmet growth to 1% LESS than inflation. rather than 1-2% more nearly all our problems would go away eventually/
The problem is not unique to AOC.
Broad interpretations of the law are essentially lawless.
As the FEC Chair noted, AOC’s broad interpretation of campaign finance law made her a criminal.
This problem is not unique to AOC nor to campaign finance law.
Law must be narrow and specific.
If the existing law does not bar what you want without interpretting it broadly – pass new law specifically barring that.
I’ve realized what I am: a McCaskill democrat. In other words, facing extinction if not extinct.
The dem party and its associated media allies (whose leaders could not play chess if their lives depended on it judging by their political strategies and tactics) actually believe they are winning. They believe that the American electorate strongly resembles the student body of Middlebury college. They have bet their future on that delusional idea.
We are doomed.
Time for me to tune out politics for a good long spell and hope when I tune back in things are not as dark as they seem now.
Tuning out on politics is as difficult/futile as ignoring splattered graffiti, ubiquitous and ever present youhave to be a hermit to ignore it.
I’ve done it before, sometimes for months. Its like meditating, how long can you go without a thought. You can increase the length of those times with some practice. I just have to make my periods of newslessness grow longer. Four years would be ideal. Just a synopsis of the last term after each election.
You obviously have way more self control than I do….
President Smuckness Admits Thete’s No National Emergency As He Declares One
“I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”
Anyone listening to any of this presser?
His mind is as jumbled as a load of laundry in the dryer.
Sounds like he swallowed a fistful of uppers.
The speed at which one does something is not an inherent attribute of whether it is an emergency.
If you cut yourself and the cut is severe enough that you will bleed to death – it is not a cut where the bleeding will stop on its own eventually.
But it is not so severe that you will bleed to death in the next couple of minutes – is it NOT and emergency ?
That very same rationalization will be used by next Dem/Prog President to justify NE for Climate Control.
I would suggest reading Turley’s article on why Trump will win in court.
Turley should be taken very seriously – because he defeated The Obama administrations efforts to spend money without congressional authroization in court.
I have little doubt that in the LONG run you will be correct.
Obama’s funding games with PPACA were much more egregious than this.
DACA is much more legally problematic.
Some future left wing nut president will likely declare a national emergency over global warming. And he will unfortunately have better odds of getting away with it because of this
Though the fundimental problem is with the law – not with Trump.
If you want to narrow the discretion of the president in spending money – you have my support. But we do so by changing the law.
If you want me to say Trump SHOULD not do this – I have said that repeatedly.
But I can not say that he CAN not do this – because he can. Congress gave him the authority long ago.
I would note though that a future democrat will not have carte blanche.
Whether it is gun control or CAGW – Trump is reallocating funds on a small scale.
He is using them as he wishes – but inside of the broad outlines of what they were allocated for.
Obama did not do that – and lost.
A NE to deal with CAGW may still not have access to any money.
“Many wrongs DO NOT make a right, dummy.”
All misstatements are not equal.
Trumps inflame the left.
But are otherwise not consequential.
Those of these others had significant impact.
We did not need to invade normandy on June 6, 1942 – we could have waited alot longer.
Does that mean that was NOT an emergency ?
Watta ya know: I agree with her:
Ann Coulter on KABC: “The promise [Trump] made every single day at every single speech” was to build the wall. “So forget the fact that he’s digging his own grave, this is just— Look, the only national emergency is that our president is an idiot.”
I have already said that this is a mistake – not because I care about Trump or the wall.
But because every broad interpretation one president makes the next will make even broader.
Byron York makes a compelling argument that there is an emergency – by the relevant legal definition – because Congresses actions – particularly in partially funding the wall – but also in the way that other funds that Trump is using have been allocated are an open admission of a serious and immediate need.
Trump got money for NEW wall construction – not just maintance of old walls.
You do not fund new walls without essentially finding that there is a pressing need.
Coulter has a point – but her point is that it would not be wise to diminish the definition of emergency in this way – it will become too easy for other presidents.
At the same time I will note – someone did alot of work to come up with this.
aLL the money Trump is looking to spend on the wall – including the emergency funds are earmarked for boarder security or ICE/CBP at their discretion.
Trump is clearly and boldly defying congressional democrats – but he is not defying the law.
Dispite the hysteria, this is not nearly as far afield as Obama’s DACA without any legal foundation.
I agree that the next president will enlarge the emergemcy label. Why do we need congress when it is nothing but a leach on society, provinding little to the country these days other than future presidential candidates.
But while everyone has a cow over the emergency, few are ointing out he plans to use military construction money, transferring construction fund from project to replace rat, mold and insect infested unhealthy living conditions.
Oh, and Dave, may I remind you that these are quarters that were privatized, oversight by the govnment withdrawn, expectations the owners would maintain the quarters at a livable standard and years later and complaints ignored by the military has allowed that to happen. And these individuals do not have ways like sueing.or moving because they cant sue the government and dont make enough as an enlisted person to get housing in the San Diego and Fayetteville, amoung others, area. This is where regulation should have been requirec!
I do not have the details on the military construction you are saying Trump is taking the funds from.
If you have a source for more information I would appreciate it.
Addressing your argument – I have to make some assumptions so maybe I am wrong.
But I am guessing that you are saying these funds are coming from money to improve military buildings owned by the government ?
If they are “privatized” then either ownership was transfered or there was some kind of contract for services.
If these buildings are privately owned – it is not governments job to maintain them.
If they are not inhabitable and being privately rented those renting them – government ? should move out.
If these are public facilities and the government had a private contract.
Either the private party defaulted on the contract, or the government wrote a bad contract.
Regardless, you can not get to what you where you are trying to go.
Though I will note that the most egregious private conduct occurs when private parties provide services to government.
Again a reason for limiting government
There are two issues.
One, what projects are being.impacted. This article states housing and health facilities. I have heard other projects other than those listed here, but dont find links to articles.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/02/14/what-base-projects-lose-out-if-trump-uses-military-money-to-build-his-wall/
The second issue is some of the substandard housing is homes on bases that are owbed by private companies. The military ignores residents complaints and the contractor ignores complaints. SUPPORT THE TROOPS, BUT SCREW THEM WHENEVER POSSIBLE!
Damn government!
There are 200,000 houses on military bases.
Presuming there is $2B/yr that is allocated for work on those – that is 10K/house per year.
That sounds pretty unreasonable to me.
Recap of Prez Incoherent’s Interview
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/15/trump-announces-national-emergency-in-bizarre-white-house-appearance.html
Or you could just listen to the interview rather than someone else’s oppinion of it.
Trump Intention:
Take from Military funds to build a stretch of fencing?
& Republicans will go along with it!
https://twitter.com/aaronblake/status/1096498984204546048?s=21
I beleive Byron york did an anaylisi of what appears to be Trump’s intentions.
As I understand this is Trump’s plan.
FIRST spend the 1.37B that congress allocated to the wall.
Next spend I beleive it is 900M in funds from asset forfeiture that existing legislation directs to ICE and CBP to spend as they see fit.
Next to spend about the same amount from the DoD budget of funds SPECIFICALLY allocated for border security.
NONE of this requires a declaration of emergency.
All of it is fully within the normal powers of the president.
Congress can prevent Trump from doing any of these things. But they would have to pass legislationt hat would get through the senate. and past a presidential veto.
Alternately they can be more specific about the use of those funds in the NEXT budget.
The LAST thing Trump is doing is spending DoD funds that are available to hin in the event of a national emergency. Trump has declared that emergency to start the ball rolling – demcrats are expected to object. It is likely that it will go to the 9th circuit and Trump will lose, it will then go to SCOTUS where it is likely that Trump will win.
As York pointed out Trump is going to win – specifically because Congress has already given him money for border security. Every item above – over $4B in funds does NOT require declaring a national emergency.
Equally important every one DOES represent money AUTHORIZED by congress for border security. Those authorizations constitute a prima fascia case that congress already accepts that their is an emergency. This fight will not pivot on whether their is an emergency – but over whether congresses grant of DoD funds to be used in an emergency is broad enough to cover this. It is highly likely Trump will win that.
I still do not support Trump declaring an emergency to do this. While he IS actually complying with the letter of the law. And Pelosi is wrong when she claims that democrats can use gun control as an emergency in the future. It is still opening the door to something that will just expand under future presidents.
Trump should not do this – not because it is not lawful – the more I learn the more clearly it is lawful. Trump has not pulled this out of his hat. Congress has actually authorized every penny he is looking to spend on the wall. And they have authorized that all of it can be spent on border security generically. and almost $5B of it can be spent without declaring an emergency. That part I have zero problem with.
Even the emergency funding is still being spent within the confines of what congress earmarked it for.
Trump is taking advantage of the fact that congress does NOT typically micromanage the budget. Someone in the WH has gone through the entire budget looked for every dollar that is earmarked for “border security” in the most generic way, and Trump has scooped all of it up for a wall.
That is actually in his power.
If it should not be – change the law.
Dave is exactly right here. The Constitution does not give the president the right to appropriate $$. But Congress passed a law in the 1970’s that specifically gave any president the power to designate funds to address a national emergency.
The president needs to define the emergency, and then certain budgets become available for use. The Congress can pass a resolution opposing the emergency. And the president can veto it. And Congress can override his veto.
Obama dictated DACA without any justification at all. Just did it. And the Democrats cheered.
I’m sure that the Dems had it in their mind to use the National Emergencies Act to address climate change and gun control, as soon as they had another Democrat president. They’re just pissed that Trump did it first, because it will make it harder for them to justify the same thing. But they’ll leave the law in place, and argue that Trump’s emergency isn’t as good as their emergencies.
Republican Senator Mike Lee has already said that Trump is acting lawfully, but that Congress should repeal the law that allows this presidential power.
What are the chances that any Democrats will support the bill that Lee proposes? I say slim and none, They don’t care about the Constitution…they just care that it’s not a Democrat who is wielding the power.
“They’re just pissed that Trump did it first, because it will make it harder for them to justify the same thing.”
Er, you have it backwards, Pricilla.
It will make it EASIER because Trump is setting the precedent.
Exec Orders for climate and guns sure to follow in next Dem’s first term.
I understand that that is the narrative, Jay. I just don’t believe it. The EO’s were gonna happen either way. See how many Democrats support a bill to restrict executive authority. My guess is…ze
Whoops. Typing on a phone is definitely not in my skill set. Anyway, Democrats won’t restrict executive overreach. They’ll just bitch about it when Republicans do it.
Trump did NOT do this first, as best as I can tell Woodrow Wilson did.
If not – some president prior to him.
Regardless, as I understand it there are currently 31 open national emergencies, most of which are quite stupid. Most of which most of us have never heard of.
Yes, D’s can use this as a precident – and that is one reason Trump should not do this.
But on several occasions Obama did more egregious things – without declaring a national emergency. Turley used Obama’s Billions in subsidies to insurance companies as an example.
No funding from congress.
No declaration of emergencies. Just Obama writing checks without authority until the courts stopped him.
Or DACA – which I mostly agree with, it was still accomplished outside the law.
Worse still – Obama had a bipartisan immigration deal on the table – and he walked away to go it on his own.
No one is more responsible for the current political warfare than Obama.
Trump was elected because of this.
Priscilla;
Thank you.
I am not “right”
This is not about being right.
What is being done is WRONG, or atleast the wrong way to do it.
But it is legal.
The FACTS, and the LAW is that Trump can do this.
I strongly suspect that the ranting about rat infested buildings will die out as nonsense over time.
Does the federal government really have 8B in rat infested buildings that need to be dealt with each year ?
If so there is something very much wrong.
Regardless, this is not about being “right”.
The facts and law are what they are.
I am fully with Sen. Lee CHANGE THE LAW,
At the bottom of this – as always, is Not Trump is an actual evil totalitarian.
But Trump is doing something that some do not like.
Innarguably Obama was more lawless than Trump. More totalitarian/authoritarian.
The military funds trump is using are budgeted for BORDER SECURITY.
You have no idea where the funds will come from, as of this morning NOBODY of authority in the Trump misadministration has specified that.
If I’m wrong, link to the proof.
If I’m right, STFU and stop posting your own misguided opinion.
Clarification: the money Trump wants to use via his Natl Emergency WILL NOT COME from MILITARY FUNDS already set aside.
And Trump HASNT USED 3/4 Of the original congressional funding to extend/repair border fencing.
And give Shanahan a call and tell him he’s not on the same page as you:
“Acting Sec of Defense Shanahan just told reporters he hasn’t determined if there is a military necessity for a border wall or how much money Defense will even spend. Shanahan said he hasn’t yet spoken to President Trump.
Shanahan might want to read the constitution – there is no provisions anywhere in the constitution for the secretary of defense to make decisions of any kind.
Absolutely all federal executive power is vested in the president constitutionally.
Any authority excercised by anyone else in the executive – cabnet member or janitor is delegated by the president.
If the president has determined something – that is the end.
You are free to attempt to persuade.
But if there is an impasse – you must either do as you were asked or resign.
None of this should surprise you.
As FDR famously said “in our system we have one president at a time”.
Shanahan is not president. There is no reference to Sec. Def in the constitution.
He has no authority that is not Trump’s.
“You have no idea where the funds will come from, as of this morning NOBODY of authority in the Trump misadministration has specified that.”
Apparently the numerous editorials I have read on this are just making it up.
I beleive that Trump speficied in his press conference.
Regardless, the specific dollar amounts and where they are comming from in the budget have been published from several sources.
I may have the exact amounts wrong.
But the money is still coming from 4 places in the budget.
#1 the amount that was specifically allocated to borader walls/fences in the budget deal.
I beleive that is 1.37B
#2 Drug asset forfeiture money that was previously appropriated to ICE/CBP without being specific about its use.
Challenging that is going to be damn near impossible
#3 Money in the DoD budget specifically earmarked for Border Security.
That too will be difficult to challenge.
#4 Money allocated in the DodBudget for emergency use – with the list of applicable emergencies including boarder security.
Only #4 requires a declaration of a national emergency.
My recallection from the sources I have read is that the sum without #4 is over 4B.
Further the administration has already anounced that they are spending the funds in the order I listed them above.
They are doing this because the list is in order from the hardest to challenge to the easiest.
By announcing the order they preclude the 9th circuit from issuing a broad injunction stopping construction of the border wall without ruling in a way that will near certain be immediately overturned by SCOTUS.
You want linkes – go to RCP – they have been addressing this for days.
“If I’m wrong, link to the proof.”
If you are wrong – you should appologize for ranting without checking your facts first.
If you are going to accuse someone of LYING – then the burden to be sure of your facts falls on you.
Much of the time I provide cites.
If we all want to get together and set a new rule that requires a link to a citation for any assertion of fact – I would be ecstatic.
. “If I’m right, STFU and stop posting your own misguided opinion.”
And if you are wrong ? What should the consequence be for accusing someone else of LYING ?
CNBC has a list here that is more detailed than mine
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/heres-where-the-money-for-trumps-border-wall-will-come-from.html
To be clear – I do not agree with the some of the whitehouse remarks quoted.
The president is not free to spend money as he wishes so long as he informs congress.
About $4B of what is proposed does not require the declaration of an emergency. That includes SOME of the DoD funds.
Everything he is looking to spend is either specifically be allocated for border security, or is broadly allocated with border security provided as a possible use.
Trump is actually being pretty conservative in this.
Congress can prevent the president from spending on the wall. But to do so they must be more specific in their budgeting.
This may be a 1 time Gambit for Trump.
It is unlikely that House Democrats will pass budgets with broad language in the future.
Although that would require them to pass a budget which democrats have not done in decades.
If Pelosi can not get a budget passed in 2019 – then either there will be a shutdown or Democrats favorite tool – a continuing resolution and CR’s basically authorize continued spending according to the last budget passed.
There are things democrats can do to stop this, but it is going to be difficult.
They would have to accutally pass a budget – and get it past the senate.
Or they would have to add a “no wall funding” to any CR and get that past the senate.
So that I am clear hear.
I have no problems with any of the spending that Trump is doing without declaring an emergency – that is about $4B.
I beleive that he has a strong legal case for the declaration of emergency – but it is a large political mistake that we will pay for in the future.
Pelosi is mostly wrong – democrats could not do gun control that way.
Trump is taking advantage of all the flexibility he can find in the existing budget – that makes this much harder for D’s to win at SCOTUS.
At the same time, using a declaration of emergency this way sets a bad precident and it WILL be abused even worse in the future.
I would however note this is MORE legal and constitutional than DACA.
There is a difference between What Trump CAN do and what he SHOULD do.
He CAN do this. There are several articles out regarding presidential national emergencies – going all the way back to Woodrow Wilson.
They are near universally stupid. I think one pundit noted there are something like 31 national emergences in effect right now.
I have read some examples – MOST are far stupider than this.
I OPPOSE this. Reading about them – I oppose probably 90% of the “national emergencies”.
The fundimental issue with “the wall” is that as much as I think that Democrats should Give Trump what he is asking, this should be resolved between congress and the president not by fiat. I have far less problem with shutting down the government.
I think I might change party affiliation and vote in the democrat primary and vote for Beto.
He supports my position. If the wall does no good, and if it is immoral as stated by Queen Nancy, then its time to get rid of all if it. Lets support Nancy and her fellow California progressives.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6707687/Beto-ORourke-says-tear-Trumps-wall-existing-barriers-Mexico-border.html
Beto For President!
Another Trump fabrication: “Trump Says South Korea Is Paying $500 Million More for U.S. Troops. The Deal Says Otherwise.”
“The claim contradicted the terms of a cost-sharing deal South Korea and the United States signed on Sunday after months of contentious negotiations. Under the one-year deal, this year South Korea will pay 1.04 trillion won, or $925 million, an increase of $70 million from last year’s $855 million.”
If you like your doctor you can keep them.
If you like your insurance you can keep it
Read my lips no new taxes,
I did not have sex with that woman.
Benghazi was a spontaneous protest of an internet video.
Trump exagerate – so what.
Many wrongs DO NOT make a right, dummy.
Jay, I want to know the answer to Daves comment also. Yes, two wrongs dont make a right, but why is Trump’s ” mexico will pay for the wall” worse than ” if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”.
In my estimation, lieing to someone about their doctor and insurance and keeping that is a hell of a lot worse than.lieing about who is going to pay for a wall.
But those on the left had no problem with people losing their insurance, their doctor not being part of the program, all while every politician involved with PPACA knew full well some insurance and some doctors would not participate!
On a scale of 1 – 10, I rate the PPACA an 8 on severity, while Bill Clinton’s ” I did not have sex with that woman” a 4, along with Trump’s wall lie.
Much better response than mine.
I did not have sex with that woman was less than a 4.
Lying about it under oath twice, and getting someone else to lie under oath is 3 10’s.
Cohen generates more lies, entangling WH lawyers:
“Cummings named Sheri Dillon and Stefan Passantino as the two attorneys who might have made false statements to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), citing documents the committee obtained from the office.
Dillon did not immediately respond for comment. Attempts to reach Passantino were unsuccessful.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/15/congress-michael-cohen-hush-money-1173167
I can not find anything of substance in this.
The article does not make clear whether it is refering to private attorneys or government attorneys and that is extremely important.
Trump’s private attorneys do not fall under the authority of OGE or congress.
Trump’s government attorney’s serve Trump as President – they would be barred from addressing the actions of Candidate Trump.
Requirements of candor of private attorney’s is narrowly confined to formal tribunals, and is an ethics violation punishable by the bar, not law enforcement.
The communications between an attorney and a client is priviledged.
If as in this case Cohen claims to have been working for Trump – he is bound by priviledge not to discuss his representation of Trump without Trump’s permission.
The so called crime/fraud exception is NARROW – a court must find it for each and every individual question an attorney is asked.
This is actually extremely well established law. An attorney can not testify about their client, without the permission of the client or the court, the courts permission is limited to the specifics that violate priviledge.
Nor is any communication between an attorney and a client “obstruction” EVER.
Trump can have met secretly with Putin dozens of times to plot the over throw of the US government, and he can tell his attorney that he did so, and the attorny can not tell anyone – so long as the attorney did not themselves participate in the actual crime.
Further the attorny can tell the court – that Trump did NOT do what he knows that Trump did. and that is still perfectly legal – under NARROW circumstances it MIGHT be an ethics violation.
The communications of an attorney are NOT testimony. they are nearly always hearsay or argument. An attorney can not be a witness against their client.
Attorneys are not under oath. As I said – they are not testifying.
Even US 1001 is not going to apply to an attorney – or anyone who is not a FACT WITNESS.
I am guessing these attorney’s are Trump’s private attorneys.
If they are actually “white house” attorney’s they are not permitted to have any involvement in things that do not involve Trump as president.
Regardless, this all appears to be Cummings mangling the law badly
There is nothing here.
I love it when GS gets screwed: “On the very same day that Amazon.com Inc. announced that Long Island City, New York, would be half of its new headquarters, Goldman Sachs signed a massive real estate deal less than a mile away, Bloomberg reports.
The timing was an “absolute coincidence,” said Margaret Anadu, the head of Goldman Sachs’s Urban Investment Group, who was the real estate transaction coordinator on the $83 million apartment complex deal, in Hunter’s Point South. “I didn’t think New York was in the running, much less Long Island City.”
“I didn’t think New York was in the running, much less Long Island City.” LMAO
Wall money isn’t Monopoly Money Trump:
“Military construction funds are also used for improvements to housing, roads, hospitals and other facilities, and can be used to eliminate mold or other hazardous problems at military installations in congressional districts across the nation and around the globe, The Associated Press reported.”
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/02/15/trump-declares-emergency-border-opens-battle-over-using-dod-funds-wall.html
He also may go after money destined for the Cyber Security Command, Sorry, no link.
As is typical – Trump does something – and the left goes batshit – claiming “people will die”.
Time passes and no one dies.
Unfortunately TDS still reigns.
I am not particularly concerned about where Trump gets the money from.
To be concerned I would have to beleive government does something useful with its spending.
Ron claims that this proves we need regulation.
I would offer this proves that government spending is wasteful.
I really wish the sequester was still in place.
Little is more effective at getting government to stop wasting money, than to have to do a task with less money.
I would ask you how did all these problems that the Money Trump is taking come about ?
Magic ? Or government mistakes.
If government ownes these facilities – why did it let them get so bad.
If government does not – why did it rents them in the first place.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/15/trump-use-military-construction-funds-build-wall-1180009
This has little to do with support of or opposition to Trumps border national emergency.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story?id=60294693
Other than a loophole big enough for an aircraft carrier to be piloted through giving unconstitutional powers to the president, what the hell do those 31 national emergencies have to do with “national” emergencies?
What Trump has been able to do is show the amount of power the president has that they should never have been given!
O remain oppoesed to using a declaration of a national emergency for this.
Except this is actually a SMALLER thing, this is little different from DACA
While I beleive this is actually constitutional and legal *because Congress made it legal)
It should not be.
My concern is not about this. This is small potatoes relatively speaking.
We have seen inumerable instances where one parties stupid overreach was abused farther by the other shortly after.
Pelosi is wrong that D’s can just do gun control this way.
Partly because the courts will not let them, and partly because the outrage over building a wall is TINY compared to the response to gun control.
But it will result in something stupid that is worse in the future
As to the “legality”
Here is an article in Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shutdown-challenges-legal/legal-challenges-to-trump-emergency-declaration-face-uphill-battle-idUSKCN1Q500D
I absolutely oppose the type of tax incentives that NY was looking to dis out to amazon.
But anyone who thinks Amazon going elsewhere is good for NYC is an idiot.
Studies have been done of Walmart openings – and Walmart is tinu compared to AHQ2
It is marginally true as the left claims that a new Walmart negatively impacts the businesses that provide the same goods as Amazon – but it is a benefit to the community – because consumers pay less for more alue. It does provide jobs – not only Walmart Jobs but a wide assortment of ancilliary jobs.
Both jobs in businesses that arise to support the Walmart and jobs in businesses that spring up because Walmart has generated activity.
On Net more small business OPEN when a Walmart moves in than close.
But an Amazon HQ is several orders of magnitude more consequential.
In addition to Amazon itself – as is noted in the article – this would amplifiy NYC’s attractiveness and a Tech Hub
And whatever you might claim – right now NYC is NOT a tech Hub.
The net effect on the country will be neutral – Amazon is going somewhere.
But the effect on NYC is bad.
Further this decreases significantly the odds any other major business thinks about moving to NYC
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/amazon-s-valentine-s-day-breakup-n-y-may-cause-n971841
It is unfortunately unlikely anything will come of this
But I would remind you that I have been saying this is what happened and the left has been claiming no – it was just a joke.
Maybe McCabe is lying to hype his book.
Though I am not sure why someone under criminal investigation lies in a way to make it worse.
But then I clearly do not understand McCabe.
So lets take this from the top.
In March 2017 (or July 2016). DOJ/FBI Already knew there was no Trump/Russia Collusion.
We are talking about an attempted coup.
McCabe has just admitted that the Mueller investigation was born from a coup attempt.
Here is a president I like.
https://www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2019/02/14/10_reasons_to_love_silent_cal_413.html
Someone is lying.
But in All versions McCabes actions are criminal.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/430053-graham-states-interest-in-rosenstein-testimony-after-mccabes-25th
You know where I stand on this. We most likely will never know because it is a he said /he said issue and Rosenstein will lie to cover his ass or McCabe will lie to cover his.
So those leaning left will believe Rosenstein and believe he is allowing Mueller to conduct an appropriate investigation. Those, like me, will believe Rosenstein provided Mueller an open ended authorization “to get” Trump. His authorization was not like Starr’s who went back to Reno for authorization to investigate sexual misconduct and lies when issues separate from Whitewater was uncovered. And on January 16, 1998 Janet Reno, the US Attorney General, approved Starr’s request for an expansion of the inquiry to include the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. Starr did not have free reign as does Mueller.
Remember, Rosenstein was reported to have talked about the 25th amendment back in the summer so this is just not McCabe talking about it now.
It does not matter that two people are telling slightly different stories.
Despite the fact that Rosenstein is denying having said what McCabe claims he said – or I think more accurately Rosenstein is denying saying what McCabe claims he said seriously.
James Baker has also testified to this.
Further I do not think the left will beleive Rosenstein.
I think the left will beleieve McCabe and beleive that he was somehow justified.
McCabe has elaborated further today – and he has essentially said – because we disagreed with Trump over policy, and because we did not trust Trump to follow our policy rather than his – we opened a criminal investigation of Trump.
“It does not matter that two people are telling slightly different stories.”
It will make no difference, but it should matter. You read my comment, you know where I stand on Mueller. You know I think this is gone way over the line. You know I think Rosenstein and Mueller are in this to “get Trump” in any way possible. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it until they impeach and try Trump for Russian collusion!
So far its others who have something to hide that are getting caught up in lies. If Mueller was finding these things and turning them over to the “rightfully” authorized agencies to investigate when issues are found, I would have no problems with that either. If the FBI is investigating a kidnapping and they find no kidnapping occurred, but they found evidence of domestic violence, do they continue investigating or do they turn that over to LEO’s?
Those on the left will say “full steam ahead, damn the constitution”. I can’t take that stance.
“That’s my story and I’m sticking to it until they impeach and try Trump for Russian collusion!”
If Mueller has found incontrovertible evidence of Trump money laundering for Russia, you O.K. with impeaching him for that? Or he has found evidence Trump’s son-in-law was in collusion with them or other foreign entities, and Trump obstructed justice to protect him, do you want Trump removed from office for that?
I don’t know why it is so hard for some individuals to understand my position on these issues. Ken Starr went back to Janet Reno and asked for authorization to investigate sexual misconduct. Reno went back to the courts are received authorization to proceed.
Now you show me proof (documented proof, not some tweet someone posted), that Mueller has gone back for authorization to expand his investigation from the Russian investigation and he has received that through the Attorney Generals office, into all these things you are listing.
I could be wrong, but I believe that Mueller has complete authority to dig for anything under the “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”, and that is where I completely disagree with this investigation. When you have people, Rosenstein , McCabe and Mueller, who’s desired outcome is to “get Trump” in any way possible, there will be things found, but at what cost to the constitution?
So let me asked you this. If this is not a “get Trump” investigation, but is a “get anyone involved with crimes around the Trump administration” then why isn’t Sessions wrapped up in these proceedings. Why isn’t Jeff Sessions named in all these issues due to his meeting with the Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak in 2016. Isn’t that even closer to collusion than all these other issues?
I understand you desire to support Mueller and to get Trump and anyone involved with him. I don’t support that position at the expense of following decades of legal precedence.
Rosenstein/Mueller didn’t have to go to the court for approval – the precedent for expanding the investigation had already been established, as you noted.
The 3-Judge Panel that authorized Starr’s sexpanded (play on ‘expanded’) investigation into the blow-job granted the following additional authorizations:
“”(3) The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate related violations of federal criminal law, other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction, including any person or entity who has engaged in unlawful conspiracy or who has aided or abetted any federal offense, as necessary to resolve the matter described above.
“(4) The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate crimes, such as any violation of 28 U.S.C. 1826, any obstruction of the due administration of justice, or any material false testimony or statement in violation of federal criminal law, arising out of his investigation of the matter described above.”
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/29/orders/
You need to stop using that red herring excuse to denigrate the independent counsel’s authority to similarly expand the Trump admistration investigation, Ron. You’re just plain wrong to use that false faux flag of criticism. (Nice illeration, Yes? 😎)
Why should I stop using that as a “red Herring” The directive states right at the beginning “the following matters be referred to Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr and to the Office of the Independent Counsel as an expansion of prosecutorial jurisdiction in lieu of the appointment of another Independent Counsel pursuant to 593(c)(1):”
“as an expansion of prosecutorial jurisdiction in lieu of the appointment of another Independent Counsel pursuant to 593(c)(1):”
Is that not what I said they did? Ask for and received authorization to expand?
Jay, you are fine with government running willy nilly over what ever person appears to be doing something illegal. I am not. I want investigations to be targeted, not shotgun investigations. If someone has a search warrant, I want it specific to the search. If someone is wiretapped, i want it specific to the investigation and be based on the wiretap leading to information relevant to the investigation. If the police stop you in the middle of the night on a road, I want them to have probable cause to search your car for illegal substances, not because your black, Hispanic or white male with long hair, beard and tattoos. And if a President is accused of a crime, I want the investigation to focus on that crime just like any other limits are placed on any other investigation. This “and matters turned up in the investigation” is a bunch of legal crap that allows unlimited, unfettered and unacceptable investigations.
You don’t agree, so lets leave it at that. You accept that if you investigate someone long enough and hard enough, you will find a crime that they can be charged with. I understand that, but that is far from my acceptance of law enforcement.
Sorry, so lets stop debating because we are getting no where because both our minds are closed.
This is want I want.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Anytime you talk about Independent Counsel Law – YOU are raising a red herring.
The IC law expired.
The supposedly WEAKER and more constitutional SC law replaced it.
Mueller has gone far beyond what Starr did.
Regardless, the IC law is NOT the SC law.
The SC law has a similar weaker provision.
Though as a matter of law and comon sense,
If you are investigating a robery and uncover a murder – you do not ignore the murder.
The question is NOT whether unrelated crimes that are exposed will be investigated – but by whom.
If Mueller found evidence that Trump raped a 3 year old – I would impeach him in a second.
Mueller can not find incontrovertible evidence of Trump money laundering for Russia.
Beleiving otherwise requires so many misunderstandings of reality and the law it is ludicrous.
Money laundering is the conversion of illegally obtained money into legal money.
Russia is a sovereign nation – they make their own laws.
All money that Putin wants to be legal IS.
You can not “money launder” for Russia without DEFYING putin and your argument is that Trump is serving Putin.
despite Trumps disturbing bromance with Putin, Putin has never had anything important to offer Trump that he badly wanted. and Trump njever had anything Putin wanted.
Are you really going to try to claim that Trump Tower Moscow – was more important to Trump than being president ?
And if Putin and Trump were in league – why isn;t the Moscow Trump tower under construction ?
Putin either said no, or had nothing to do with it.
What he clearly did not do was say yes.
But he said yes to U1 and to clinton’s 1/3M speaking fee.
Ron
I do not “disagree” with you.
MY Point is that giving Rosenstein and McCabe the benefit of every doubt.
Resolving their inconsistancies by pretending they are there.
the result is still DAMNING.
McCabe is evil. His conduct in the FBI – long before Trump and outside of politics was reprehensible. I have no sympathy for him and do not trust him at all.
Rosenstein I am less sure about.
I KNOW he is wrong. But I am less sure that this is political for him.
McCabe beleives in what is good for Andy McCabe.
Rosenstein I think thinks he is doing the right thing.
Rosenstein is probably the greater danger.
Because people who think they are doing good when they do evil, people we have more trust of are much more dangerous.
Ron, old buddy, I am afraid that you have got what ails TNM backwards. What is harming TNM for you seems to be exactly the posters who are speaking up about the actual problem. But the problem is not something that has a cure. So, its a perpetual cycle. Many have been driven away in the 11 years I have been here who were reasonable persons of actually moderate persuasion and its due to the fact than fanaticism reigns here in the form of one poster.
I’ve participated in a few internet discussion forums in my time, some about tennis, one about the Act60 law in Vermont and I can say that every such forum has its Dave who takes over and ruins it. They (the forums) all were eventually simply shut down.
Its natural, I guess, that this happens. Argumentative behaviors by unreachable fanatics that don’t work in the solid world work very effectively on internet forums. Fanatics (and they are always hyperactive) are invulnerable and invincible in these forums. To enter one of these forums is to enter their playground. These people find their home online as surely as people like trump and AOC find twitter. This is their turf and reasonable people have no traction on it.
Jay, dduck, my advice to you is to do what so many have done over the years here, realize that the Daves of the world will always be the king of the hill on internet forums due to their fanaticism, lack of normal boundaries of behavior, and hyperactive energy and there is nothing one can do about it. To try to change this is falling into a trap, you will be entertaining him forever at your own cost in mental energy. Leave him to yammer without your opinions to yammer about. Otherwise too large a part of your mind becomes shaped by an inane useless battle with a funhouse mirror. Your mind will return to its healthy state pretty fast when you stop playing the losing game. It won’t matter a bit to the solid world, nothing is truly lost in retreat from this stage, this is simply a virtual reality show here controlled by an incurable loonie.
Roby – In my younger athletic years at the end of my work-out exercise routine I would punch at a hanging heavy bag. No matter how hard or long you punched it, the stolid heavy bag did not change shape, and at the end of the session it hung at the same position as when I started. Nevertheless, it was a wonderful stress reliever to punch the hanging bag, especially when imagining some villain of the moment in its shape, and coupling solid contact with grunted curses.
For me You-Know-Who is an equivalent phlegmatic mental punching bag. Verbal jabs, undercuts, and KO punches won’t change him, but the factual counter-punches couple with verbal ad hominems are stress-release satisfying. 🥊
Facts logic and reason are like heavy bags.
No matter how hard you hit them you can not change them.
Insults do not change things.
If the long line of insults you post make you happy – good for you.
But they accomplish nothing.
No does liking to the latest neo-con tweet.
If you think you are factually counter-punching – I can recomend a good shrink you are delusional.
Again facts are not changed by insults or #nevertrump tweets.
I. handle the king of the hills differently. I ignore them. But it is hard to ignore so many responses when they start out with personal attacks calling out the king of the hill.
So maybe I am the outlier here and need to move on to something else.
Roby. when I can I say: “Illegitimi non carborundum”, to hogs because sometimes they get slaughtered. I try to wear them down as best I can, although Dave is a tough one. See, I can compliment bad behavior.
So in your world – fallacy and ad hominem are virtuous ?
But the excercise of freedom in a way that does not involve force or interfere in your rights – that is somehow wrong.
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind…”
J.S Mill
Good article.
https://www.arcamax.com/politics/mod/scottrasmussen/s-2176675?ezine=628
That is an interesting article, Ron.
“On immigration, ScottRasmussen.com polling shows that 79 percent of all voters believe illegal immigration is bad for the nation. Yet 59 percent of Democrats say they’d be likely to vote for a candidate advocating open borders.”
I assume that you’d find similar figures regarding late term abortion.
Last year’s Harvard-Harris poll asked this question:
“Do you favor secure borders or open borders?”
68% of Democrats favored secure borders.
32% of Democrats favored open borders.
BUT those are the Effective Base Results, including those who answered one way or the other, but excluding the Weighted Base number of those participants who didn’t have an opinion- about 30% of the total base.. Therefore only about 20% of Dems favored open borders in that poll.
And as far as I know, no major Democratic Senator or Representative has come out in favor of open borders, but MANY have reaffirmed they’re for secure borders.
The polling numbers are here, but you have to scroll way down to get to the immigration topics
Click to access Final_HHP_Jan2018-Refield_RegisteredVoters_XTab.pdf
So the question of democratic law makers is do you support more than rhetorical border security ?
Regardless the core under your revalations is that polls measure response to words and they do so with little value weighting.
How many democrats value burder security sufficient to impliment effective border control.
I would further suggest that there is a disconnect between Democratic politicians and democratic voters. Though not one easily exploited.
All of the issues that republicans think of as assuring the blessings of government on citizens. Democratic politicians see as a threat to their survival.
Issues like border security,
Voter Idea,
Identifying citizenship on the census.
Voter fraud.
The wall
One these and numerous other issues democratic politicians are at odds with ordinary democrats. There is no pelosi voter that is going to vote republican because Pelosi is on the wrong side of these issues.
But there are alot of republican and moderate voters who may make their voting choice on these issues.
Ron, yes the Dems could blow it again. Why, I ask. Are they that stupid or can’t they run their party without slipping questions to one candidate and tripping others.
I also can’t understand so many Reps supporting Trump, so I guess it must be me, but then again, I am not the tribal type..
“I also can’t understand so many Reps supporting Trump, so I guess it must be me, but then again, I am not the tribal type.”
Well one reason might be Reps got screwed because there were too many egos that thought they wznted to be president and did not understand the impact of spreading votes over too many candidates, thus resulting in voters that crossed over or were part time voters giving Trump enough support to grab the nomination. And now the choice is between a bad GOP candidate and totally unacceptable candidates on the left.
It comes down to a choice between what we have now or PPACA on steroids and Obama pen and paper regulations multiplied. I would much prefer a different Republican/Libertarian, but there is absolutely no way I can ever vote for one of the liberals running today.
Thanks Ron.
Ron/duck, I think that Trump benefited not only from the large GOP field, but from the general Clinton fatigue among Democrat voters.
But more than those two factors, I think that Hillary, and the Democrats in general, failed to give the voters any reason to vote for her. Her campaign platform was, essentially, “I am not Donald Trump.” Compare that to “Make America Great Again,” promises to build a wall, renegotiate NAFTA, get us out of a blatantly unfair climate agreement, repeal and replace O-care, etc.
Hillary was generally disliked, believed to be corrupt, didn’t bother to campaign in states like Wisconsin, and gave voters no reason to vote for her. Trump was flying around the country, rallying for his MAGA platform, reminding voters of how much they disliked Hillary. and how many of their priorities had been ignored by the Obama administration.
For some reason, Democrats seem now to have decided that Americans want socialism. So, this time, it looks as if we’ll may have an election between, Trump’s platform and a candidate who supports unrestricted immigration and the Green New Deal (free stuff for everyone, raise taxes and print more money!! We too can be Venezuela!). If that happens, I can see someone like Howard Schultz getting a very big share of the popular vote, maybe even some electoral votes.
“the Democrats in general, failed to give the voters any reason to vote for her.“
To refresh your memory, more voters voted for her than voted for Dope Donald.
Only because of CA and NY, Jay. There’s a whole other country out there!
Yo, Duckie.. Pricilla doesn’t want the voters in your state or mine to count
And she forgot the other 18 or so states Clinton won, and states like Florida & Pennsylvania & Michigan & Wisconsin where she lost by only 1% to 2%. Trump lied his way through the primaries and election (would he have been nominated if he said taxpayers would have to pay for his Wall, or that he may not release his taxes, etc etc etc?).
Trump indeed has MAGA-ed the US: Made America Gross Again. And in 30 or 40 years if the nation still exists the survivors will look back at MAGA hats with the same shrug of disbelief as we do now at KKK hoods and blackface.
Today is President’s Day in America Under National Emergency Warning: Trump is confronting the emergency on the golf course…
Jay, have you asked your elected officials to propose a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college? Seems to me that Feinstein, Harris and Pelosi would be open to this suggestion.
Ron, I keep calling Feinstein and Pelosi to hook up with me for lunch ( I even offered to pick up the check) but they keep putting me off with excuses. Go figure, right?
And I don’t think there’s a snowball in hell-fire chance of that constitutional amendment ever getting passed.
Your right. Smaller states should have just as much say as larger states. Smart founders huh?
“And I don’t think there’s a snowball in hell-fire chance of that constitutional amendment ever getting passed.”
Because the people do not want what you want as badly as you do.
No, no Jay, dear. I love California and NY. I should have been more clear. If you subtract California and 4 of the 5 boros of NYC (Staten Island being the outlier), Trump won the popular vote. The thing is, when you have a state like CA, which is so populous yet votes so overwhelmingly for one party, anything over 51% just runs up the popular vote total, but has no effect on the election. The plus side for you Golden Staters is that you and NY make up about 1/3 of the Democrat representation in the House. We are still a federal republic, at least until President Kamala abolishes the electoral college, via EO 😉
Precilla, and CA having the most house seats is also inflated because 10% of their seats are due to illegal immigrants being counted in the census. How we correct this will never happen unless congress provides the fix, but Queen Nancy would nover allow that to happen under her watch.
And yes Jay, I do not think illegals should count for representation!!!!
This is what the fight over the census is about.
First if a census is complete that identifies the number of citizens in each state.
States are free to chose to redistrict based on citizens not persons.
Next the apportioning of house seats could be done – without involving congress by the number of citizens not persons.
This is why this fight is so bitter.
Democrats are not affraid that immigrants and illegals will not be counted.
They are afraid that the actual number of citizens WILL.
There are 50 states – Winning only 18 is pretty bad.
Jay that is why the founding fathers were geniuses and created the Electorial College. They knew a handful of states (at that time New York, Pennsylvania, and Mass) could control who got elected, so they created a process where each state had representation.
So now states like California where minorities can not dictate who gets elected. You can buy votes in California, like they are doing in Stockton, and Harris wants to do with her $500.00 a month give away to people making under $100,000, but people in other states see right through that and create some sense of normalcy in the country.
Not the voters she needed.
Presidents are not elected by direct vote.
Every candidate in every presidential election since the founding of the republic has known that the election is won by getting the most votes in the electoral college.
There are reasons it is set up this way – and we can debate those, and if you can persuade voters you can change the constitution.
In the mean time – Clinton lost.
She lost because she did not persuade enough voters.
You can qualify that by voters in swing states if that makes you feel better.
Priscilla is basically right. But there are so many reasons Clinton lost.
Unfortunately not one of those reasons was alone sufficient.
But all of them together elected Trump.
Democrats are playing 2020 differently.
They do not appear to have a candidate as scurulous as Clinton.
But they do have a slate of unlikeable candidates and thbose that are not unlikeable are not the front runners.
Though I find the press overage ODD.
Bidden is way ahead of the pack at the moment.
With Sanders getting half what Biden is.
After that is the field at single digits.
Yet if you listen to the media – It is Harris, Harris, Harris or Warren, Warren, Warren.
Maybe that is how things will turn out
But the press seems to be ignoring Biden and Sanders completely – and between them they have almost 50% in the polls.
Priscilla, I agree completely with your take on Clinton. But my point comes before the Clinton/Trump campaign. My issue is with Trump and the 12 dwarfs.(More than Cinderellas). When you have one candidate that consistently gets 30-35%in the first month or so of the primaries and the best anyone else can do is around 20% because 65% is being divided between 10-12 candidates, money dries up fast!
I still believe if Trump had consistently been getting 30%, Cruz had 35-40%% and Rubio 35%-40% (or a random other candidate in one of these positions), Trump would have withdrawn after SC due to two reasons. The other two candidates would have had money pouring in and Trump could not stand to be a loser as he would have been in 3-4 primaries.
And we would not be having this conversation about why Reps support Trump over leftist democrats.
Yep, lots of great states, Alabama, Mississippi, and West Virginia among em, loaded with good patriotic GOP/trump voters. Here is one of them, no one is going to take Her for California commie or a Manhattan sympathizer with Islamic fundamentalism:
https://www.wsaz.com/content/news/Clay-Co-woman-pleads-guilty-to-embezzling-more-than-18K-in-FEMA-benefits-after-flooding-505792321.html
“Yep, lots of great states, Alabama, Mississippi, and West Virginia among em, loaded with good patriotic GOP/trump voters. ”
Wow! The truth comes out with the superiority complex of the Northerners. Guess there are not any stupid people in NY, VT, CT, NH. Hillary took 100% of their vote, right?
I the left keeps pissing on the states that are not CA and NY – they can expect lots more republican victories.
For 200 years we managed fine without FEMA.
They were not there for the SF earthquake or fire or the chigago fire or the johnstown floods or myriads of other natural disasters over 200 years.
While we are getting government out of the emergency wall funding business, lets just get them out of the emergency businesss altogether.
“Wow! The truth comes out with the superiority complex of the Northerners. Guess there are not any stupid people in NY, VT, CT, NH. Hillary took 100% of their vote, right?”
Now, turn off your selective indignation and note the post above regarding the popular vote, California and New York, and the other states, which was my point. Guess what, the people who live in California and New York (and say, New Jersey, lets negate them too while we are at it) vote and when a POTUS wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote or visa versa (or in the worst worst case, Both, see Hayes vs. Tilden in 1796) there is always bitterness and for good reason. Just dismissing the fact that trump lost the popular vote because it can somehow be explained as being merely due to California and New York was well worthy of jab. I see I hit the target, which is the disdain that certain conservative types have for the people who live on the coasts, those crazy welfare hippies.
This goes back to the early elections, those involving the Adams’ are a fine example.
The implication of the above discussion was that voters in California and New York are somehow not Americans whose votes matter. Yeah, trump lost the popular vote. So, you conservatives are going to hear about that when someone claims that “the People voted” for trump or similar approximations thereof.
Is there always bitterness “and for good reason” – I am not so sure.
Only left wing nuts were fixated on the popular vote.
Trump was fixated on the swing states.
Hillary was not. Even Bill purportedly told her that she needed to go to the rust belt or she might lose.
If you spend all your time playing in front of the home crowd – the costal elites and do not bother to go out and see the rest of the country – the people who get F’d over by your policies, then you deserve to lose.
Regardless we can fight over Trump all you want.
But Clinton DESERVED TO LOSE. Which fortunately she did.
I would be very hard pressed to think of someone who would NOT be a “lessor evil”.
Trump won because voters in the swing states grasped that he was the “lessor evil”.
As offended as you might be by Trump as president – with all his faults he is a vast improvement over the likely President Hillary.
He remains an improvement over both his immediate republican and democratic predecessor.
No matter how bad you manage to make him – that just makes Obama and Bush all the worse.
Any voter who lives in a state whose election outcome is a foregone conclusion
has a vote that DOES NOT MATTER with respect to that position.
That is a fact not an insult. It is true of Alabama and it is true of NY.
Pretending otherwise does not change it.
If you live in CA and what your vote for president to matter – move to PA or OH.
You want to be insulted by the facts.
Get over it. Life is not fair. All things are not equal. All votes are not equal.
It is just how it is and you can not fix it.
If that causes your to be bitter – that is your problem.
There will never be “totally Fair” election results based on the type of country we have. We are not one large pot of people like any smaller country. We are 50 distinct units that are combined to make what we have work.
So those on the side that the electoral college is bad will say it needs to go. That the popular vote needs to be what drives the election.
On the other hand, those that support the electoral college will say everyone in the country needs a voice. In 2016, Clinton carried the popular vote by 2,868,000 votes. She had a margin of 4,270,000 votes in California. That means she lost the rest of the country by 1,900,000 votes.
If you look at the top 5 states that she carried, CA, NY, MD, IL and MA, her margin of victory was 8,500,000 votes. That is more than the total number of people voting in 12 states that Trump won..
What we have is not perfect. We will never have perfect. But from my perspective, this country is much better off with a system that gives all 50 states a voice and not discounting the votes of citizens about 24% of the states.
I agree in theory that the electoral college overall is a protection for the rights of citizens of small states. But in practice it distorts the rights of the majority.
Same is true for the Senate.
Why should Wyoming, Vermont , Alaska, and No Dakota, with a total population of about 1-million, have 8 votes for approving or denying appointments to the Federal Judiciary – including SCOTUS – and other major cabinet positions. California, approaching 40-million population, has only 2 votes.
Those special Senate powers may have worked in the original 13 States, but no longer are fair to the VAST majority of Americans spread out over 48 +2 States of an entirely different demographic.
Sorry Jay, but thats what you are stuck with. The founding fathers designed it this way and provided methods to change it if it stops working.
There is no workable method to change it.
Smaller population states will never allow that constitutional amendment.
Of course they won’t – because agreeing to most any change would relinquish what little sovereignity they have Do you think NY and CA – much less New Yorkers and Californians would give two shits how they F’d over Montanan’s if 40 M Californians got behind some ludicrously stupid idea of how things should work in Montana ?
Not only would small states not approve such an amendment – but if they miraculously did, the nation would not survive long. there is little difference beyond their ability to thwart paternalistic idiocy between the smaller states in this country and the english collonies in 1776.
The “compromise” that creater our bicameral legislature and its structure and the electoral college was and is a necescary impediment to the evils of majority rule, it is one of many – unfortunately some removed, impediments to the tyrany of the majority.
Nothing would more certainly destroy this nation quickly than for porgressives to have unfettered power.
There ya go again- not seeing the all the cards on the table.
California is first
Texas has the 2nd largest population.
Followed by Florida
Followed by Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, No Carolina.
That’s a bipartisan mix of the 10 largest population GOP & DEM states – shouldn’t those 10 largest populations have more sway than the 10 smallest when it comes to appointing SCOTUS judges who make decisions effecting the entire population?
I say yes.
Jay, there are links on the internet that you can download and manipulate the popular vote in 2016. Take a look and then look at the margin Clinton received in CA, NY IL and I believe MD. Her winning margin exceeds the total vote in I believe 12 midwestern states. So if you lived in one of those states and you knew that election after election was going to be dominated by a handful of states and what youvdid made absolutely no difference, would you keep voting? Or would you do what many in socialist dominated countries do and not vote because one party is always going to win?
If I were going to propose a constitutional amendment, it would not be to give 48% of the people (Clintons percentage) 100% say in the outcome, I would change the electoral college to distribute electors based.on how each house district voted. This would give voice to those like voters in the central valley of CA, as well as the areas around Raleign and Charlotte N.C
This sites allows for different allocations.
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/
If you choose house district allocation, the results dont change much. But I think doing that would get candidates into states like CA and TX where they could pick up electoral votes in swing districts, instead of concentrating on a handful of swing states.
You are looking at everything through a single lens – red/blue.
Obviously the proportion of republicans in the country and the proportion of democrats is very close – in fact it must be.
Please tell me that you are smart enough to understand that ?
Look at history – one part or the other has dominated REGIONALLY for long periods.
But there has been no prolonged period of actual nationwide single party dominance.
There cant be – because it is not in the interests of any party to self destruct.
Until 2016 no party was so committed to their ideology that they would long risk irrelevance.
Trump’s victory was quite simple – he determined a significant enough portion of disaffected democrats to flip the presidential outcome of 2008 and 2012. Actually it looks simple after the fact, but it was quite complex – because he also had to win a difficult republican primary.
You keep this nonsense up that Trump is stupid – but he worked this out – he started setting himself up for this probably after Obama’s 2008 victory.
Anyway skipping Trump and 2016 and parties – the real point there being that any party that is consistently losing will automatically reformulate to shift to get a larger portion of the vote.
Look at both parties – the very earliest progressives were republicans – that had shifted by the start of the 20th century. Look at the moment – Trump has pushed the republicans to a pro-tarriff pro labor position and democrats have become the neo-cons, the anti-russia pro-military party.
The parties can restructure themselves to maintain parity.
Regions and specific states CAN NOT. Farmers as an example today make up 1% of the population. Urban dwellers are a pluraity. End the electoral collage and the equal representation of states in the senate – and all pollitical power will be permanently vested in urban and maybe suburban regions.
You are the one blind to the cards on the table.
Political parties are inherently self balancing.
Dave “Actually it looks simple after the fact, but it was quite complex – because he also had to win a difficult republican primary.”
Once again I will disagree and point out the outcome of the primary nominating cycle is about over by the first week in March. When 12+ candidates are dividing 65%-70% of the vote and the one candidate that attracts the outliers and gets 30%-35% during the first 3-4 primaries causes the money to dry up for the rest.
A “difficult Republican primary” would have been Trump (white male blue collar workers and certain far right occasional voters), Cruz, (Tea Party and Christian conservatives) and Kasich (Crossover moderate democrats,women, college educated}. I suspect (no facts) Trump wouldhave been 3rd with the others something like 37% and 34% with Trump 29-30% . And the debates would have been more focused and not hand size, presidential faces, etc as I think Ted and John would have controlled the environment with the limited number on stage.
Just my continued belief we got screwed by idiot egos dividing the vote.
“Shouldn’t those 10 largest populations have more sway than the 10 smallest when it comes to appointing SCOTUS judges who make decisions effecting the entire population?
I say yes.”
That would be because you do not understand RIGHTS.
Rights are the protection the minority has from abuse by the majority.
One of the most fundimental purposes of the supreme court is the protection of the rights of minorities – whether they are blacks, or gays or rural.
It is extremely important that minority groups have DISPROPORTIONATE power in chosing those who will protect their rights.
This country was deliberately designed NOT to be a democracy. Our founders hated democracy.
They started with the model of the roman republic – which had thrived for 1000 years, and they sought to improve on that.
Just ONE of the many dangers in a democracy is whatever group is the majority will favor itself in EVERYTHING.
Absolutely the 10 largest urban areas should NOT have permanent total control of govenrment.
Good God! Large states controlling SCOTU appt’s. 8 Kagan’s and chief justice Sotomayor.
“I agree in theory that the electoral college overall is a protection for the rights of citizens”
No it is in practice
“But in practice it distorts the rights of the majority.”
There are no majority rights. There are only individual rights.
“Same is true for the Senate.”
Nope.
“Why should Wyoming, Vermont , Alaska, and No Dakota, with a total population of about 1-million, have 8 votes for approving or denying appointments to the Federal Judiciary – including SCOTUS – and other major cabinet positions. California, approaching 40-million population, has only 2 votes.”
Because all minus one applies as a principle to all issues involving rights – not just free speech.
The fact that the minority you empowered to protect individual rights is small states is not particularly important.
What is important is that government provides a wide assortment of groups that are NOT the majority a near veto of the infringement of individual rights by the majority.
“Those special Senate powers may have worked in the original 13 States, but no longer are fair to the VAST majority of Americans spread out over 48 +2 States of an entirely different demographic.”:
Not this stupid “fair” argument – there is no universal defintion of fair. In fact there is no meaningful definition.
I could care less precisely where the one person with sufficient power to say NO to 40m callifornians demand to infringe on individual rights comes from I just thank god they exist.
The objective of the electoral college and the allocation of senators was to empower the protection of minority rights – it still does that effectively today.
If anything we need more.
We should return to state legislatures appointing senators.
There is no objective standard for “fair”.
There is no inarguably correct way to run an election, and no inarguably correct way to create congressional districts.
I beleive that what our founders came up with is a good way.
It reflects my values.
But everyones values are not the same.
There is not anything inherently wrong with direct popular election.
But every means of electing a president has conseuences – both good and bad.
In my view the negative effects of direct popular election are greater than any benefits.
But no arrangement is perfect.
In the end disempowering government means the method does not matter so much.
“And yes Jay, I do not think illegals should count for representation!!!!”
Slaves did. Which gave the south an advantage.
Slaves were here legally!
Slavery remains the original sin of this country.
The problem was not that they were counted.
It was not that they could not vote.
It was that they were slaves.
“You can buy votes in California, like they are doing in Stockton, and Harris wants to do with her $500.00 a month give away to people making under $100,000, but people in other states see right through that and create some sense of normalcy in the country.”
Ah, as I thought, a shot at Californians.
As to funny votes, see that fellow named Leslie McCrae Dowless Jr. in the N. Carolina 9th district. A very creative man.
That was illegal. And that person should be cyarged with a crime. Harris is proposing something legal
Alexander Frazer Tyler… “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage. “
In NC there MIGHT have been a small amount of misconduct in handling of mail in ballots.
In NC that conduct was ILLEGAL.
In CA they actually made it LEGAL
and it was done in 2018 on a large scale.
And, to be clear, Hillary carries the responsibility, and the dem party, for a candidacy that was so pathetically bad that it lost the electoral college to the clearly unfit trump.
You are still going to hear about the popular vote loss by trump because its a real thing that is counted and is part of the result of an election. A POTUS who loses it ought to be treading lightly out of respect to the majority who did not choose him. Since that clearly is not happening, there are consequences.
Actually no – it is not a “real thing”
Just as the football team witht he most first downs and the most yards does not win the game.
The players are not on the field to gain yards. They are there to win.
And the rules require them to score points to win.
In presidential elections you score points by winning the electoral votes for a state.
The rules for that are not exactly the same in each state. You still play by the rules.
If you do not like the rules – change them.
It is always possible – in football, in politics and in life to find some measure that shows that you should have won when you lost.
Voters in CA and AL should know before going to the polls that their votes in a presidential election will not count.
If you do not like that – MOVE.
Any winning candidate should tread lightly on those who did not vote for them.
The problem is that those of you on the left seem to think that means you get to have your way even when you lose because you pissed of the rest of the country.
The “treading lightly” that you are rightly demanding means RESPECTING PEOPLES RIGHTS. There is no right to impose your will on others through govenrment by FORCE.
Most (unfortunately not all) of what Trump has done has been to push the balance towards individual rights and away from government power.
That is EXACTLY the respect that those who voted for him AND those who voted againt deserve.
What a president should NOT does is restrict the rights of those who voted against him – whether they are a majority or minority. That is real disrespect.
And that was Obama not Trump.
“Only left wing nuts were fixated on the popular vote.”
Typical. Your unfounded and unprovable opinion. You overuse this term so promiscuously that you generate bitterness yourself. A, its lost all meaning, its anyone to the left of you practically, B its obviously an insult, you insult reflexively and continuously without even thinking and then write a million words accusing others of ad hominem and forgiving yourself, C Its ironic, because speaking of nuts… But if I take the bait I will irritate the censor.
“Only left wing nuts were fixated on the popular vote.”
I should have been more clear.
Only left wing nuts were fixated on the popular vote and only AFTER the election.
“Typical. Your unfounded and unprovable opinion.”
If it is “oppinion” then it is trivial to “prove” it is my opinion and therefore tautologically it is true that it is my opinion.
But we can actually look at all the people ranting about the fact that Clinton won the popular vote and lost the election. I do not believe even the neo cons and nevertrump republicans got on board that in any consequential way.
Google still works last time I checked. I think you will find that the overwhelming majority of those ranting self identify as left.
Finally if you actually want to argue majoritarianism – I will be happy to have that argument – it is inherently totalitarian and can not work.
“You overuse this term so promiscuously that you generate bitterness yourself.”
Bizarre argument. – it is the left that constantly calls others racist, homophobes, misogynists – and hateful hating haters – if you think that did not generate “bitterness – please re-examine the 2016 election.
As to the term – In 2009 democrats got irate when their policies were called socialist.
Today most of the front runners in the 2020 presidential race either openly embrace socialism or embrace it defacto – regardless there are only a few democrats who brace at the term socialist today.
Get a clue – socialism is EXTREME, it is WINGNUT. It has a long long long history of FAILURE and BLOOD. Socialism “lite” FAILS – usually with somewhat less blood and less catastrophically.
Look that the pew data on the hollowing out of the center in the past decade.
Those on the right barely moved to the extent they did – they moved left. The center of gravity of the left moved significantly to the left. But why should anyone dispute the Pew Data – this is visible to the naked eye.
The left has “won” the culture wars. And except for the fact they are going way too far 0 I support that. barely a decade ago not a single prominent democrat would have associated themselves positively with homosexuality. Today there are very few on the right who are dug in on homosexuality. We are fighting – not over whether Trans people have rights, but over what bathroom they should use – and even then the concern is about children, not adults.
The right has shifted left – but the gulf between the left and right has widened anyway.
I would also note that while the view of democrats of Trump is bad – even democrats are not UNIVERSALLY upset with Trump I believe about 20% do not have a negative view of him.
So lets see – the people are split three ways.
Republicans at approximately 25%, democrats at 25% and the rest at 50%
the TDS noise today is mostly coming from a portion of democrats – in other words significantly less that 20% of the population – now that loud and angry group “owns” a significant chunk of the media, and dominates among democratic politicians.
So why is it you have a problem with my calling the loud angry left 10% or less of the country “left wingnuts” ?
And why is it that someone who self identifies as a moderate is inseparable from the wingnuts ?
“A, its lost all meaning,”
false – I would suggest your problem is that you see your views are uncomfortably close to the “left wingnuts”.
“its anyone to the left of you practically”
Ron is pretty much to the left of me. My arguments with Ron are sometimes vigorous.
We disagree. I have not insulted him. He has not insulted me.
There are lots of people that I disagree with that are not “left wing nuts”.
Howard Schultz is not a “left wingnut”.
“Actually no – it is not a “real thing”
Fallacy. Saying something does not exist does not make it not exist. This is your most common logical error, it permeates nearly everything you say, making your arguments false.
You can look up the popular vote for every American election. It is mentioned in every historical discussion of every election. Its a real thing. Its an inconvenient fact for you in your work as an unpaid online trump lawyer so you deny it exists and call the people who care about it left wing nuts. Typical.
This is what you like to brag is your trademark “Facts, Reason, and Logic” that others of us, being emotion-driven left-wing nuts, are so sadly deficient in.
Bzzzt, you are wrong. And voluminous denial also won’t fix your mistake.
“Actually no – it is not a “real thing”
Fallacy.
Nope – please learn what a logical fallacy is.
Fundimental misunderstandings of the basics of logic on this level are inconsistent with the education and background you have claimed to have.
“Saying something does not exist does not make it not exist.”
That is correct – but it is a testable assertion, it is also a valid part of an argument.
You can accept it as an assertion and we can move forward, or you can challenge it.
I constantly challenge you to prove most of the assertions you make – and most of them are false.
Further the burden of proof of the existence of something rests with the person asserting it, not the person challenging it.
Finally – there is absolutely no difference in logical value between
A exists,
and
A does not exist.
They are both assertions – premises. It is near certain that one is false.
Both are logically the same form – assertion/premise, But neither are fallacy.
Fallacy is not the same as an unproven assertion or premise, or even a bad argument.
Fallacy is an invalid form of argument.
It is a logical form (or more accurately an illogical form), that sidetracks logic and argument.
“This is your most common logical error, it permeates nearly everything you say, making your arguments false.”
Assertions are absolutely common in my posts AND EVERYONE ELSE’S.
There is nothing wrong with them. They are NOT error or fallacy. They permeate everything EVERYONE says. They do not make arguments false.
They are merely shorthand.
Example:
“Socailism is a failure.”
That is a premise. If you and I share acceptance of that premise – we can continue the debate with each fo us accepting that premise as true.
If you disagree with that premise, then we can address whether socialism is a failure.
I can provide other premises that I expect you to accept to prove it is, and you can do the opposite.
“The japanese attacked pearl harbor on December 7th, 1941”
is a premise/assertion, hopefully we both accept it as true.
“The problem is that those of you on the left seem to think that means you get to have your way even when you lose because you pissed of the rest of the country.”
Bzzzt, wrong. Your are wildly over-generalizing and you cannot prove your greatly overly broad argument. This is another case of you stating your unprovable opinion as if it were a fact. You have no way of knowing what all the members of a very diverse group of many tens of millions of people believe. “Those of us on the left” have a large range of views on this subject, which as matter of your opinion you choose to ignore.
If you are going to attempt to make arguments that are really based on fact, logic, and reason you will need to have much higher standards.
Its an odd set of mental habits, you constantly deny the existence of things that obviously exist and create instead a universe of so called arguments that are merely your own opinion.
“Bzzzt, wrong. Your are wildly over-generalizing and you cannot prove your greatly overly broad argument.”
Priscilla’s argument is generalized and broad – it is also true.
Many of us were not happy with the election of Obama. We grumbled and grexed.
We used legitimate means to thwart the worst of his excesses.
But only a handful of people – and no one of consequence actually challenged the legitimacy of his election.
We have spent the past 2+ years in a temper tantrum from the left that has nearly dominated the public sphere.
While the negative response to Obama as president was consequential it was not unprecidented – it was little different from the grumbling when Bush was elected or Clinton or ….
The left’s response to the election of Trump was totally completely without precedent.
We have had actually corrupt past elections that did not result in the lunacy spittle and outrage that the left has engaged in.
You want “proof” – look at the media – follow the anti-trump posts here.
Priscilla is 100% correct.
“This is another case of you stating your unprovable opinion as if it were a fact. You have no way of knowing what all the members of a very diverse group of many tens of millions of people believe. “Those of us on the left” have a large range of views on this subject, which as matter of your opinion you choose to ignore.”
What is your point ? That “The left” is an artifical construct ?
Are you denying that there are millions – probably not tens of millions that will do anything necescary to reverse the outcome of the election if they could ?
McCabe was just on 60 minutes – his tone and demeanor was rational. But his argument – though expressed calmly was an appeal to fear – he confessed to opening a criminal investigation of a sitting president based on his personal fears.
Even the “fears” he expressed – were essentially policy differences. McCabe confessed to starting a criminal investigation of the president because Trump did not share his views on the importance of Russia as a threat.
And yet my guess would be that if YOU heard him speak – you either already agreed or were persuaded.
Obama ran on a platform seeking less hostile relations with Russia. On two separate occasions during his presidency he openly and explicitly sought to diminish the degree to which we viewed Russia as a threat and to emphasize our common ground and seek to work together.
Yet the DOJ/FBI/NSA/CIA/…. did not declare war on Obama, seek to depose him, investigate him, spy on him. And YOU would have been completely (and legitimately) irate had they done so.
You and all of those who are trying to reverse the outcome of the election are beyond trying to criminalize policy differences. Trump has overall been MORE hostile to Russia than Obama. He has actively sought to thwart russia in areas that he has determined are not in the US interests. He has neither engaged in nor attempted any deals like the U1 deal with Russia.
Every single statement McCabe made about Trump and Russia – could have been made of Obama and Russia in 2009 or 2013 – with far more evidence.
Ultimately this is not about criminalizing political – which itself is heinous, it is about star chambers. it is about getting your desired outcome by any means necessary.
This is what occurs whenever you wrap yourselves in the mantel of moral superiority based on “feelings” rather than facts.
“If you are going to attempt to make arguments that are really based on fact, logic, and reason you will need to have much higher standards.
Its an odd set of mental habits, you constantly deny the existence of things that obviously exist and create instead a universe of so called arguments that are merely your own opinion.”
Sorry Robby – but the problem is yours.
We can argue about group constructs like “the popular vote”, “the left”, blacks, homosexuals.
But we should never lose sight of the fact that they are constructs – at best convenient ways of looking at or measuring things. They are not in and of themselves real.
I have an idea Jay will not believe a word in this scrpt from Sharyl Attkinssons Full Measure news show from yesterday. Most likely some will say she is just doing a hachett job on the DOJ since she was a target of investigation when she did investigative stories for CBS.
But I believe every word! Too many dont, or are not paying attention.
And toward the end, there is a quote I suspect most anyone left of center could have made given a desire to castrate Trump any way possible instead of the man who said it.
http://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/russia-probe-02-11-2019?fbclid=IwAR1I9zMm3xsp7egiEbDkFj8HChCN9bMDyz5mudTs_dd6Xp_PfzNeYLa2X4Y
I whole heartedly agree with this quote from the end, Ron:
“Hempowicz has a slightly different take— that Mueller’s probe is important and so far has proven fair. But she agrees that someone should also be unraveling any surveillance abuses.”
You also “whole heartedly agree” with “Find me the man and I’ll find the crime to pin on him.” when it comes to Trump
Right?!
Why is the Mueller probe important ?
It can not possibly prove “fair” if it is not important.
Regardless “fair” is not a relevant criteria.
Government may not act without justification.
Is it OK with you if republicans in the DOJ/FBI decide to investigate the crap out of the next democrat elected because they are affraid of them ?
Clinton has far more ties to Russia than Trump, and she has a TRACK RECORD of complicity with russians all over the place.
The most significant way in which she differs from Trump regarding Russia, is that while her actions are openly favorable, her words are those of the typical cold warrior.
Is that the standard for you ?
Words matter more than deeds ?
I can trivially concoct dozens of reasons to “fear” that Clinton is in league with putin – does that justify opening an investigation ?
I have two completely different issues with the Mueller investigation.
The first is – check the history – Mueller is a government thug.
The second is that there is no foundation for an investigation.
Yes there must be a thorough investigate of what is increasingly an coup attempt – THAT STARTED WITH OBAMA.
But it is equally important to understand that you can not use criminal abuse of power as the impetus to CONTINUE the abuse of power.
If Mueller were a choir boy doing his job delicately without bias – the investigation would still be wrong.
This is not about Trump – I do not want our government investigating ANYONE in this fashion. Relatively speaking Trump is a big boy and has the resources to defend himself.
But none of the other Mueller targets do.
Butina was locked in solitary by Mueller until she plead guilty to something the facts do not support that she did – then she was sent back to Russia.
If she was actually guilty of anything of consequence – why was she released on a plea deal ?
If she was not guilty – why did she spend a year in solitary without bail ?
The answer is because she is russian and Mueller could get away with it.
More keeps coming out all the time. I have not managed to follow it all.
Some poster here was ranting about Trump’s lawyers actions – why weren’t they “obstruction”.
We now have emails from David Kendall – Clinton’s attorney, to pretty much everyone in the DOJ/FBI – including Comey, McCabe, …
Regarding the Weiner Laptop, basically ranting about Comey’s remarks to congress, demanding that the investigation into the laptop be completed instantly and that nothing new is to be found, and Comey is to appologize to congress.
We know that immediately after that the Strzok review of purportedly 700K emails was completed in less than two days. Comey testified that it took less than a week, but it was actually slightly over 24hrs.
Comey testified that new technology allowed the FBI to do it quickly.
We now know that is false – that Strzok and his team looked at just over 7000 emails and that the remained were not examined at all – not even by software.
We also know that many more classified emails were LATER found from what was on Weiner’s laptop. How do we know this ?
Because JW has requested ALL of Clintons emails from all sources – including weiner’s latop.
We KNOW how many classified emails there were – because the FBI claims they are classified when it refuses to provide them, or because it redacts out the classified parts and identifies them as classified.
Regardless, Comey and DOJ/FBI did exactly what Kendal demanded.
Why is that not obstruction of justice ?
Of Course it isn’t – Kendal is Clinton’s lawyer – he can demand whatever he wants. He can claim whatever he wants.
The conduct of Comey & Company is Political corruption – but Kendall is Clinton’s attorney and he is not doing anything wrong.
Nor are Trump’s lawyers.
From end to end those on the left have two standards for everything.
Ron, you believe every word? I doubt that and I don’t think you believe half of what Trump says or what Obama/Hillary/Rice said.
Isn’t that nice, we have gotten so jaded and tribal that we are fed well made propaganda.
This piece appears to be well made also, BTW. I’ll believe half of it, but the overwhelming tide of mistruths is coming from the WH and ass kissing Reps.
“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”
dduck, I believe Trump after what he says has happened. Just as I believe any other candidate that runs for office and say they are going to save the nation and everyone is going to live in Utopia after they are in office.
So just like Trump building the wall and Mexico paying for it, Beto is running and saying he is going to stop Trumps wall and remove everything that is already there. Harris is saying she is going to give everyone making under $100K a year $500 a month. Others are saying Medicare for all is going to solve our healthcare reimbursement issues, just like PPACA was going to cut healthcare costs.
Jaded, yes. But I try to keep an open mind when it comes to issues we are facing, unlike those on the left that are so anti-trump they are willing to give up many protections in the justice system just to get trump. I think there are a few here one can call Jaded.
However, the more the evidence mounts that there is a movement to “get Trump at any cost”, I begin to believe that information. Unlike those that know Trump colluded with the Russians, I don’t know that Rosenstein and Mueller colluded to get Trump, but my belief in the information I see is strong enough that I support that position until it is proven wrong. But I am in a complete minority as even Fox News was defending Rosenstein and Mueller tonight on the news and saying McCabe is a complete liar, so I may be in the complete wrong on this issue.
Yes, I place a great deal of credibility on Sharly Attkinson’s reporting – and have for long before Trump was president.
Atkinson is NOT the Whitehouse. She started on the left, but getting hacked by the DOJ and FBI tends to make you a bit more conservative.
Regardless you are demonstrating the problems with appeals to authority – even negative ones.
You discount Atkinson – because she is saying the same things as the Whitehouse.
Instead you should evaluate atkinson and her story and her sources and her facts.
And if they hold up – that goes to not just Atkinson’s credit – but all those who are saying the same thing.
And your problem is – that includes the whitehouse.
Ron, I think that McCabe’s goal is to take as many people down with him as he can. He thinks that he’s been targeted as the fall guy, and that Rosenstein is the one who has targeted him, so he’s going to try and turn the tables on him. Rosenstein seems to be heading for the exits as fast as he can, so I presume that the jig is up.
Honestly, I’m amazed at the arrogant stupidity of these guys, who all seem to think that they are so smart. They seem to have no working knowledge of the Constitution, and think that the 25th amendment exists to facilitate a coup by administrative agents against a duly elected president. They think that the FBI is an “independent” organization that answers only to itself. They put themselves above the American people, and put their power above that of the US Congress, in violation of everything that American democracy stands for. They behave more like the KGB than the FBI.
Mueller has spent two years putting the screws to everyone arround Trump.
The objective – and an extremely common technique is to increase the pressure to the point where they turn on each other, he is trying to create a version of the famous “prisoners dilema”.
But he has had a problem – the prisoners dilema only works when there is a shared conspiracy and each participant has something of value to offer law enforcement in return for getting out from under the pressure.
Constructing a “prisoners” dilemma is quite immoral when applied to innocent people.
It might still work – Cohen has turned on Trump – but ineffectively, because since there was no underlying crime, there is nothing to give Mueller beyond a criminal confession to a non-crime that implicates Trump in legal activity.
Conversely as this has gone forward – those engaged in this improper criminally corrupt investigation of Trump are slowly turning on each other.
Bruce Ohr is testifying – in ways that make himself look good and those arround him cuplable. McCabe paints himself has the hero – the thoughtful white night – and throws many of those arround him under the bus. Comey offers himself as the arbiter of morality while completely blind to all his own glaring moral flaws and hypocracy.
It is actually hard to beleive that a “conspiracy” of this magnitude could occur within the top echelons of our government.
But nearly all the participants have confessed – they have argued they did nothing wrong. They wrap themselves in the universal mantel of tyrants – that it was for some greater good.
That their personal judgement trumps the law. That being right in their own minds is sufficient. That their fears justify their actions.
That justification – if accepted would justify most anything. It is easy to claim a fear based justification for anything.
Everything McCabe said about the basis for opening an investigation of Trump in 2017 could more easily have been said of Obama in either 2009 or 2013.
What you are seeing is the manifest moral failure of the left.
Robby will Rail about “the left”.
McCabe, Rosenstein, Comey, …
Are not obviously political in the traditional sense.
But they are the products of a culture and education system that has lost its moral foundations.
We are at the culmination of a trend in which the west, american exceptionalism, “make america great again” are all under attack.
This country is NOT the pinnacle of what man can achieve.
It is the pinnacle of what it HAS achieved.
There is an evolutionary thread of law, philosphy, government, morality that runs through human history, it dances all over the world, but its best expression todate is HERE in america.
The left has taken over our education and gone from critising the many flaws in our past to destroying that law, philosphy, government and morality that brought us here.
Whether those at the top of the Obama administration were “extreme leftists” or not, they were still without the legal moral governmental and philosophical foundations necescary to govern. And the culpability for that deficit – even though they might not openly have embraced it was the lefts successful destruction of the foundations that the modern world rest on.
As I noted those “western” “american” values and principles – are not some immutable absolutes. They are just the best values and principles we have worked out over 150,000 years. In our lifetime values in areas like homosexuality have shifted – MOSTLY for the better.
But the left is not after evolutionary change. It offers nihilism. The left tears down the foundations and seeks to entirely rebuild from scratch, and to do so without any firm foundation on which to build.
The left is absolutely certain of some truths – the authority and truth granted by victimhood. While at the same time telling us everything is opinion and all opinions are equal.
As at “animal farm” – some opinions are more equal that others.
150,000 years has taught us to change our foundational values slowly, to err on the side of what has worked for generations. The left teaches us that our feelings should determine our values and principles.
McCabe may not be an animal of the extreme political left.
But his moral foundations have been replaced by the left.
Listen to McCabe – he has CONFIRMED much of what is in here.
He specifically states why he started the investigation.
Read carefully – it is not because of what he KNEW,
It is because of what he FEARED.
The entire point of the 4th amendment, of all the requirements that must be met to open an investigation to convene a grand jury to get a warrant, to use informants, is that FEAR is not enough. You can not justify the actions of government – FORCE, by FEAR alone.
And those fears have proved to be warranted.
“And those fears have proved to be warranted.”
Only in TDS land.
If I bother to pay attention – I am offended by some of what Trump says.
But far less of what Trump does is troubling that what Bush I, Clinton, Bush II or Obama did.
I am concerned about actions – not words.
You fixate on nonsense like tax returns.
It was a mistake for Trump to promise his tax return.
Honestly it is a mistake for any politician to provide tax returns.
Laws in my state requiring that from any elected position, have driven all the capable businessmen out of politics and left us with a bunch of dolts who have destroyed our schools, our city government and our municipalities.
If you are incapable of running a business profitably, and you are unwilling to protect your own privacy – why should I trust you with my money and my privacy ?
“And those fears have proved to be warranted.”
How do you figure, Jay? It’s McCabe and Comey who are turning out to be seditious liars and dirty cops.
I have said this before.
I OPPOSE Trump’s declaration of emergency.
I oppose it because it is a mistake.
I oppose it because it will take us further towards unlimited presidential power.
Most of what Trump has done has reduced the power of government – he can do that unilaterally.
This is an expansion of power – not a very large one, but one that will grow.
I oppose expanding government power.
This SHOULD not be legal – but it unfortunately is.
I would fully support congress changing the law.
But I will defend the fact that Trump said what he would do, and that it is legal.
WSJ agrees with you on Trump’s I’ll advised (hopefully unconstitutional) Natl Emergency.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/presidents-and-guardrails-11550274328
Are you chastising him for not doing what he said he would?
Release his taxes?
Have Mexico pay for the wall?
Prevent those working for him from becoming lobbying shills?
Push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress?
Sue accusers who accused him of sexual harassment?
Quickly balance the federal budget?
Where’s that campaign promise he made to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure?
I’d go on, but Its futile talking to a stone wall:
Speaking of Stone Walls, will Roger be in jail by Wednesday?
What a joke. This is how to apologize, not through your attorney.
““As I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility,””
What is disturbing is that Stone had to appologize.
We have warped our law.
Prosecutors have near carte blanche and criminal defendants are gagged and locked up despite the presumption of innocence.
I have no idea what Stone purportedly did. Nor do I care.
I might be offended by it.
But I am more offended by the apology to the court.
Charging someone with a crime does NOT take away their rights.
Including the right to free speech, and the right to be an asshole.
A judges jurisdiction is THE COURTROOM.
And even there it is limited to that which is absolutely necescary.
If a criminal defendant wants to stand on the steps of the courthouse and berate the judge and prosecutor he is free to do so. Further it should have ZERO effect on the conduct of the judge and prosecutor. If as an officer of the court – you can not live up to that. If you can not protect the rights of total assholes, if you allow insults and abuse hurled at you to alter your decisions then YOU are unfit to be a judge, or prosecutor.
As a prosecutor or judge – you serve JUSTICE – not the protection of your ego.
Roger stone should be free to say in public whatever he pleases prior to his actually being convicted of a crime.
Respect is something the government owes us – not the other way arround.
“Roger’s a good guy. He is a patriot and believes in a strong nation, and a lot of the things that I believe in.”-President Donald J. Trump
I have very little interest in Roger Stone – but from what I can tell of the charges brought against him – they are bullying by the SC and nothing more.
And Mueller should be ashamed.
I do not know Stone very much.
But I know that someone who thinks that unwitting inaccurate statements under oath about exculpatory information is a criminal offense – deserves to be held to exactly the standards he applies to others.
Roger Stone is unfortuntately NOT the first victim of Robert Mueller.
The Trump campaign is not the first victims of Robert Mueller’s bullying.
How long a list of innocent people that Mueller has hounded and destroyed do you need before you understand where the real problem was.
Stone should not have appologized.
If the court is incapable of ignoring his remarks outside of court – then the judge should recuse.
I prefer chastizing you for hypocracy and misrepresentation – your here and we are directly engaged.
Trump is unlikely to pay attention to me (or you).
Further his remarks were not specifically directed at me they way yours are.
Beyond that Yes, I hold Trump accountable for his misstatements – to the same degree I do other politicians and proportionate to the significance of their misstatements.
And the importance I placed in their remarks.
I neither care about Trumps tax return, nor his promise to release it.
Nor did I vote for him.
If you are saying you voted for him – with the expectation that he would provide his tax return, then I will take you seriously.
I never beleived Trumps statement that Mexico would pay for the wall.
Or more accurately I never beleived that he meant Mexico would send cash to the US government to pay for the wall.
But again if you voted for him and beleive that promise was important – rail on.
This lobbying nonsense gets addressed again and again.
Every president promises it.
But there are no laws against it, and it is impossible to enforce any conditions on a person after they quit or are fired.
Further – I really do not care about lobbying – that is a fixation of yours.
Someone is going to lobby. Why is it relevant who it is ?
Constitutional amendments are solely the responsibility of congress.
I do not want him suing people – not even people who accuse him of sexual harrassment.
Though I would note that Daniels ended up paying Trump legal fees.
I absolutely positively hope he is not stupid enough to keep the campaign promise on infrastructure.
BTW the wall is infrastructure.
You can go on, but most of your tirades about Trump are meaningless.
In law there is a distinction between an actual agreement and non-binding remarks.
An actual agreement requires and offer, acceptance and an exchange of something of value.
My point is that the significance of some remark – some purported committment is variable.
When someone offers you a home for 100K, and you give them 100K and they do not give you a home – that is extremely serious.
Offers in return for nothing – are not serious.
Offers in return for your vote – are only serious if you voted for the person and YOU care.
I am hard pressed to think of how someone is harmed by any of Trump’s misstatements.
It is trivial to understand how we were harmed by Obama’s and Clinton’s .
But if you want to pretend that every misstatment is the same – then I presume you have never been wrong about anything in your life – otherwise by the values you are pushing, you are as repugnant as the person who lies under oath or who promises you a house and takes your money but does not provide you the house.
The things you call “rationalizations” are actually important.
Many are just demonstrations that you are just wrong.
In any sense that has negative conotations – that is NOT a rationalization.
But sometimes. what you call rationalizations are the understanding that all things are not equal. That exagerations about the size of your “hands” are just not the same as perjury.
Or lying about your conduct as a public servant in order to avoid blame for a serious error and get re-elected.
Trump loses more credibility from Europeans:
” ‘We Have a Real Problem.’ U.S. Is at Odds With European Allies, Munich Meeting Shows”
“A large, bi-partisan U.S. turnout, including more than 50 members of Congress, sought to fill the void and former Vice President Joe Biden looked to persuade U.S. allies that normal service would resume as soon as Trump leaves office.”
The Great Undeal Maker, should be the next book on Trump.
http://time.com/5531470/united-states-trump-europe/
“The U.S. security umbrella and its economic pull are simply too great. Even those proposing a new European army acknowledge that without the U.S. and, after Brexit, the U.K. it would be incapable of providing security for the continent.”
So the europeans are pissed because:
We provide them with military security.
And we have succeeded economically more than they have, and
as a consequence we have leverage when we make demands.
If the Europeans do not wish to do what the US wants – they do not have to.
And we do not have to provide their defense.
And that really is what should happen.
We should NOT be providing the lions share of the defense costs of some other nation.
And we should not be telling them who to sanction or strike pipeline deals with.
BTW aren;t you one of those ranting Russia, Russia Russia ?
Trump is twisting the arms of Europeans to OPPOSE a Russian pipeline.
I thought he was a putin puppet ?
You do understand that the more Gas Russia delivers to the EU the more leverage they have.
Russia likes sending gas to other countries – because they can shut it off whenever they want to silence those countries.
“The Great Undeal Maker, should be the next book on Trump.”
Ha, good one dduck, if it wasn’t his idea it needs to go.
All that rhetoric GOP voters used about the overuse of presidential power, where did it go? Gone down the same road that their previous opinions on Russia, Putin, US military priorities, the worth of people like Mattis, fighting ISIS until we are safe, deficit spending, and on and on.
The GOP tribe, rudderless and drifting further and further from other voters.
But, I should give them credit: they have held steady on the fake border emergency, nearly limitless ability to own weapons, overturning Roe, and tax cuts for the rich.
The economic illiteracy naivete that is so common in the Democratic party makes me crazy. But the faults of the dem party pale compared to those of the GOP.
I’m going to do something I don’t often do, make a concrete prediction with no weasel words. The GOP is headed for the dumpster of history. Independents will choose the naive left over the right. And, its a damn good thing.
“In the NPR/Marist College poll, just over six in ten Americans said they disapproved of the president’s declaration of a national emergency, a figure that included clear majorities among both Democrats and independents.
Ninety four percent of self-identified Democrats told NPR they disapproved of the president’s declaration, while 63 percent of independents said the same. Just 12 percent of Republicans also told NPR that they disapprove of the plan.
A majority of Americans, 58 percent, said there is no emergency at the border, while 84 percent of Republicans say that there is. Sixty percent of independent voters said that they wanted to see the declaration challenged in court.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/430514-majority-disapproves-of-trumps-national-emergency-declaration-npr
I admit it – I had to Google Sir Ronald 🤔.
Many now identifying as Independents are former Republicans. The difference in the 2020 Presidential election race may be decided by the growing number of disgruntled ex GOPers who want Trump gone, like this one:
“Richard Painter, the former White House chief ethics counsel for George W. Bush, outlined why he believes President Donald Trump should be removed from office, saying last week’s national emergency declaration is further indication that the president is “not well at all mentally.””
“I think we need to understand, though, why we’re in this situation,” he said during an interview on “The 11th Hour with Brian Williams.” “The president is not well at all mentally. I think he’s an extreme narcissist. He has been denied what he wants, his wall, and he is having a hissy fit. He is out of control, and he will not take ‘no’ for an answer from Congress.”
“Many now identifying as Independents are former Republicans. ”
Is that news ?
As I recall registered democrats are 27% of the population and registered republicans 25.
Both are WAY down from the 60’s.
The overwhelming majority of “independents” vote as they did when they were members of that party.
Democrats managed to do well in 2008, 2012 and 2018 by hyping their voters to the max, and demoralizing republicans – that is NOT a long term strategy for success.
In 2018 Senate Democrats did badly, and house democrats did well – because democrats from pink and purple districts ran moderates.
Either house democrats need to behave moderate over the next two years, hope voters forget their promises or hope the power of incumbancy is pretty large.
I am honestly surprised that TDS has lasted this long.
But I would remind you as Emerson noted – if you strike at a king you must kill the king.
Ignoring the more traditional meaning that if you strike at power without defeating it, it will destroy you, there is also the more public version. If you waste the public’s time with 4 years of 24×7 Trump Derangement syndrome and you come up empty – the public is going to punish you.
Trump is the same person as president as he has been his entire life. He is the same person he was as a candidate.
My dislike for his emergency declaration has far more to do with the abuses that it will result in in the future.
In the present using the emergency declaration to build the wall is harmless.
Reducing our military involvement in the mideast will save more than the wall will cost.
This nonsense – this lunatic nonsense that echo’s McCabe that there is some congruity between mental fitness and conformance to your personal political values is EVIL.
You pretend to be upset over the partisan animosity in this nation.
What you are upset over is that others do not share your views.
It is irrelevant whether you call those who do not share your views racist, mysogynist, homophobic or “mentally unfit”.
It is still the same thing – it is the conversion of political disagreement into personal defect.
It is vile.
“He is the same person he was as a candidate.”
Duh! That confirms what I said: many Republican Conservatives became Never Trumpers as soon as they realized he was the same lying conneiving lump of deceit he always was.
Unless your hypothesis is that they became Never Trumpers AFTER the election – and for the most part the direction has been the opposite direction with never Trumpers trying to figure out how to work with Trump after savaging him before the election
Can you name a single person ever who is as deceiptful as you think Trump is who has suceeded to the extent he has in one carreer ? Two ? Three ? Five ?
The most successful con artist I can think of ever – was maddoff. And he actually succeeded legitimately in one carreer before becoming a fraud, and as big a fraud has he was – he was small potatotes compared to the fraud you think Trump is.
Even this national emergency thing.
While I think it is a mistake – and even many republicans are unhappy.
Most are unhappy – because they know – whatever Trump does, the next democrat will do on steroids.
At the sametime – to those people who took his promise to build a wall seriously – even if they disagree with the Emergency have been sent the message that he takes the comittments he makes seriously.
“Can you name a single person ever who is as deceiptful as you think Trump is who has suceeded to the extent he has in one carreer ”
El Chapo.
And without a huge parental inheritance
Good response – but drug dealers (and all organized crime) while criminals are rarely frauds.
Particularly the successful ones.
Drug dealing is a business. Like every business it depends on voluntary exchange by consumers not obligated to buy and who are unlikely to return if you cheat them.
Obama did not take no from congress I heard you cheering, not declaring him mentally unfit.
Narcisism is a personality disorder – personality disorders are defects that effect OTHERS not yourself. They have nothing to do with fitness.
I have no idea whether Trump is a narcisist. He – like probably every politician likely is.
it is not “mental unfitness” or we would have to toss the entire government.
Absolutely some Republicans are hypocrits.
But isn’t it hypocritical for the YOU to be maligning republicans for hypocritically employing a tactic that you have no problem with ?
If Obama’s lawless overuse of executive power was not offensive to you – why is Trump’s lawful overuse of executive power ?
I will be happy to join with you to limit the executive power of ALL presidents.
But you are not trustworthy.
I do not beleive we can write a constitution that you will not find a way to interpret down as up if necescary to acheive your objectives.
I do not beleive we can craft laws that you will not exempt yourself from when you have power.
I would suggest some history
Republicans – despite too much modern influence from Neo-Cons – who were DEMOCRATS who defected from the democratic party when it became to hippy flower child for them, have near universally been for a strong military, and near isolationism.
Nixon for all his flaws and naivete promised to end the vietnam war – and he did.
BTW – how dead does ISIS have to be, before you do not need thousands of US troops in Syria ? Dick Chenney might have argued that US forces may not come home and must kill people throughout the world until every last terrorst (or russian) is dead. But few of the rest of us share that view.
Obama ran on a platform promising to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan – instead he invaded Libya and Syria.
How can you look at yourself in the mirror as you defame Trump for doing EXACTLY what prior to Trump’s election you beleived was the right thing to do ?
I do not know about “republican voters” – again that is not a “real thing”
I know that I have been near universally opposed to US intervention in foreign affairs for most of my life. So whoever you are accusing of hypocracy – it is not me.
Nor have I been deferential to FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD
inarguably my respect for them declines with age. But it never was high.
We shutdown 25% of government for 5 weeks.
Lets make that permanent – that would resolve the deficit.
You rant about economic illiteracy and after spouting nonsense about tax cuts for the rich ?
No Robby, I am not a fan of Republicans – but they are tame in comparisons of the dangers of the left.
Neither party is going to self destruct.
But democrats faced a reconning in 2016 – and they have entirely missed the lessons and are doubling down on stupid.
I wish they had had a bad year in 2018 – as that would have forced them to look Howard Schultz square in the eyes and appreciate that he is RIGHT.
Abortion is one of the more dangerous rails of american politics.
Your ranting about it makes it clear how clueless you are.
Lousianna and Texas – which went too far. Still did not even come close to attempting to “ban” abortion. Most of what they did was straight out of the lefts playbook.
They regulated the crap out of abortion providers, and they restricted abortions after 20 weeks. Both measures with broad public support.
Conversely democrats in NY and VA made or attempted to make the heinous conduct of Gosnell legal – something less than 12% of americans support.
Equally important, NY and VA deliberately “poked the bear” pretty much guaranteeing across the country that pro-life votes will be out in droves in 2020.
The emergency declaration is not the best issue to demonstrate this.
However the polls you keep citing are the evidence that the left has taken over the democratic party.
Your poll is also evidence of something else.
That you are unable to tell what is important to people.
94% of voters can oppose 9 of 10 things Trump does.
If the one they support is important to them, and the other 9 are not – they will vote for Trump.
Polls remains incredibly poor at testing the strength of values.
Republican leadership knew about the Trump-Russian investigation and didn’t object:
Several people have already noted this claim is bunk.
But Trey Gowdy made on of the better rebutals.
It is totally completely illegal to reveal “gang of 8” discussions.
The members of the “gang of 8” including Nunes and Ryan have no legal means of rebutting McCabe and he knows it. McCabe is either lying – which would not violate the law – because lying about gang of 8 discussions is not revealing gang of 8 discussions, or he is breaking the law.
Regardless, Mccabe is digging himself a deep whole.
Maybe you can beleive that Paul Ryan was informed that McCabe chose to investigate Trump and said nothing.
Do you honestly beleive that Devin Nunes was told that Trump was being personally investigated by the FBI at the very same time Nunes was deep into Obama administration – FBI/DOJ “unmasking” and he said nothing ?
Regardless, McCabes argument is fallacious.
What McCabe is arguing is that the investigation of Trump was justified by evidence no one has yet seen and we can trust him on that because the gang of 8 saw it and they did not complain.
The investigation was legitimate if and only if there is sufficient evidence to support it.
There is nothing publicly available at this time to support that.
“The members of the “gang of 8” including Nunes and Ryan have no legal means of rebutting McCabe and he knows it. McCabe is either lying – which would not violate the law – because lying about gang of 8 discussions is not revealing gang of 8 discussions, or he is breaking the law.”
Dear Dumb-Dumb: your unlogical conclusions continue unabated.
If McCabe can’t be cited for telling a lie, how can Nunes or Ryan or any other member of the gang of 8 be cited for saying he never said it?
If McCabe DIDNT tell them about the investigation ITS NOT PART OF THE RECORD BECAUSE IT DIDNT HAPPEN! They are only prevented from revealing WHAT WAS SAID! If it wasn’t ‘said’ it’s not part of the classified record.
For instance, If McCabe said he told them Extra-Terrestrials in a flying saucer turned over the photos of Trump urinating on Obama’s bed in Russia, but he never told them that, are you suggesting it’s illegal for them to deny he claimed that?
And since they aren’t refuting McCabes Russian claim now – it DID HAPPEN.
BTW, remember to GFY.
Logic clearly is not your forte.
Do you know what a Karnaugh map is ? How about a truth table ?
Plot it out
Regardless, reread your own post – you seem to be agreeing that McCabe is lying – probably a wise choice given that the IG cited him for lying to investigators, to congress, and to the ethics office 4 times. And he is under investigation for that.
I have held a top secret Security clearance several years ago.
I am sure someone has told you not to joke about bombs in front of the TSA.
Every so often there is a story about someone being detained, analy probed and charge with some misdemeanor for being stupid enough to beleive that joking with the TSA is a good idea.
Lying about classified information or joking about the 25th amendment if you are a deputy AG – is pretty much the same. Actually being publicly truthful about classified information is even more dangerous. Revealing what was NOT talked about in a classifed meeting at the level of the Gang of 8 is serious enough that I do not have those kind of balls.
I would note that McCabes is now talking about a conversation he purportedly hard with Trump. Any such conversation would be born
classified.
We also now have NYT sources claiming that Trump asked Whitacker to put Berman in as SDNY USADA. trump is denying this conversation took place. Whitacker previously denied any such conversation.
The presumption of the left is the anonymous source is right.
How many times has that been correct in the past 3 years ?
Further given that Berman had already recused himself, it would not make sense for Trump to appoint a lawyer who had recused himself to the SDNY ADA – unless he was NOT trying to influence the investigation. Trump had no reason to presume Berman would unrecuse himself.
But you continue to beleive that Trump is an idiot that somehow masterminded an impossible election victory with the help of Putin and without leaving any fingerprints anywhere.
On Anderson Cooper when asked McCabe essentially confirtmed that he had lied, but claimed the IG report was Biased because there are further facts he can not reveal
So McCabe expects us to beleive – he lied – but with good reason ? About self serving leaks to the press ?
Actually listen to the man speak – if you beleive him – you have established you are guilible.
He is good at appeals to emotion – he is a bad liar.
Regardless, it should also be self evident to you that the “conspirators” top tier of the FBI and DOJ are now at each others throats, and the problem is going to be sorting out who is now lying and who is telling the truth – but even if McCabe is lying – all that changes is who the ringleaders of the conspiracy are. Not that their was a conspiracy.
BTW McCabe, Uhr, Baker and several others have made it absolutely clear there was a conspiracy. In most of their testimony – what is not consistent is that wach downplays their won role – Well Except McCabe, McCabe is saying “there was a conspiracy, and I was the ringleader and my fears of Trump justify that conspiracy”.
It is going to take lots of documents emails and texts to sort out the truth.
But there is not room left for the truth to not be bad for the top brass of DOJ/FBI.
Eventually the truth will get out. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
Where did I suggest. McCabe was Lying?
I was refuting your dumb assertion Gang of 8 members couldnt say he didn’t make the assertion Trump was under investigation.
McCabe alerted them of the investigation, that’s a certainty. And Nunes likely slipped that info to Trump – which was ILLEGAL!
If McCabe is not lying – then he is committing a crime.
The obligation to keep government secrets does not end with the end of your employment.
The only way McCabe can say what he is saying without fear of prosecution is if he is lying.
The odds that McCab e is telling the truth are LOGICALLY close to zero.
Aside from the personal risk, even if the Go8 did not reveal what McCabe told them, their conduct subsequently would have been quite different.
I doubt Nunes alerted Trump because there is near zero possibility that Nunes knew.
But it would NOT be illegal for Nunes to reveal to Trump anything the FBI told the Go8.
You continuously forget that Constitutionally ALL EXECUTIVE POWER VESTS IN THE PRESIDENT. There is absolutely nothing that the executive does that the president is not entitled to know if he so desires – including if the FBI is investigating him.
Constitutionally investigations of the president are the exclusive domain of CONGRESS,
Only Congress can have secrets from the president.
There is absolutely nothing that any part of the executive can choose to keep secret from the president. There is no security clearance issued to the president. He is the ultimate arbiter of national security.
We had this discussion when Trump was accused of providing classified information to the Russians. Wise or Not the president is free to do that.
Had Obama had a secret bathroom personal mail server – he was using an AOL account and he was sending classified information, but Obama was president – that may be STUPID but it is legal. Only the president can not ever violate the espionage act.
This also applies to the stupid nonsensical claims that Trump is “obstructing Justice”.
So long as he is acting within his legitimate authority as president – Both Clinton and Nixon faxed Obstruction charges for acts they too OUTSIDE their role as president.
The kerfluffle over Trump purportedly twisting Whitackers arm over Berman appears to have passed – because it likely did not happen. But if it did it was not a crime. The president can directly order any FBI investigation STOPPED if he wants. His risk is impeachment. It is not a crime.
Ron, this is why I picked on Alabama along with Mississippi and West Virginia as part of my northeastern superiority complex. I picked them because these states have the highest net ratings for trump among those “other states in the middle.” Reliably, this popped up. There is a lot more of this kind of view in the deep south than a lot of people like to admit. And, judging by what went on in that Ohio GM plant to black supervisors that is now a lawsuit against GM its not confined to the deep south either.
“The editor of an Alabama newspaper is calling for the return of the Ku Klux Klan’s infamous night rides
“Time for the Ku Klux Klan to night ride again,” begins the editorial, written by Goodloe Sutton. “Democrats in the Republican Party and Democrats are plotting to raise taxes in Alabama.”
Sutton confirmed to CNN that he wrote the editorial but declined to provide any additional information.
He told the Montgomery Advertiser he urged the white supremacist group to “clean out D.C.” via lynchings. “We’ll get the hemp ropes out, loop them over a tall limb and hang all of them,” Sutton told the newspaper.
He stressed that he wasn’t calling for the hangings of all Americans, just the “socialist-communists.”
“Seem like the Klan would be welcome to raid the gated communities up there,” Sutton wrote in the editorial…. When asked by the Advertiser if he recognized the Klan as a white supremacist group, Sutton compared it to the NAACP and said “The Klan wasn’t violent until they needed to be.””
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/media/alabama-newspaper-klan-trnd/index.html
This is going to be dismissed by many conservatives as the words of just an isolated nut. What percentage of the vote did David Duke get in his various runs for the legislature and governor in Louisiana? Between 30% and more than 50%. He got elected to the Louisiana legislature.
Here is an interesting quote from the Wiki article on David Duke
“In a 2006 Financial Times editorial, Gideon Rachman recalled interviewing Duke’s 1990 campaign manager, who said, “The Jews just aren’t a big issue in Louisiana. We keep telling David, stick to attacking the blacks. There’s no point in going after the Jews, you just piss them off and nobody here cares about them anyway.”[46] ”
Oh, but that is all in the past now, almost no one really holds these opinions today, right?
Racism of any kind is wrong! KKK activities should be illegal if it promtes racism and violence.
But one has to ask is this thinking increasing, or has the internet given more attention to those views?
If is increasing, was Trumps election the reason it is increasing, or did he get nominated (by my never voters that voted) because of the movement to the fact minorities were getting more rights than whites? This IS the view of many white straight males!
If it is increasing, what impact did Obama’s jumping on racial issues before they were proven racial have on a Trump nomination?
How does Bookers and Harris’s reacting to the Smollett fiasco like Obama did with racial issues have on this thinking?
To me, this is just another indication of the serious divide that has overtaken this country. And the divide is on both sides. On one hand, you have those reacting to the overreach in minority politics. Identity politics have alienated a huge portion of the citizenship. On the other hand, those lromoting the identity politics have alienated the electorate between the ” haves and have nots”. And as they have done this, many on the left view those that have worked hard, saved, built up assets, live in a nice home,( upper middle flas or better) and can afford newer cars as the rich that need their “wealth” taxed out of existence.
So yes, you go into the inner city getto as a straight white male, you may or may not come out in the same physical condition you entered. And if you are a liberal espousing the liberal agenda and you enter the rural south, you may end up in the same condition.
So how do we fix the divide.
More Trumps
More Bookers
More Pences
More Obamas
More Harris
More Sanders
Or do we find someone like Shultz that might bridge the gap and represent Americans, not liberals or conservatives?
Every time I see or hear the name Shultz mentioned for president, this face immediately pops to mind:
Sergeant Hans Georg Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes
You ask a whole set of very reasonable questions.
Does it matter how many racists there are and where they are? What is a racist anyhow, is it this loon Alabama editor (well yes)? Is the lady in West Virginia who aside from embezzling from FEMA was also notorious due to having posted that Michelle Obama was an “Ape in Heels” as first lady (well yes) while holding a county government job? Is it the group of people in the GM plant in Ohio who for real hung nooses around the factory and threatened in many ways black workers until they feared for their lives? How racist does one have to be before their actions start to transcend the level of harmless crankiness?
What matters is whether people who hold these opinions are a growing or shrinking population and why. I don’t think anyone can really come up with a way to quantify the level of racism, but as I said, David Duke got elected to the Louisiana legislature and received from 30% to more than 50%, which gives some idea of how high the level can be in some locales.
If these people who hold these opinions are being encouraged by trumps manner of addressing Americans (yes, they are) then one effect of trump is to be sending the level of racism in the wrong direction.
I don’t doubt that the affirmative action programs pissed off poor whites. As well I don’t doubt that reconstruction pissed off poor Southern whites. Honestly, any poor white person who thinks that their situation would be improved by being black has been played. Poor whites are really worse off than poor blacks?
To the question of what politician offers some reasonable qualities, so far I choose Amy Klobochar.
But I have reached the point of anger where I am going to send money to the dem party and whoever runs against trump. The naive left, who will get little of what they dream about in any case, is better than what the trump GOP has become.
Ron, you feel personally the way you do about trump while still being satisfied with his actions. Imagine how you would feel about trump if you were Not happy with the majority his actions. You would quite likely be just as appalled as Jay and I are with trump as POTUS if his politics were of the Sanders mold but his character was exactly as it is now. I think you might be all for investigation, containment, and impeachment.
“Ron, you feel personally the way you do about trump while still being satisfied with his actions.”
Im not sure I ever said I was satisfied with his actions. If I did then I misspoke. His actions are repulsive and unacceptable in society today. But I have said I support his political policies.
Tax reform
Elimination of the PPACA tax fine
Elimination of Obama era regulations
Pulling out of TPP
Pulling out of the Paris Accords
Renegotiation of NAFTA
Slamming the door on Chin a taking advantage of us through bad trade agreements
Increasing border security
So if I am forced to pick between a total narcissistic societal asshole that supports the above, or someone of Jimmy Carter character that supports higher taxes, forced purchase of private services through tax fines, excessive government regulation, unfair trade policies promoted by NAFTA, China and TPP, unfair climate controls through unequal climate agreements and increased entitlement spending through increased class warfare, I would have to hold my nose and vote for Trump.
I find all of the above much more important than how he “acts”. We have known how he acts since the 90’s. If you want proof, access some of the original Murphy Brown TV series and note the number of references to Trump way back then. We knew then how he acted!
I do not support many of Trump’s policies that you do support.
But my agreement or disagreement with Trump’s policies – are matters that get to influence my vote.
There is alot about Trump I do not like – even policies. But he is still a B-/C+ president and we have had a streak of D+ presidents. He looks stellar in comparison.
There will not be a candidate from ANY party in 2020 that I agree with entirely.
I will inevitably have to vote for someone who I disagree with on some issues.
That is NORMAL.
“What matters is whether people who hold these opinions are a growing or shrinking population and why. ”
They are shrinking while left wing extremism is growing.
“I don’t think anyone can really come up with a way to quantify the level of racism,”
Of course they can, but even ignoring metrics are you honestly arguing that racism, mysogynism homophobia are as severe as they were in 1965 ? 1935 ?
“but as I said, David Duke got elected to the Louisiana” – 30 years ago in 1988, at a time when several DEMOCRATIC senators were former KKK members.
“If”
And if not ?
“these people who hold these opinions”
Are you seeking to control peoples opinions ?
“are being encouraged by trumps manner of addressing Americans (yes, they are)”
Doubly wrong, first you are doing this stupid idiocy of presuming Trump’s rhetoric is “racist” by a standard that would have made the entire country racist in 1965, and then you are presuming that Trump is encouraging people to be racist – by some defintion you have not provided.
“then one effect of trump is to be sending the level of racism in the wrong direction.”
Down is the wrong direction ?
What has increased dramatically since Trump was elected is the number of “fake” hate crimes.
Is this really the moment – with Jussie Smollet on the front pages you wish to make an argument that the country is massively racist ?
Finally – racism is NOT the business of government.
The violation of the rights of individuals is.
Racism is heinous and immoral. But all moral offenses are not the business of government.
The fight against racism, homophobia, … is one of persuasion.
If your rights are violated – it is govenrments business – whether you are black or right, and regardless of whay your rights were violated.
“I don’t doubt that the affirmative action programs pissed off poor whites. ”
It does not matter who got pissed off.
Discrimination is discrimination.
Private entities can discriminate, public ones can not.
“As well I don’t doubt that reconstruction pissed off poor Southern whites.”
Again irrelevant.
The reconstruction amendments were excellent additions to the constitution.
Reconstruction was a failure.
” Honestly, any poor white person who thinks that their situation would be improved by being black has been played.”
Correct. But not the issue.
“Poor whites are really worse off than poor blacks?”
Universally – no. In some specific ways that they are angry about – yes.
At the same time, you are entirely misconstruing Trump supporters.
You are substituting a carciture for millions of complex people.
Just one example – though a big one. Are working class whites worse off than blacks ?
NO! But they are barely distinguishable, and at the same time it is working class whites that are being called racist, mysoginist, homophobic hateful hating haters.
You have litterally equated holding political views you do not like with racism, bigotry and hatred – and wonder why people are voting against you.
“Ron, you feel personally the way you do”
You keep making these “appeals to emotion”
“about trump while still being satisfied with his actions.”
The fundimental issue is his ACTIONS not your feelings.
“Imagine how you would feel about trump if you were Not happy with the majority his actions.”
Imagine that we divorced all this from feelings. You are not justified in imposing your will on others by your feelings.
“You would quite likely be just as appalled as Jay and I are with trump as POTUS if his politics were of the Sanders mold but his character was exactly as it is now. ”
No one needs to “imagine” We had 8 years of the semi-socialist Obama preceded by 8 years of the semi-socialist Bush.
2016 was voters REJECTING that.
“I think you might be all for investigation, containment, and impeachment.”
We investigate crimes. Anyone president or otherwise whose actions meets the actual standard required for a criminal investigation should be investigated.
McCabe did an excellent job of exposing the reasons NOT acceptable to investigate someone.
Congress is free to investigate government to their hearts content.
They are NOT free to conduct investigations of private individuals.
“Im not sure I ever said I was satisfied with his actions. If I did then I misspoke.”
Ron, by trumps actions I meant precisely his political policies. I was unclear, ooops. Now, perhaps my point will be clearer
Well Shazam!
Goooollie if I knew Murphy Brown was going to report here, I would have asked Barney to join us. Wait till Andy here’s about this. Aunt Bea and I were just talkin about Trump and how we hate his personal actions and wished we had a politician that would do what he is doing so we could vote for them.
“Ron, by trumps actions I meant precisely his political policies. I was unclear, ooops. Now, perhaps my point will be clearer”
Not very precise.
Trump has many policies – some I support some I do not – as has every president, and every candidate.
At TNM there is a group of posters that I will label the everything Trump does is evil crowd.
Because you do not like other labels.
That one is a pretty accurate label.
You do not even need to guess how they will respond – if Trump did it – they hate it.
Even if Obama did the same thing.
Even if they cheered Obama for the same thing.
There is unfortunately a large portion of the country and a monsterously large portion of democrats that fit that description.
I have been suspicious of the FBI/DOJ/CIA/NSA my entire life
I have been a civil libertarain my entire life.
Like Alan Derschowitz I am not going to abandon values I have held throughout my life merely because Trump is now espousing them.
We should have gone into and quickly gotten out of afghanistan.
We never should have gone into Iraq, or libya or Syria.
We should expect Russia to act in Russia’s interest – sometimes that will be in ours too, sometimes not. Regardless our foreign policy should NOT be centered on thwarting everything Russia does.
The CIA is a necescary evil. That does not mean they should be trusted.
They are wrong more often than right.
The NSA should be barred completely from surveiulance of any form of US persons absent a warrant obtianed in ordinary court meeting the requirements of the 4th amendment.
There is little if any need for the FBI. Nearly all “crimes” are the business of the state.
What has actually increased since Trump’s election is the number of UNFOUNDED reports of “hate crimes”.
NYC keeps track of these things.
In 2017 after Trump’s election – there was a 17% overall increase in reports of hate crimes.
There was a 2% increase in substantiate hate crimes.
There has been a massive explosion of post election “fake” hate crimes
The Jussie Smollet case being the most recent and possibly the most planned.
The FACT is that all of this stuff has been STEEPLY declining for decades.
The entire compliment of the “alt-right” in the US is dwarfed by the number of Antifa in Portland.
Alt-right markers in Charlotesville were outnumbered by counter protestors about 10-1 and by antifa by about 3:1
The alt-right marchers in Charlottesville came from a dozen states.
The Antifa came from Charlottesville and maybe adjacent counties.
Harriet, hate exist everywhere.
https://nypost.com/2019/02/17/democrats-anti-semitism-problem-is-only-growing-worse/
The true hard left, what I think of as the college activist socialist left, the Green party, is nuts. (Now, we both know that Dave will come along and see this comment and tell me that all of the left is nuts and evil and that there is only a difference of degree between Stalin, the campus socialists, and me. I doubt that you will express any disagreement with Dave about that, whatever you may privately think, as you never have no matter how many times he has repeated it).
The radical left is obsessed with conspiracy theories: We went to Iraq to make money for W’s friends in the oil industry, blah, blah, blah, whatever weak line of BS their copy of the ISO paper fed them this week. I have had contempt for their garbage for all of my adult life.
I am more than pained by the wealth of absurd ideas that the far left holds and more than pained to see them brought into the dem party in any form. I am sure enough that anti-semitism is going to be thoroughly disavowed by the dem party that I would be more than happy to bet you that come convention time a condemnation of anti-semitism will be in the party platform and that no serious candidate will touch this shit with a pole, they will disavow it, with feeling . I think every anti-semite could be chased out of the dem party base without any harm to the party’s chances.
On the other hand if every person who believes that Michelle Obama is an “Ape in heels” disappeared from the GOP voter base I doubt they would ever win another presidential election.
These are simply my opinions I don’t claim they are facts.
You want to get into some kind of semantic fight – that is meaningless.
Whatever label you wish to use – the majority of democratic candidates are falling overthemselves advoting for policies that are either socialist or near socialist.
That even George McGovern would have choked on.
The fact is almost the ENTIRE democratic party has shifted LEFT.
The fact is the policy choices of the democratic party are being driven by forces dramatically to the left of US norms.
A tiny portion of this is normal each party moves towards its extremes to win primaries and to the center to win the general.
But the distance between the center of the GOP and the center is much less today than the distance between the center of democrats and the center.
Trump did not drive democrats to the left – they did that to themselves prior to Trump.
“These are simply my opinions I don’t claim they are facts.”
Some questions are answerable. If something is a fact or sufficiently probable to be likely true (or false) then holding an opinion contrary to it is error.
Labeling something an opinion when it is about an issue whether the answer is known or knowable does not ameliorate your responsibility
“On the other hand if every person who believes that Michelle Obama is an “Ape in heels” disappeared from the GOP voter base”
There might be two less voters in the country.
The tilt of the media today absolutely assures us that the smallest egregious remark by any republican on the planet will make the news.
Conversely the misconduct of demodrats must be egregious to get covered.
If your point is that the small numbers of people in Alabama, Mississippi and West virginia are equally extremist, deluded and nonsensical as those in CA and NY.
I can agree with that.
Actor Jussie Smollet – whom I have respected is about to be indicted for the sick act of staging a fake hate crime against himself.
How is that different,
Except that we expect lunacy from Dukes.
Are we now to accept that from actors ?
Rousseau, I think there are just as many on the left that are black and hate whites as there are whites that hate minorities. Just my opinion, not facts. We no longer live in the George Wallace south, but there are still George Wallace types, on both sides nationwide. And we had the left wing haters years before Trump. I will go a get a list of instances if you so desire.
“Rousseau, I think there are just as many on the left that are black and hate whites as there are whites that hate minorities. ”
I do not think there are many of either.
Much of what we have today is left politicians stiring up charges of racism because they have dreams of getting photographed on the next march from Selma to Montgomery.
There are a small and dwindling number of actually racist crime
Mostly what we have is blacks and whites using race as an excuse.
Racism will never end – because life will never be perfect.
But it will slowly improve forever.
Well here is one I agree with the majority
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/february_2019/most_see_crime_in_justice_fbi_coup_against_trump_want_special_prosecutor?fbclid=IwAR1aoGIHzglWwNtgLSbn9yvduADcRSMDBYFnSqgoWRbv92rWY0WTiD-9AV0
And I want that open ended phrase that allows them to go after anyone multiple jumps from those being investigated.
Yep, me too. Our very own KGB, taking it upon themselves to overthrow an elected president, because they are politically aligned with the other party.
There definitely needs to be a Special Counsel to go after these thugs, and find out how many others are involved in this attempted coup.
Lots of laws were broken. But I am not sure that the most serious misconduct is actually criminal.
The first thing that needs done – is everyone who was part of this who remains in government should be fired.
It should be self evident at this point that the foundation for the SC appointment was a fraud and Mueller should be shutdown.
His cases should be turned over to the appropriate US attorney’s and most should be dropped.
We have this oddball fixation that when govenrment starts something – it must be permitted to continue – even if we subsequently find the foundation was fraud and nothng has changed.
I do not have a problem with prosecuting those whose actual crimes of consequence were uncovered as a result of an investigation into something else.
Maybe Cohen’s taxicab problem fits Nothing else does.
Wow, SCs are good when they go after the “other’ tribe, not so good when they go after my tribe. Same thing with the FBI when going after Hillary- lock her up; those damn Republicans.
Hate Maureen Dowd when she ripped the Clinton’s, went easy on the Obamas (watch out for Sharpton, if you did), and now rips the Trumps; “Fake satire”.
duck, there are actually RULES that govern the appointment of SC’s. The main one is that there must be a CRIME that needs to be prosecuted. In the case of Trump, there was no crime. No one is using a double standard…the Democrats and their allies are simply using no standard at all.
There also must be a compelling reason that there is a conflict so great the DOJ/FBI can not conduct the investigation in anyway.
Hillary Clinton as former Sec. State did not have a conflict that would have triggered a SC.
The problem with the Clinton investigation was corruption and bias within the DOJ/FBI.
That is a reason to purge the DOJ/FBI not appoint an SC.
Presuming there was a predicate crime and presuming Trump was a target there was a basis for and SC.
There needs to be an SC here if Barr and those handling the investigation in DOJ and FBI are too close to those they are investigating.
That is arguable.
“Wow, SCs are good when they go after the “other’ tribe, not so good when they go after my tribe.”
Presuming that Barr is prepared to clean house and allow an investigation of the DOJ and FBI – then find a US attorney outside of washington not connected to any of this and let them QUIETLY investigate, Under Barr’s supervision.
I am NOT BTW a Barr fan – he is too tied to NSA and the surveilance state,
and given that there are FISA issues in this – that would probably require an SC.
But the point of an SC is NOT to send a rogue prosecutor unsupervised on a witch hunt.
It is to investigate where there is a conflict of interest between DOJ and FBI where they would otherwise be investigating themselves.
Regardless, there MUST be a predicate crime.
“Same thing with the FBI when going after Hillary- lock her up; those damn Republicans.”
18 CFR 793(f) – that is the crime Clinton violated thousands of times.
While there should not have needed to be an SC – there should have been a through proper and honest investigation. There was not.
Clinton should have been indicted, charged and convicted and received a small sentence.
Like John Deutch Obama should have commuted the sentence.
All of this should have occured sufficiently rapidily that it would have precluded her participation in the 2016 election.
The issue is not whose tribe is being gored.
It is whether the rule of law is being applied.
Another cabinet member that may be on thin ice: “Wilbur Ross’ financial disclosure rejected by federal ethics agency”
“A December report from the Center for Public Integrity found Ross did not sell the holdings in BankUnited as required within 90 days after he was confirmed to lead the Commerce Department in February 2017.
Ross said he believed the stock had been sold but that there had been a miscommunication with his agent.
In his statement on Tuesday, Ross said the shares “were worth approximately $3,700, an amount that federal regulations deem de minimis and below the threshold of a possible conflict of interest.”
Wilbur just happens to look like a crook, but maybe he isn’t.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/wilbur-ross-financial-disclosure/
What? Trump won’t condemn the Saudi Prince for the embassy murder, but is trying to slip him nuke technology?
So your saying multiple whistle blowers exist.
AND the newly elected house democrats found this nearly immediately.
But everyone else has ignored the story for 2 years ?
More Obstruction Of Justice says Fox’s Legal Expert Napolitano
“The judge said Trump’s reported call to Whitaker was ‘an effort to use the levers of power… for a corrupt purpose to deflect an investigation into himself or his allies.’”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/foxs-judge-napolitano-trumps-call-to-whitaker-sure-looks-like-attempted-obstruction-of-justice
Napolitano needs a refresher course int he law and constitution.
You can be offended by Trump’s purported call to whitaker.
But it is not obstruction. If it was the entire Obama DOJ would be a massive conspiracy to obstruct Justice.
Holder openly admitted his purpose was to assure that nothing touched Obama.
“Remember, you can be truthful but still misleading.”
Maybe – but it would not be a crime.
It is somehow appropriate that we are discussing “censorship”
in the consorship section.
I am not debating what is permissible speech – I am a free speech absolutist.
I think the right rules for the blog are None.
There is a huge gulf between pointing out that you are engaged in fallacy and ad hominem and attempting to censor you.
You are free to lob insults all you please.
You are not free to demand that others accept fallacy as truth.
Several comments conflate all forms of negative comments under the umbella “insult” and pretend they are all the same.
Your emotional response to an actual argument does not invalidate the argument or make the argument inappropriate or erroneous.
Most of my posts are CRITICAL. If your ego is too fragile to take criticism – maybe you should take up knitting rather than blog posting.
Worse still you are seeking to thwart the most important purpose of free speach – testing ideas. That REQUIRES criticism.
Whether you stand up for the status quo or you seek to change the world – if you want your perspective to prevail – particularly if you want to impose it by force through government, then you had damn well better be willing to not merely subject it to criticism, but to thoughtfully address that criticism.
Criticism of ideas and expressions is NOT inherently criticism of the person offering them.
Going beyond criticism to actually “insulting” ideas – and some ideas like socialism have been so thoroughly discredited in so many ways so many times that it should not be necescary to address the failures of socialism point by point – but if you want a long diatribe about “the economic calculation problem” with graphs and charts and links to papers by all the top ranked economists over the past 50 years – those are readily availble.
Your choice – do we call “socialism” STUPID, or do we need to go through the multi-volume dissertation to prove it many many many ways ? Most of us here are old enough to have watched or atleast been educated about the failures of socialism. Most of us here are NOT millennials who are surprised by the failure of Venezuela.
To the extent there is an issue it is that too few here grasp that there is no consequential difference between all forms of “statism” – including “majority rule”, and socialism.
“Big Government” fails in the same ways and for the same reasons that “socialism” fails.
Read up on Coases theorum or public choice theory.
Regardless, you can not expect to be taken seriously when you complain of both the long nature of many of my posts and that your ideas are being called stupid.
Calling an idea like socialism stupid or idiotic is short hand for a long post explaining in excruciating detail why it is stupid.
You are free to demand further proof that some idea is idiotic if you wish.
“I am a free speech absolutist.”
You are an absolutist, period.
I was once on a late night flight from JFK to Burlington with a couple with two shrieking toddlers who were “free speech absolutists” regarding their screaming progeny who were running amok with no attempt to prevent it. At least it only lasted an hour. They certainly had no friends on the plane by the time we got to Burlington and were obviously scandalized by the reaction of the other passengers and crew to their free speech absolutism.
Absolutism in general or free speech absolutism would be a great topic for a college philosophy class BS session. In real life absolutism is about in the same category as Marxism. Its a fail.
“Most of my posts are CRITICAL. If your ego is too fragile to take criticism – maybe you should take up knitting rather than blog posting.”
Most of your posts when you are arguing with someone are ad hominem and usually straw man as well. Its not a question of my ego, its a question of whether your repetitious lectures on the rules of logic and argument have any authority or meaning left when you give yourself a free pass from those rules.
Its also a question of whether you are effectively communicating or arguing or whether you are simply the equivalent of a college roommate who plays punk music at a volume of 11 for 12 hours a day. Free speech absolutism a la Dave will get get you the irate reaction you frequently get here, you know, our own free speech. If your ego is too fragile to take it…
“it should not be necescary to address the failures of socialism point by point …”
I doubt you can even give a coherent definition of socialism (actually I doubt that anyone can at this point). I will not be surprised if you believe that 75% of what the US government does is “socialism.” Your use of the term socialism is as overly broad as your incontinent use of the phrase left-wing nut. Is this effective communication or argument? Is it persuasive? Its just common ordinary online red-meat rhetoric, good for stirring up those emotions you so often argue against. Conservatives here will smile, others will bristle. No minds will change.
“there is no consequential difference between all forms of “statism” – including “majority rule”, and socialism.”
More absolutism. A love pat on the behind has no consequential difference from being run over by a train. At least, not in a college philosophy class BS session. In the real world, there are differences of degree.
Well, carry on, no one is stopping you.
Free speach is a right – rights are protections from GOVERNMENT.
There is no right to free speech in a private context.
Airlines can have rules regarding speech or toddlers – that is up to them.
With respect to your “toddlers” assertions.
I guess you wanted the parents to:
Slug their toddlers ?
Drug their toddlers ?
I have been on planes with babies who shrieked from takeoff to landing.
Life is not perfect – GET OVER IT.
Everything is not about you.
Again please take a course in logic.
Thus far we have established that you can not distinguich between a fallacy and a premise or assertion – despite the fact that those are widely different,
That you clearly do not know what an ad hominem fallacy.
I am guessing that you think that because “ad hominem ” is latin for “to the person”,
that you think arguing with a person is ad hominem, or maybe you just think that any argument that offends you personally is ad hominem.
Ad Hominem is Attacking a persons rather than addressing the actual argument. e.g.
A: Big government never works
B: Your a pig.
I can not address your claim of “straw men” beyond that if you can not get the basics right – like the difference between a premise and a fallacy, then your credibility in other areas is non existant.
Given your claimed background – I should not have to “lecture you on logic”.
There would be no need to be “repetitious” – if you did not repeat the same logic errors and fallacies over and over.
The rules of logic are what they are independent of “my authority”.
We have honed them over thousands of years.
You are correct – effective communication and logical communication are not the same thing.
Fallacies are tremendously effective.
Go listen to McCabes 60 minutes interview. It is very effective.
It is a very well delivered fallacious appeal to emotion – particularly fear masquerading as logic.
It is because fallacious are both EFFECTIVE and ERROR that we seek to avoid them in argument. They are MISLEADING – sometimes deliberately misleading.
All of us are susceptible to appeals to emotion – and some of us are overcome by them.
I am not your college room mate, this is not a shared and limited resource like a dorm room.
I prefer Leonard Cohen, Judy Collins, Harry Chapin. I do not like Punk. Maybe occasionally some Classical Heavy metal – Led Zepplin or Iron Butterfly.
If I played them as 120db – you would not hear them.
You have provided a PERFECT example of a “straw man” fallacy.
Refuting an argument that is superficially similar but not actually the argument being made.
Straw men are nearly always deliberate misrepresentations – LIES.
Since you like to accuse others of lying.
Because constructing a straw man usually requires understanding enough of the argument you are rebutting to grasp that you are rebutting something else.
Your reaction to someone else’s remarks is always YOUR problem.
“I doubt you can even give a coherent definition of socialism (actually I doubt that anyone can at this point).”
You have a point – but it is not to your benefit.
Yes the left has made such a hash of muddling with the defintion of socialism – that nothing is socialism or everything is.
“I will not be surprised if you believe that 75% of what the US government does is “socialism.””
Do not need a label.
75% of what the US government does is IMMORAL, UNJUSTIFIED and INEFFECTIVE.
“Your use of the term socialism is as overly broad as your incontinent use of the phrase left-wing nut. ”
Another fallacious argument. Further if you had read even a few of my remarks I have addressed it.
It does not matter how broadly or narrowly you define socialism – IT FAILS.
The USSR FAILED, Venezeula is failing more limited versions – such as those of the UK, Europe, those vaunted Nordic social democracies – have failed – some worse than others, all to the extent that they have underperformed free markets.
My definition of failure is quite clear – results in a lower standard of living that the evidence shows would have resulted in a free market (or even just a freer market).
Define socialism in ANY commonly accepted way – it meets that definition of failure.
“Is this effective communication or argument? Is it persuasive? Its just common ordinary online red-meat rhetoric, good for stirring up those emotions you so often argue against. Conservatives here will smile, others will bristle. No minds will change.”
As noted before – appeals to emotion are incredibly effective.
Regardless, I am interested in “facts, logic, reason”, if you are going to persuade me – those are the only means that will work. And those are the means I primarily use myself.
The rest of your response is another string of fallacies.
You are entirely fixated on emotions.
Your arguments are appeals to emotions – most fallacies are.
Your response to anyone else’s arguments is emotional – regardless of what is argued and your judgement of an argument is based on your emotional response.
“”there is no consequential difference between all forms of “statism” – including “majority rule”, and socialism.”
More absolutism.”
No it is a statement, and assertion, a premise.
You can accept it or you can challenge it.
“A love pat on the behind has no consequential difference from being run over by a train.”
Another straw man, ass well as another misrepresentation.
You have confused differences in form with differences in scale and presumed that I have argued that all outcomes are identical.
All forms of statism fail – using the defintion of fail I provided earlier.
Statism of larger scale fails larger than statism of smaller scale.
The “absolute” portion of my statement is that statism always fails.
If you wish to disprove that – find a published study of a country where after regressing all other independent variables an increase in govenrment resulted in growth larger than government remaining at the same scale all other things being equal.
The correlations between the inverse of the size of government or individual liberty and the rate of improvement of standard of living are among the most robust and strongest in economics.
This is not some college BS Session – this is the real world.
I would further note we are dealing with a question of great importance – not something that you can dismiss by pretending it is some pedantic concern best left in college philosophy courses.
Over the past 50 years countries accross the world have moved away from socialism towards freer markets. They have not done so because some minister high on a joint was persuaded in some BS session in college.
They did so because even 50 years ago – the data was COMPELLING, and it is more so now. Socialism, statism – define it however you wish – does not work.
Unfortunately it is addicitive – and the emotional appeal is tremendous so we have to keep relearning – this does not work.
“At least, not in a college philosophy class BS session. In the real world, there are differences of degree.”
Of course there are differences in degree – you can choose small steps towards less freedom and greater statism and F’ yourself and everyone else over a little, or you can take big steps and F’ them over alot.
“Well, carry on, no one is stopping you.”
You would if you could and that is the difference between us, a difference that puts you on the wrong side of morality.
Well, Dave you are indeed invincible, incorrigible, and invulnerable, at least in your own mind. Your Bullshit generator has not slowed a bit in 11 years. I wonder how many keyboards you have worn out replying to me. The 11 year accumulation can be boiled down to your motto: “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Or more succinctly, Bzzzzt, wrong. Its some life’s work.
Anyhow I got out into the woods, made a good nearly 8K ski according to my fitbit GPS program and the day was a pretty good one, not too cold.
A shower, a beer, and then on to Mendelssohn.
Carry on.
So you have switched from one libertarian philosopher to another.
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.
Henry David Thoreau
“Well, Dave you are indeed invincible, incorrigible, and invulnerable”
You continue to make this nonsensical argument.
We are not alone in a room in some bizzarre form of intellectual combat with only our witts to rely on.
We are posting on the internet. With all the time in in the world to contemplate what we will say, and information resources that only a few decades ago were completely beyond human comprehension.
There is no legitimate excuse for being wrong about facts today.
You can only get facts wrong if you are lazy or drowning in confirmation bias.
There is no credit due merely for being right about facts.
It is not some victory. You have associated it with ego for god alone knows what reason.
“at least in your own mind.”
I make errors – but we live in an era when those should be very rare. Being correct about facts is not a sign of intellectual ability. It is a sign of minor diligence. That is all.
“Your Bullshit generator has not slowed a bit in 11 years.”
In all this time I can recall myriads of posts in which you have pronounced “bullshit”
and not one in which you have produced evidence.
Just as it is no sign of merit to get facts accurate, the resources available to both of us make it incumbent on you to back up assertions of misrepresentation when you make them.
When you accuse someone else of “bullshit” – One of the two of you is “bullshitting”.
You are making the accusation, the burden of proof is yours.
“I wonder how many keyboards you have worn out replying to me. The 11 year accumulation can be boiled down to your motto: “I’m right and you’re wrong.””
This is not my “life’s work” – this has been a bad week. I only spent 2 days on paying clients, I spent 5 days repairing computer equipment failures on multiple computers, and a full day out in bad whether moving furniture. Plus some minor car repairs working out a structure issue necescary to create a cathederal ceiling for a friend, and several other things I do not recall.
I am behind and exhausted. A full day lugging furniture in the cold and wind took more out of me than I expected. Further it was my father’s furniture and there is lots of emotional baggage to it. But it is “home” now. and that is good.
And I am 60 and consider myself semi-retired.
This is a distraction while I am doing other things. Certainly not “my lifes work”.
“Anyhow I got out into the woods, made a good nearly 8K ski according to my fitbit GPS program and the day was a pretty good one, not too cold.
A shower, a beer, and then on to Mendelssohn.”
Good for you.
I am headed to spend the evening with my wife watching “Black Earth Rising” on netflix.
They use Leonard Cohen for the credits.
Several posters has adopted the red herring fallacy that
criticism, deprecating ideas, deprecating ambiguous groups, deprecating individuals, and fallacy are all the same.
They are the same only in that they are all permitted.
Otherwise each of these is entirely different.
Nor is your emotional response to an argument relevant to the merits of that argument.
Calling a specific person a pig (even obliquely) – pretty much for any reason,
is a serious character flaw. It says far more about you than anything else.
I can not conceive of any context in which it is relevant.
It is not in anyway the same as any of the other items listed.
To the extent that any of the above might be error, it is ONLY because they are a deliberate effort to evade the argument.
‘
Critcism is how we test ideas. If your feelings are hurt by criticism – that is your problem.
It is also irrelevant.
Deprecating ideas is inherent to criticism. If you do not accept that socialism is stupid – demand an explanation – but then do not complain when you get one.
Frankly you never have a basis to complain when you get a long detailed criticism of whatever idea you have offered. Again that is how we test ideas.
If your Amygdala is driving you are out of control
“Frankly you never have a basis to complain when you get a long detailed criticism of whatever idea you have offered. Again that is how we test ideas.”
The funny thing is getting repetitive criticism of ideas I myself have loudly and angrily rejected forever because you refuse to process my actual meanings and opinions, which everyone else here long ago understood.
The other amusing thing is repeating the same process ad nauseum for years on end. Its like going for the Monty Python Argument Clinic followed by the Getting Hit over the Head lesson.
As anyone can see, I am trapped in a paradox, since I took the bait.
I’m escaping, going skiing. You carry on (and on and…)
Your going to post this schlock as Kant ?
This Immanual Kant ?
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”
Fortunatly I was not drinking when I read your nom de plume or I would have blown it out my nose laughing.
PLEASE. PLEASE read Kant.
I do not care if I persuade you that you are selling nonsense.
If the greatest minds ever to live can convince you – that is fine by me.
“The funny thing is getting repetitive criticism of ideas I myself have loudly and angrily rejected forever because you refuse to process my actual meanings and opinions, which everyone else here long ago understood.”
I am aware of your inconsistencies and self contradictory remarks.
You have on many occasions said very nearly the same things I have said. and then later – sometimes the same day responded with things that are not reconcilable with your prior remarks.
There is the reason that there is no Immanual Kant of socialism – because we are dealing with and ideology that is inherently self contradictory.
There is a reason that post modernist philosophy is nihilist and pretends that all oppinions are equal and everything is an opinion – because that is the only means to resolve the internal self contradictions.
And there is a resign I identify you as a leftist – as that it the ideology of nihism, the only ideology in which your conflicting positions can coexist.
Is there some rule that because you sometimes get things right that you get a free pass the rest of the time.
“the other amusing thing is repeating the same process ad nauseum for years on end.”
I rarely find logic amusing.
When people are stubborn it is repetitive.
“Frankly you never have a basis to complain when you get a long detailed criticism of whatever idea you have offered. Again that is how we test ideas.”
The funny thing is getting repetitive criticism of ideas I myself have loudly and angrily rejected forever because you refuse to process my actual meanings and opinions, which everyone else here long ago understood.
The other amusing thing is repeating the same process ad nauseum for years on end. Its like going for the Monty Python Argument Clinic followed by the Getting Hit over the Head lesson.
As anyone can see, I am trapped in a paradox, since I took the bait.
I’m escaping, going skiing. You carry on (and on and…)
Ha, speaking of repetition… Ooops.
“Absolutism in general or free speech absolutism would be a great topic for a college philosophy class BS session. In real life absolutism is about in the same category as Marxism. Its a fail.”
No it is pretty simple:
Congress shall make no law …..
That is all that is required.
If you shout fire in a crowded theater – anyone injured has a tort against you.
The theater can ban you – for life if it wants.
You presume that just because government can not make a law – that there are no means of controling things.
Read Elenor Olstrom’s Nobel Prize winning work on “the tragedy of the commons”.
She basically discovered that “the treagedy of the commons” is a fallacy.
That free people resolve quite well the issues that are supposed to result in “the tragedy of the commons” all by themselves – without government. And we have been doing so for thousands of years.
This is little different from my argument with Ron over regulation.
There are many possible ways to solve any problem in existance.
There are few problems that require a government solution.
Free Speech is not one of those.
There is absolutely no need for any law limiting speech.
There are plenty of ways to “regulate” speech without laws.
Those will not make everyone happy all the time – that is not possible.
But they also will not involve force, or infringement on rights.
I would also refer you back to Coases law – where rights are will defined and strongly enforced and transaction costs are low, pareto efficiency will be acheived by the market.
Here is a moderate leftist critique of the lurch towards socialism.
There is alot that is wrong with this article – it almost completely inverts the reality of the past 40 years. Despite that its criticisms of the move towards socialism in any form is spot on.
With respect to its errors – according to the article from 2005-2015 Income inequality rose the lest. while from the early 80’s to 2000 it rose the most.
All that does is demonstrate the bogus nature of IE.
Virtually no one railed about the economy from 1983 through 2000.
Because EVERYONE was doing better.
The IE nonsense did not develop support until Bush II switched to Republican socialism and chocked off growth. Of course IE does not rise when growth is poor. At the same time when it sucks to be rich it REALLY sucks to be poor.
Trump was elected because during the very period when the author claims IE was in check and workers wages were rising the working class became increasingly dissatisified with their lot. At the same time during the period when IE was rising the fastest – the working class was the most satisified.
WE DO NOT WANT the economy of Bush/Obama. We want the economy of Reagan/Clinton.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/02/14/millennial-socialism
I need to read this several times to understand how this is NOT a massive bitch slap in the face of both policing for profit and states powers to confiscate property and the use of civil process by the state to circumvent criminal rights.
I can not image a worse case to bring to SCOTUS to try to get this end.
The defendants were smuggling heroin, they were convicted of a crime, the van was used in the commision of the crime. The institute for Justice must know something I do not, because I saw this case as BEGGING the court to bless criminal asset forfeiture AGAIN.
And yet they did not. And BOY did they NOT. UNANIMOUSLY they overturned the indianna supreme court. Further for the first time ever they incorporated the 8th amendment against the states – something the 14th amendment did CLEARLY ( and much more) 160 years ago.
AND they applied the 8th amendment to civil matters – atleast civil actions brought by the state.
I do not understand how this opinion does not make nearly all asset forfeiture in the united stats unconstitutional
While I ABSOLUTELY agree with ending that practice completely. It is beyond my ability to comprehend that todays court could do so 9:0.
A major victory for the Institute for Justice – essentially the libertarain equivalent of the ACLU,
A major victory for individual liberty.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/opinion-analysis-eighth-amendments-ban-on-excessive-fines-applies-to-the-states/
Gorsuch and Thomas concurred. It was necescary to determine what their difference with Ginsburg’s opinion was.
Gorsuch and Thomas rejected the incorporation of the 8th amendment against the states.
Instead relying ONLY on the origianl intent of the 14th amendment priviledges and immunities clause
In otherwords Gorsuch and Thomas would have gone further and re-established the actual original intention of the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment was a reconstruction amendment.
The priviledges and immunities clause has two intentions – both expressed clearly by its authors.
The first was to guarantee that the newly freed blacks in the south would be afforded the same legal status as whites. The language “priviledges and immunities” was deliberate, it was also a deliberate repetition of a priviledges and immunities clause in the constitution.
The reason that the authors used the term of art priviledges and immunities was because they explicitly intended to assert that blacks were entitled to MORE than the mere rights of citizenship. That they were entitled to EVERY right every priviledge every protection.
The second reason for that languages was it applied to ALL citizens not just Blacks.
From the founding through the Civil war there was a legal spat of sorts where the supreme court narrowly construed individual rights and limited them to enumerated rights,
This as well as the deliberate weakening of the constitutions priviledges and immunities clause had several factors driving them – but a major one was that even though the founders wrote the constitution without explicitly abolishing slavery, several clauses in the constitution and the broad understanding of rights the bill of rights intended could not coexist with slavery.
SCOTUS resolved the internal conflict between broad rights and priviledges and slavery by concocting a narrow interpretation of the bill of rights that was inconsistent with its plain language. The 14th amendment was intended to send strong notice to SCOTUS that was WRONG. That if the liberty of citizens conflicted with the wishes of government that what today we call “strict scrutiny” should apply, and more broadly that the 9th amendments and the 10th amendment mean exactly what they say. that in a conflict between government and the individual the presumption must be for liberty – not merely those rights defined in the bill of rights. That strict scrutiny only applied when the constitution explicitly granted government a power – otherwise individual liberty ALWAYS prevails.
They are only two concurances, but still the main oppinion is huge and the concurances would restore the constitution with 3 more votes.
How dare Trump appoint an openly gay ambassador and then try to end the worlds criminalization of homosexuality.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-launches-global-effort-end-criminalization-homosexuality-n973081
Trump didn’t have a clue about the ending homosexuality crimilazation push: probably accomplished behind his back;if he had learned about it, no doubt would have nixed it.
Of course, he knows about it, Jay. But it’s been a priority of Richard Grenell, our current ambassador to Germany ~ you know, the openly gay ambassador, who the Democrats refused to confirm for a year?
But, sure, Trump is clueless. And homophobic, too, I suppose.
Meanwhile, Out Magazine is very upset that it might be the Trump administration that gets Iran to stop executing gay people “”Grennell’s sudden interest in Iran’s anti-gay laws is strikingly similar to Trump’s rhetoric after the 2016 Pulse massacre in Orlando, Florida. After the deadly shooting, Trump used the 49 deaths as a way to galvanize support for an anti-Muslim agenda rather than find a way to support LGBTQ+ people.”
TDS on parade.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/430734-trump-jr-attacks-lgbt-magazine-that-calls-white-house-effort-to
Obviously a fake – but still.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fprofile_images%2F771762057989337089%2FpK7DqwkY.jpg&f=1
Here is some serious actual TDS:
https://heavy.com/news/2019/02/christopher-hasson/
Like other violent trump-inspired nuts, but with more training, ambition, and weapons.
Thanks god for the FBI.
Jeez , wouldn’t this particular trump inspired nut have made the day of that Alabama editor who wanted the KKK to clean out DC.
Absolutely Fake News that he is the illegitimate son of the current president. -:)
He is the Legitimate son of our POTUS. The POTUS calls the press the “enemy of the people” and what does that spawn? People like Hasson, Violent racist supporters ready to, threaten, bomb, or mass murder the press and liberal politicians.
And, I can be sure that the GOP voters will not alter from their support of the POTUS, they will either say that this has nothing to do with trump and other denialistic oblivious empowerment of their demagogue POTUS. I am sure that there are many of the GOP old guard and now discarded politicians who see exactly the evil in this demagogue POTUS but what can they do, the base is thrilled with him.
And, if the nut had succeeded in slaughter like his other hero, Anders Breivik, the GOP voters would react the same way.
Hey, the current head of the Proud boys was sitting behind trump at as latest rally, what could that signify?
A ton of “there is no… will now follow.
Roby, It was reported and published in our paper this morning that identified hate groups had increased to a level just below the number identified in 2011. Wasn’t Obama president in 2011?
My point? There are many reasons for hate groups. But one of the most common these days, compared to hate of blacks before desegregation, is the unequal treatment of straight white males compared to minorities. Government jobs give extra credit, either designed or hidden, to blacks and females. My son-in-law was rejected for an FAA inspector position with responsibility of inspecting aircraft parts used in the aerospace industry in this area. The job was given to a black female, less education, less experience, etc. And you hear stories daily where minority groups are given special treatment for schools, jobs, rights, etc. If I am a bakery owner and agree to prepare a cake, but refuse to decorate for gay partners in a gay decoration, why is this different than refusing to decorate for a hunter with a gun and the baker is anti-gun?
For every action, there is a reaction. While you believe Trump inspires the hate groups and is respinsible for their existence, I believe Trump is the reaction that happened due to the discriminatory treatment of straight white males over the past 15 years.
People who are treated unfairly are going to react. Trump and hate groups are a result of that treatment. IMHO.
Ron;
Could you be so kind as to provide a source ?
The primary source on “hate groups” is the SPLC – which was once a fine organization.
But they have become a pwerful organization whose life blood is hyping the fear of hate groups.
I visited their headquarters in Montgomery a few months back – they have expanded their definition of hate group – enormously. Further they have been successfully sued for defamation several times with many more lawsuits pending.
Every actually credible source of white supremecist hate groups has them on the decline.
Prior to trump and through trump.
While SPLC has been targeting all kinds of groups on the right that almost no one sane considers a hate group.
They – like the left have a problem – absent an continually expanding defintion of hate – they can not find enough hatred in the country to justify their existance. But as they broaden the definition of hate – they catch half the country.
Link to hate article.
Your can find where in 2011 these numbers exceeded 1000, one I think from CNN
https://www.journalnow.com/news/nation_world_ap/law-center-hate-groups-in-us-at-highest-level-in/article_d7533741-5085-5656-8396-bc4bdc1838fe.html
Nearly the first line in your link establishes the SPLC as the source for the data.
The SPLC has transformed from a fine organization that I respected so much that I left them significant contributions in my will to an actual hate group themselves.
They have converted fighting “hate groups” into an industry.
But that poses an inherent problem – first the world naturally improves, their reason for existing would inherently diminish over time.
Next, if they were effective – they would destroy their own reason for existing.
This is not an uncommon problem – if we declare war on poverty – what happens to all those profiting from that war, when we win ?
SPLC has been constantly expanding the definition of a hate group for several decades to attempt to compensate for their declining relevance in the real world where hate is declining.
I am not interested the SPLC.
There are some SMALL clues that the ACLU – or atleast some chapters are recovering and returning to their roots. SPLC is not. Today they are as dangerous as those they were formed to oppose.
I would also note their metric is poor.
The relevance of the number of “hate groups” is the extent to which that tells us the number of INDIVIDUALS who ACT on hate. As SPLC expands the defintion of “Hate Group”.
that relationship becomes weaker and weaker.
Aside from buying into the claim about “hate groups” the rest of your post makes an important point.
It is trivial to demonstrate an explosion of “hate” – if you expand the defintion of hate such as to include all Trump voters.
“He is the Legitimate son of our POTUS. The POTUS calls the press the “enemy of the people” and what does that spawn? People like Hasson, Violent racist supporters ready to, threaten, bomb, or mass murder the press and liberal politicians.”
You lefties really loath ordinary people. You continuously claim that I am somehow arrogant for the great crime of verifying most of what I write that is fact before I post it,
Yet here you are arguing seriously that ordinary people are incapable of thinking for themselvs. that they do not make their own decisions, that they are paws to tiny numbers of incredibly bad russian facebook adds, or that they are mobilized to mass murder by innoccuous and purportedly coded remarks”
GROW UP. There are indicators at the moment that Hasson is just another garden variety mental health case – nothing more. Absolutely they are influenced by what the president says – and the phase of the moon and the cell phone tower beside their house and ….
I think that what Willson did to Eugene Debs was vile and repugnant. And what you are doing here trying to blame Trump is even more vile and repugnant.
Worse still – this stupid standard of yours in YOUR world only works one way. It is only conservative who in your world drive others to violence. The press has been attacking Trump relentlessly – though alot of the attacks are stupid and based on unsourced, badly sourced or unverified SCHLOCK – it is still THEIR JOB to investigate and criticise.
Who is blaming the press for Antifa or all the violence ?
The number of celebrities who have made overtly violent remarks regarding Trump is beyond measure, too my knowledge these are rational people, not nut jobs – I have no problem with there remarks. But YOUR standards claim that is evil and drives people to violence – and they are not just calling Trump “the enemy of the people” they openly talk about assassination, dismemberment, stabbing.
And I here nothing from you on that.
I do not think that you really beleive that people should be restricted in what they can say. I do not think that you really beleive that there is any connection between Trump’s words – which are far LESS violent than say Obama’s – who specifically discussed punching enemies and bringing guns to a fight over politics.
What I think is that your view of the world is so colored that you not only only see the poor conduct of one side – but that you amplify it and then see cause and effect relationships that do not exist.
That is a guess – as I can not read your mind.
But what is NOT a guess – is that whatever standards you claim to have – you apply them ONE WAY ONLY.
There is significant difference in style between Trump’s speach and Obama’s.
The only difference in content, in accuracy, in the things you are fixating on, is that Obama’s politics were more to your liking.
You talk about Trump attacking the press. Which he does – and they attack him and I am fine with that.
But Obama used the power of the state to investigate and threaten the press.
Read the stories of James Rosen and Sharyl Atkinson. The FBI has pretty much admitted at this time they were bugging her electronics without a warrant.
Obama promised to be the most transparent president and he was the least.
No president has tried to use the espionage act more than he. No president prosecuted more leakers, And no president EVER before got warrants against members of the press.
If we are going to talk about a war on the press – THAT I care about – not the stupid nonsense between Trump and the media that is out in the open.
I care about ACTS far more than words – and clearly you do not. You have no interest in holding anyone accountable for actual bad acts.
I grasp that ordinary people are not pavlovs dogs, or drones. That they are personally responsible for the choices they make.
I am still hoping that somehow it will turn out that Jussie Smollett did not try to fake his own hate crime and then report it to the police. I liked Jussie or atleast his character on Empire.
But if the evidence supports that – it is a crime, and we hold people accountable for their actual crimes – bad acts. Not their words good or bad. Jussie was not Programmed to do as he appears to have done – the guys he appears to have hired were not the victims of someelse’s words.
From what I can tell thus far Hasson did not actually do anything. He is just another nut job on or off meds that posted alot of violent and distasteful things. I am glad someone informed law enforcement. Maybe nothing was going to happen – but maybe it would have.
Regardless. People 0rdinary ones, celebrities, even people with problems are responsible for their actions. Not the words they hear.
I am particularly disturbed because you want to jump from “the press is the enemy of the people” – which is not at all an unreasonable remark. Large portions of the press have taken as near unified position on a wide spectrum of things that are heavily biased to the iinterests of a small portion of the country – they are inarguably not interested in the interests of ordinary people. But that bothers you. That you think is such a strong and obvious call to violence – While Obama talking about taking a gun to a knife fight or constantly using punching metaphors for political conflict – that you are OK with ?
Grow up! – There is nothing wrong with Obama’s remarks and even less with Trump’s.
You are – as the left typically is, to narrow the ability of those you like to speak. To make them have to think about their choice of words 100 times before speaking.
But NOT holding your own to the same standard.
The entire purpose of this argument is to either silence or atleast impair the speech of those you do not like.
You are not opposed to actually violent speech – there is plenty of very violent rhetoric from very high profile people on the left – and not a peep from you – not when Obama was president, not now. You are just opposed to the speech of those you disagree with.
We see that even here – it is perfectly OK for numerous posters here to spew incredibly vile and hatefilled remarks, I do not recall reading a single post from anyone else about the many quite nasty and offensive posts that show up here – all the time – and INCREASINGLY.
Yet the fact that I post a large amount – that is somehow vile and hateful to you.
Not only that – but my remarks – you actually use as a justification for the far more vile remarks of others. You litterally argue that there is some equivalence between actual argument – the critique of ideas – and snarky insults of people with no connection to debate at all.
Again the real goal is silencing speech you do not like – nothing more.
I do not care about your insults – I place an extremely high value on free speach. I was not their at the time – but I might as well have been part of the 60’s Berkeley free speech movement – the one the left is now repudiating.
But I do care about your complete hypocracy.
Either hold EVERYONE to the same standards – or quit trying to supress speach.
“And, I can be sure that the GOP voters will not alter from their support of the POTUS, they will either say that this has nothing to do with trump and other denialistic oblivious empowerment of their demagogue POTUS. I am sure that there are many of the GOP old guard and now discarded politicians who see exactly the evil in this demagogue POTUS but what can they do, the base is thrilled with him.”
And those ordinary people would be entirely right.
But lets get your position CLEAR.
Saying
“I want you to go out and argue with your neighbors, I want you to Get in their faces”
That would be unacceptable ?
Saying “We need to punish our enemies”
That would be unacceptable ?
Saying “we know whose ass to kick”
That would be unacceptable ?
Saying that your opponents “Ned to get out of the way”
That would be unacceptable ?
Saying
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun, Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
That would be unacceptable ?
Those are only a few of President Obama’s remarks – there are many more.
If we expand that to democrats as a whole – there are 10’s of thousands more.
In your view – all of that is unacceptable – Correct ?
Obama and democrats who speak like that – are in your view responsible for the violence that results – correct ?
When Thompson shot up republican congressmen practicing for the congressional ball game – that was a vile act of political violence for which those on the left are responsible, not the act of a deranged person with mental health problems – correct ?
All I want from you is a Single standard that you are prepared to apply equally to all.
I greatly favor those on the left like Glenn Greenwald because his principles and standards – even when I do not agree do not change depending on who is in office.
DACA is a good idea. But it is unconstitutional, and I opposed it as such.
This using a national emergency to build the wall, is actually constitutional – congress has passed law giving the president sufficient power to do this, but it is still a mistake. Even if in this particular instance it is not that offensive – it will lead to ever more offensive uses of emergency power – so I oppose it.
I am not perfectly consistent. But I try extremely hard to apply my principles uniformly
Steve Kings remarks are offensive – so are those of Omar and Tlaib.
One standard for all.
It would be really great if we got that standard correct.
But until you atleast make an effort to apply whatever standard you argue for CONSISTENTLY – then you are nothing but a political hack and a hypocrit.
Maybe I am wrong to call you a “left wing nut”. But I am not wrong to call you a hypocrit.
But PLEASE, PLEASE, Prove me wrong!!! Please apply whatever you advocate for CONSISTENTLY.
“People who are treated unfairly are going to react. Trump and hate groups are a result of that treatment. ”
Ron, it is important to understand why hate groups form.
I am sorry, I wish I could be more offended by the treatment of straight white men in America but I just can’t really manage it.
What happened to your son-in-law, did he wind up getting a job?
Between the abduction, murder, slavery, beatings, etc. prior to the civil war followed by the lynchings, back of the bus, separate schools, water fountains, nigger this, nigger that etc. prior to the civil rights movement, the treatment of blacks even during and after the civil rights movement who has more right to be bitter? Is more of a burden being white or black in America? Does one’s race affect their life more if they are white or black?
If getting the shit end of the stick on occasion is reason to form a hate group, then I guess that blacks should just be one big hate group. The last time a black racist shot up a white church? What would be the national reaction if that Did happen.
I am not buying an equivalence argument. White racism sits on FAR less provocation than black racism and has a far longer history and has done far more damage.
I say that as someone whose family moved to a new town when I was 17 which had a large black population unlike our previous all white town, and I had my first black friends in the new town AND my first black enemies, the militants, who especially enjoyed preying on us skinny hippy types, since we were easier to push around than say the jocks or greasers.
I have managed to put that in perspective. Even at the time I was able to put it in perspective.
Affirmative action programs in no way justify or excuse the violent white racist groups. In my opinion those groups are just the descendents of ways of thinking that existed LONG before affirmative action or the civil rights movement.
Roby, first, no he did not get a job with the FAA as an inspector. He is still at Honda aircraft where he has worked for about 10 years in quality control.
Second, You state “I am not buying an equivalence argument”. If I indicated that these were equivalent, then I was wrong. I was not trying to make that point.
My point is action/reaction
Was Trump an action that created hate groups?
Was Trump a reaction by many who support hate groups?
You seem to believe Trump created hate groups after he was elected or during his campaign. If that is the fact, then why were there just as many during Obama’s administration as there are now?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/charts-explain-us-hate-groups/index.html
I believe Trump was a reaction and many in hate groups that may never have voted, went to the polls and nominated Trump, along with other disenfranchised voters. He never got more than 40% of the vote in early primaries and did not get over 50% ntil everyone else of importance had dropped out and the nomination was almost a forgone conclusion.
Trump was never a republican. Trump is not a republican today. Many republicans can not stand Trump, Just look at his policies and they are populist.Populist leaders appeal to a group of disenfranchised voters through braggart speech, portraying a “strongman” image and denigrating those that may attack them politically. They identify those voters that have no voice and give voice to their needs.But given a choice between the current democrats and what they stand for, he is the best we have until someone else comes along to challenge him for the GOP nomination.
And if he is the nominee and one of the current politicians running for president gets nominated, I suspect I will be voting Libertarian again! I can not vote for anyone that will lead this country into a far left political environment.
Unless you beleive the rust belt has recently experienced explosive growth in hate groups – with membership in the MILLIONS trying to blame hate groups for Trump is idiocy.
The left fixates on the small margin of victory that Trump had in the rust belt.
They forget that he flipped 4 states – a shift of more than 2M votes from 2012.
The alt-right may beleive they delivered Trump the election – but that is a delusion.
The left may beleive that racism delivered the election to Trump – for that to be True requires MILLIONS of brand new racists to have sprung up in 4 NORTHERN states since 2012.
Robby;
Please for god sake learn some history.
It is important to understand the formation and life cycle of hate groups
And you have sprayed us with lots of facts that occured over a 200 year period that did not all occur at once that each waxed and waned in their own cycles and that do not fit together in anything like the way you pretend.
Being a slave is not a good thing. There were bad slave owners and good ones – to the extent one can own slaves and be good.
Some of the worst abuses prior to the civil war were the RESULT of laws intended to limit slavery. As an example the law that ended the african slave trade caused the value of slaves to skyrocket and resulted in the worst abuses and the worst forms of slave trading during the history of slavery.
Blacks in the south did quite well after the civil war for over a decade.
But that required two things – the US army to occupy the south at great expense,
and the 14th amendment which allowed blacks to own guns.
The first period of oppression of free blacks occurred after the federal troops left AND after blacks were disarmed. All of the vile activities you cite – waxed and waned over the next century. While the 50’s and 60’s were a period of violent conflict between blacks and white southerners that conflict occured because blacks had become stronger and better respected – both in the south and accross the country. Lynching were dramatically down.
I am not trying to say that the treatment of blacks during that time was good, but that it was much less bad than before.
The 1st KKK was 1865-1871 the numbers are unknown, but it was much larger than today.
The 2nd KKK was 1915 to 1944 – and it peaked at 3-6M members.
That is by far the worst period of black oppression in the south – and the worst of it occured while Wilson was president.
The 3rd KKK was 1946 to the present. It peaked at 8000 – long ago.
The unite the right rally in Charotesville was the response to a KKK rally a month earlier than managed to bring out something like half a dozen clansman.
When I was a teen there were occasional KKK events in my county – with some private cross burning events with nearly 1000 participants.
There have been none in my state for decades.
Getting the shit end of the stick is not a reason to form a hate group – and few do.
It is a reason that many of these people voted for Trump.
YOU are conflating two things that have nothing to do with each other.
Worse that conflation is what cost you the 2016 election and will continue to do so.
So long as you continue to be unable to distinguish between working class whites who think they have gotten a raw deal, and the KKK and hate groups – you will piss people off and lose elections.
We do not presume that every angry black person joins the black panthers,
we do not presume that every gay or trans person that has been discriminated against joins antifa. It is my understanding that Antifa is itself a pretty young, white male group.
I do not think you will find large numbers of whites among the drug gangs and killers in chicago and LA. So what is your point ?
Form 1982 to the present just under 60% of the mass shootings were by whites – that is slightly less than the white percent of the population.
17% were blacks, 10% latino, 8% asian, and 3% native american.
This is pretty close to the racial mix of the country.
“I am not buying an equivalence argument. White racism sits on FAR less provocation than black racism and has a far longer history and has done far more damage.”
Absolutely true – and completely irrelevant.
History matters greatly in many many contexts.
It does not matter at all to the young white guy looking for a factory job in 2019.
He has not raped blacks, lynched them, enslaved them stolen their land, made them ride in the back of the bus. And he knows the young black guy applying for the same job at the same time has not himself experienced those things.
You can not fix past discrimination by discriminating in the present.
Further this white guy is not hung up about the black guy.
What he is hung up about is that he beleives EVERY advantage is going to someone else.
Not only must he face affirmative action in hires – but he is competing for fewer jobs that he beleives are going overseas because of bad trade policies or lost to immigrants working for next to nothing.
Many of his beleifs are wrong – but they are still his beleifs.
What is different between you and I, is that you think he is taking his frustration out by joining the KKK. I think he is doing so by voting for Trump.
Nor is this young white guy the sum total of it all. Working class people who have jobs – and are doing OK – also think that the deck is stacked against them more than others.
If you are a working class white male – even one who did very well in HS, has high SAT’s you stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting into harvard. If you are a legacy, if your parents are professionals – you will get into the prestigious schools.
The best schools in the country do not take many white males and those do not come from the middle or working classes.
If you are white male, middle class and smart – you are headed to a state college or to some 4th tier college – if you are headed to college at all.
While you see people who are far less capable than you headed to harvard.
That is not going to turn you into a KKK member, it is not going to make you a mass killer.
But it probably will make you a Trump voter.
And if it does not – then being called a hateful hating hater by most of the democrats in the country will.
Roby
The world of race today is quite different for 17 year olds than it was when you and I grew up.
Racism is not dead. But if you do not grasp that it has declined dramatically you are blind to the world as it is.
Ron, I don’t believe that trump created any hate groups. I believe his rhetoric has helped to repopulate and re-energise some of the long existing groups. As I wrote in another post, I think many of these groups come into being during reconstruction and have persisted, they have Deep historical roots. They predate Obama, they predate civil rights, they predate affirmative action. Reconstruction was their seed.
Roby, if I have to choose between a President that calls the press the enemy of the people or a president that is secretly an enemy of a free press, I have to side with the constitution.
https://www.libertyheadlines.com/obama-press-snooping-abuses/
Nothing will ever come from Obama’s enfringement on rights, just as nothing will come from Trump attacking the press. But the difference is we know what Trump is doing. We had no idea what BO was doing.
The difference is that Obama used Government – aka FORCE to infringe on rights.
Trump uses speach and infringes on nothing.
You can disagree with Trump. There is no remedy for Obama.
You are going to pretend that this relatively miniscule issue is of critical importance and another of the long list of fallacious reasons that Trump won the election.
And you are going to keep this up forever – despite the fact that all real evidence thoroughly rebuts it ?
“Being a slave is not a good thing. There were bad slave owners and good ones – to the extent one can own slaves and be good.
Some of the worst abuses prior to the civil war were the RESULT of laws intended to limit slavery. As an example the law that ended the african slave trade caused the value of slaves to skyrocket and resulted in the worst abuses and the worst forms of slave trading during the history of slavery.
Blacks in the south did quite well after the civil war for over a decade.”
I do not know if there is even a word for the kind of oblivious mental life you lead. It is pointless to even try to reach someone whose need to contradict goes to such absurd lengths. Oh, the golden African-American age, 1865-1875.
Real history MATTERS.
Reality MATTERS.
We can not learn from history if the history we beleive is some highly inaccurate fabrication.
It does not matter whether we are discussing the ups and downs of the lives of african americans in the US over two centuries – or of the working class over the past 50 years.
If you get the facts wrong you make bad conclusions, and you “learn” things that do not work.
We – you and I keep dancing arround the “socialism fails” issue.
You want to try to make pedantic distinctions and debate the definition of socialism.
That would be totally appropriate and of great important if there were widely different things that were called socialism AND some succeeded while others failed.
But that is not the case. The DATA demonstrates that the “form” of socialism does not matter. That infact it is not “socialism” that fails – but all forms of larger government, and that the rate of failure is proportionate to the scale.
That lesson might require serious scrutiny of economic data to find.
But the lesson that socialism fails – usually catastrophically and often with copious blood is readily available to anyone who wishes to look.
With respect to the history of african americans and racism in this country – and more specifically with the claims and conclusions you are trying to draw – the details matter.
They tell us what has worked and what has failed.
The success of the civil rights movement was NOT because of how bad things had become for blacks in the south. But because of the improvements that had occured driven to a large extent by WWII and its massive need for labor – even black southern labor, and the dramatic rise in the standard of living of blacks that it caused and the improved respect and self confidence that blacks had gained.
WWII had an enormous effect on the world – but it had a UNIQUE effect on the US that pervaded our entire culture. Its social consequences may have been greater than the Civil War and the revolution. Before the war we were despondent. We had lost faith in ourselves.
More than a decade of effort by hoover and then FDR had not changed that at all.
In the blink of an eye – the US involvement in WWII was very short not even 4 years, everything changed. From the perspective of americans we went toe to toe with evil and defeated it. The entire world changed – because of americans. All americans, black, whites women, … When the war ended we beleived we could do anything we wanted to – and to a large extent we did. The lot of blacks had improved as a consequence of the war – the perception of them by others and their perception of themselves. They came home determined to liberate themselves, just as they had helped liberate the world. And they did.
Early in the depression FDR had demonized business, the rich, the captains of industry, but given a choice between beating Germany and Japan and continuing the war against business, FDR ended his class war. Americans came out of the war not merely with confidence in themselves but with confidence in capitalism.
All of these things had long term profound effects. Post war in the US capitalism was seen as one of the great weapons that helped win the war and rebuild america at the same time.
In europe and the UK business was seen as complicit in causing the war. This different perspective radically effected the subsequent history of the US and Europe.
Facts matter – sometimes even details matter.
So, why exactly Are so many violent racist nuts attracted to trump? Mysterious?
OK Roby, there are goons on both sides! Ever both presidents.
https://menrec.com/5-times-obama-encouraged-violence-republicans/
What about Antifa?
To avoid moderation that wont happen, copy and search for this on the internet thehill.com/policy/national-security/350524-antifa-activists-say-violence-is-necessary
This is early and there are nothing from this guy beyond threats, but he looks like another wack job, and I am guessing that family or friends fed him to law enforcement because he needs help.
Large portions of these people have very serious mental health issues.
Most of us do not blame the unibomber or Joe Stack on the left, Or the guy who shot up congress.
It is primarily the left that seeks to score politically cheap points off people with mental health issues.
Anti-fa is organized violence from the left.
There is no equivalent on the right.
And they are huge
And according to twitter – the single most frequent tweet by russian linked accounts was a petition to declare antifa a terrorist organization.
Is this what the left is trying to protect us from ?
Please sir can I have more ?
This “nut case” was hired by the Obama administration and appears to have a drug problem.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/
I despise antifa. Does anyone think they are democrats? Perhaps right wing propagandists would like to have us think so. Antifa are anarchists, libertarians on steroids. They have been smashing shit in Seattle and international bank meetings for a very long time. As far as I know they have not killed anyone yet, they have not shot up any synagogue or black church or blown up a federal building. They are utterly despicable and I am sure the FBI is quite involved in containing them. Have not heard anything from them lately. Antifa is not trumps get of of jail free of responsibility card or the GOP’s.
Wake the fuck up. We have a demagogue president and we have armed white nationalist supporters that he has been appealing to since day one of his presidency. And we have the GOP voters who will avoid taking responsibility for the words and actions of their president.
By the way, WORDS ARE ACTIONS!!!! Especially the words of a president.
No Robby
Words are not actions.
There are limited instances when words are treated as actions – when you have the power to order something and you do so, then you are responsible for the action that occurs.
If Trump orders SAC to nuke Moscow – that is an action on his part.
If Trump tells his followers to murder journalists – that is repugnant speach but not an action – he has no actual power over his supporters – no more than Modonna or Griffith or Depp are responsible if one of their fans assassinated Trump.
Of Course Trump has NOT asked his followers to muder journalists, and Modonna, Depp and Griffith and a long list of others have fantasized publicly about the murder of Trump.
Obama has used action words to direct his followers to violence constantly.
Most of us grasp that he is directing them to METAPHORIC violence.
Regardless, Obama was extremely overt about it.
Trump has rarely used action oriented rhetoric.
And that is one of my points – one of the reason you are on the left.
Because your objective is to silence those on the right, to force them to censor themselves.
While not expecting the same of those on the left.
Antifa is not the democratic party.
Nor is the alt-right the republican party.
Antifa is representative of the left.
Arguably the so called “alt-right” is also of the left.
Regardless, here you are claiming that we must accept that Trump is responsible for Hassan, and yet at the same time telling us that it is right wing propoganda to connect antifa to democrats.
Please explain how that is not incredibly hypocritical ?
Your engaging in EXACTLY the same kind of propoganda.
Tell me how exactly is trying to use Hassan as a millstone arround Trump’s neck different from trying to tie Antifa to democrats ?
Let me identify the ONLY differences I see:
Hassan is nuts.
Hassan has not yet actually acted violently.
The FBI – you know that organization PURPORTEDLY working for the president arrested Hassan.
In all of Hassons rantings there appears to be some expressing a like for Trump.
There is no connection the other way.
Hasson is not part of an organization.
He has not acted – but if he did it would have to be on his own.
Antifa is organized political violence.
They are an ORGANIZATION.
They are OFFICIALLY committed to using Violence.
Antifa does not have a mental health excuse.
They have and continue to commit actual acts of violence – lots of them.
They are OVERTLY political.
Absolutely Antifa has strong anrachist tendencies – like all left ideologies they are internally self inconsistent – they are anti- religion anti-state, pro animal rights, pro-environment.
But they do not seem to grasp that RIGHTS require government – the purpose of govenrment is litterally the protection of rights.
Regardless, – they are not “libertarians on steriods. That would be “anarcho-capitalists.”
The core to libertarianism – is the NAP – the non agression principle
Antifa is quite litterally all about violence.
Libertarianism – even anarcho capitalism is litterally about NON-VIOLENCE.
We are about as opposite as you can get.
One really good formulation of the NAP is Kant’s Catagorical imperative
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law
You may use violence against others ONLY when they have the EQUAL right to do so against you.
The only group in the US that has been consistently anti-war forever has been LIBERTARIANS.
Antifa is litterally at war.
Can you Thin before you post ?
It is hard to know what Antifa has actually done – their membership is secret – they do not even know their own members.
Devin Kelley – the southerland church shooter was claimed to have been antifa.
That was never actually debunked, but it has also not been proven.
He was militantly athiest, very far left, violently animal rights and environment.
Or maybe he is just another lone nutcase.
“Have not heard anything from them lately.”
The left media actively ignore’s antifa – which is probably a very wise choice – one they should make more often. Just as they should have ignored Hassan.
We are all safer when random violence does NOT get lots of attention.
But the absence of Antifa coverage is not absence of antifa action.
Portland blocked FBI surveillance of Antifa.
The police in Portland are now in trouble for warning “patriot prayer” a non-violent group, when Antifa was moving towards them so they could get away.
There is a video of an antifa assault on a conservative at UCB just this week on Youtube.
An antifa leader in Phila being tried for an assault in November has been officially tied to several Philadelphia democratic party groups as a campaign manager, appearing on democratic podcasts, and even meeting with senior democrats at the CFPB.
On Jan 30, an antifa member was shot and killed by police after he opened fire on police.
A week ago antifa was caught staging a “fake” white hate group rally against Rep. Omar.
“Antifa is not trumps get of of jail free of responsibility card or the GOP’s.”
That is correct. But they are evidence of YOUR hypocracy.
If you are going to argue that Trump’s rhetoic – rhetoric that does not come even vaguely colse to an actual incitement to violence is responsible for Hassan and others they why are you not arguing that the rhetoric of those on the left does not make them responsible for the violence of antifa ?
If Trumps words are acts as you say – then so are the words of Obama and other democrats.
If Trump and republicans are responsible – then so are Obama and democrats.
Either you have a single standard – or you are a hypocrit.
“We have a demagogue president ”
When haven’t we ?
Do I need to go back and find the video of Obama’s mount olympus victory celebration ?
“we have armed white nationalist supporters that he has been appealing to since day one of his presidency. ”
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”
Pres. Obama.
I would note that is pretty much EXACTLY the same thing as every single one of those white supremecist groups you fixate on.
There were LOTS of guns at Charlottesville – ALL in the hands of the “white supremecists”.
There is BTW LOTS of video of that.
Yet not a shot was fired. One scared nuts white kid living in his mother basements and off his meds found himself lost on the streets of Charlottesville and backed into a crowd where Heather Heyer had a heart attack.
That is the centerpeice of your fears of white supremecists with guns ?
The entire Alt-rght is less than 1/4 the size of the portland Antifa.
You really thing Trump desparately needs another 5000 votes ?
Trump is openly appealing to young white male working class blue collar people who have been left behind in the rust belt.
He is not calling them to violence – and NONE of them have been
He is calling them to vote.
He promissed them manufacturing jobs – and t everyones surprise there are LOTS of new manufacuring jobs in the US. He promised them fair trade or tarriffs, He is delivering on that promise. He promised them a wall so they would not have to compete for work with illegal immigrants, and he is delivering on that promise.
You can disagree with those things – I disagree with some of those things.
But there is ZERO question that is who he is appealing to
Not Richard Spensor.
Regardless, you can not tie Trump to white supremecists without by the same criteria typing democrats to antifa. Atleast not without being ludicrously hypocritical.
To the extent there is any difference the connection between antifa and democrats and the left is STRONGER.
I can provide a long list of things that Trump has done that he and the GOP are fully taking credit for.
I can provide some that have occured that are probably not their responsibility – yet they are taking credit
What is it that you think the Trump/GOP is not taking credit for ?
That rates of violence are DOWN ?
That the left has wigged out and refuses to accept the results of the last election ?
That the left and media is completely bonkers and has spent the past two years frothing at the mouth ?
While things are not nearly as much better as Trump claim, few things are worse.
So what is it they are not taking credit for ?
BTW if you are going to play this words are action games – we are going to have to lock up alot of democrats for their words.
I was wrong.
“The Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist[7] groups in the United States.[11] The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action,[12] with conflicts occurring both online and in real life.[13] They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.[18]
Activists involved in the movement tend to be anti-capitalists[19] and subscribe to a range of ideologies, typically on the left. They include anarchists, socialists and communists along with some liberals and social democrats.[25] Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than through electoral means.[12]
OK , so here is a question maybe only a PHD sociologist can answer.
Is Antifa a result of conservative hate groups?
Are conservative hate groups a result of Antifa?
Or are both a result of government actions trying to promote winners and losers?
I side with government causes most of it, but I know no one will agree.
None of the above.
Antifa has waxed and waned over time.
Its shifts DO NOT correlate to anything you suggest.
I’m not that sociologist but I say Antifas is an anti capitalist group first and foremost, primarily a certain personality type of violence addicted far left anarchists and communists, and their roots go to the struggle between capitalism and marxism. Their battle with white supremacists I believe is a more recent development that gives them some kind of excuse to do what they really want to do, riot, break shit, intimidate people.
I think that the roots of the white racist/nationalist/supremacist/chauvinist groups go all the way back to the attitudes before and after the civil war and reconstruction. The southern view of the inferiority of the black race that slavery rested on became even stronger and more bitter and violent after the civil war and reconstruction and has just festered on and on since then, and yes, particularly in the south, there is no getting away from that.
Its not some new thing that sprung from nowhere because of affirmative action.
Antifa is angry young left wing nuts.
disproportionately white and disproportionately male.
While they spew idelogical views, I do not think that generalizing about them ideologically is accurate – beyond that that are angry and on the far left.
If you could get them to debate ideology with each other – they would likely kill each others. What they are agreed on is that the world is f’d up and violence is the answer.
It is not the south that cost Clinton the election in 2016.
It is not angry young white male southerners that flipped PA, OH, WI, …
Several southern states are now pink not red. VA may be blue.
MD is blue and has been for a long time – and it is definitely part of the SOUTH.
“I think that the roots of the white racist/nationalist/supremacist/chauvinist groups go all the way back to the attitudes before and after the civil war and reconstruction”
Both false and irrelevant. Very few of the alt right groups in Charlotesville came from the deep south – they came from OH, VA, WV, TN, IN..
Next you are fixated on groups that in total have less membership than the antifa portland chapter.
The alt-right had zero appreciable effect on the 2016 election.
Further even your southern racist group hypothesis is again irrelevant.
ANY republican was going to win the south.
No matter how powerful or weak alt right groups were in the south.
I have little doubt the left is pissing off young white males in the south.
But the left can afford that – they are not voting democrat anyway.
Your big problem is in the rust belt.
This is important because you can get away with calling southerners racist.
True or not – the nation beleives it, and true or not – they are not voting for you anyway.
Just as Trump can piss all over urbanites and the media. He is not getting their votes no matter what. He can make them so angry they explode with no consequence.
He can make 100% of registered democrats hopping mad at him and still have a landslide in 2020.
Conversely the left can piss off the entire south – and has, and still win elections.
Though it will cost them senate seats in places like Louisiana.
But you can not piss of the people in the rust belt, in the midwest. in “fly over country”.
And you have. You have convinced them that you think they are all racists, and hateful hating haters. And you have lost their vote.
“f you could get them to debate ideology with each other – they would likely kill each others. What they are agreed on is that the world is f’d up and violence is the answer.”
Ha, I like that answer.
“No Robby
Words are not actions.”
Sure Dave, anything you say, the I have a dream speech, the Gettysburg address, not actions. The Potus calling the press an enemy of the people, not an action.
Reflexive contrarianism has you locked in a useless bubble.
Robby;
You are the contrarian.
Words are the means by which we communicate and persuade people.
The speeches you cite – were important because they persuaded people and resulted in ACTIONS.
I would add to those the words of Adam Smith, John Locke, Bastiat, Madison, the entire classical liberal philosophy – as well as the words of those preceding it that lead to it.
Where you and I differ is that you seem to think words have independent power of their own – that persuasion is hyponosis.
Lincoln spoke to people – they listened to what he said. They weighed it, and THEY decided that Lincoln had communicated an important truth to them and THEY acted.
Lincolns words were important. But they would have been entirely meaningless had the people hearing them chosen to reject them or ignore them.
The same is true of Locke, and Smith and Kant and King.
The words were important because PEOPLE – each of us as individuals evaluated them and determined them to be true and we changed how we ACTED.
The differences is not merely important it is critical.
In your scheme words are powerful forces that people are unable to resist, and we must assure that only the right words are allowed to be spoken.
In your view – the words of Russians in our elections are incredibly dangerous – because people are morons easily mezmorized by evil words.
I do not pretend that people are perfect or always get it right or that positive changes do not often take a long long time.
But in my view – the real world. We can applaud the words of King and Lincoln and we should read or listen to them as well as myriads of others. But Each of us remains individually responsible for our own actions. We are not drones, we are not the borg. we are not a hive mind. We hear MLK. Lincoln, Smith, Trump, AOC Russian FB adds and WE make our own choices WE decide what to pay attention to. WE decide what to ignore.
In my world – what Lincoln says is powerful and important because it spoke truth that we recognized as truth and chose to act.
In my world – the significance of the words of MLK or Lincoln or Trump is determined by EACH OF US as INDIVIDUALS. The power of the words of King is based on OUR judgement, not some magical manipulation of our amygdala
Roby, I missed something. I read he was inspired by the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik but did not see anything about Trump. Could you provide that link. Thanks
Use the find function of your browser to search for the word trump in the link I provided. You will find it. He IS a trump supporter, he was disturbed by the idea of impeachment, wanted a violent rebellion in response. Is he a nut? well he has been functioning in society for 49 years, was hired by several branches of the military, must have been pretty normal other than in his beliefs.
Yes he is a nut, just like all hate group sympathizers
So we really want to start the – if nuts support someone they must themselves be a nut fallacy ?
I can provide a long list of nuts that supported Obama or Hillary.
Jay provides many of them with his constant “#nevertrump” tweets.
He really should look up the people he is linking to.
If you sympathize with a hate group, I think you are a nut.
Of you are a nut and support Obama/Clinton, you don’t have to sympathize with hate
“If you sympathize with a hate group, I think you are a nut.
Of you are a nut and support Obama/Clinton, you don’t have to sympathize with hate”
John Hinkley and Richard Spensor are both dangerous.
But most of us do not try to make sense of Hinkley.
Spensor is nuts, those in Antifa are nuts. But not in the way that Hinkley is.
Hinkley does not inspire a mass following, his statements do not require refutation or rebutal.
We do not blame Jodi Foster for Hinkley’s actions.
The majority – if not all these lone killers are like Hinkley – not Spensor, and whether their remarks seem to implicate an ideology is meaningless.
In one long article that I read there was a brief remark that there were some pro-trump posts on his facebook.
Thus far what few “facts” we have, are that he had alot of weapons and he said alot of threatening things.
He is a reason for very serious reasons for concern. Law enforcement appears to have done their job.
There are reasons to beleive that he has serious mental health problems.
There is no reason to beleive that he was somehow directed by anyone.
There is no reason to beleive that he conspired or coordinated.
There is actually a pretty high probability that he would never have actually done anything.
Thus far we have no evidence that he has ever acted violently in the past – again what we have is preliminary. In an hour that may change.
It took a day to get from Jeremy Christian is a racist Trump supported murdering muslims on a portland bus to discovering that he was just someone with serious mental health issues and had Sanders support plastered all over his facebook.
Sanders was no more responsible for Christian than Trump for Hasson.
Or if you have to flip it – Sanders is NO LESS responsible for Christian than Trump for Hasson.
Regardless, until you are consistent – your argument is just partisan hackery attempts to silence others of the worst type.
And again part of why I identify you as part of “the left”.
TODAY – not in the 60’s the ideology of censorship is “the left”.
The arguments you are making – are the same as those of “the left”.
Only “the left” is strongly arguing for censorship,
Ron, there are nuts of all kinds everywhere. VIolent racist nuts are a subset. If a nut is a white nationalist/racist/chauvinist nut then those points of view get the blame for the vile set of ideas that the nut fell into. These nuts don’t invent their racist roots, the racist movements exist and spawn the nuts. Simply saying that these people are nuts misses that whole point. SOme of these people are truly psychotic, like the nut who shot up the kindergarten or the nut who shot Giffords. Others, most of them, are not psychotic, they don’t hear voices or have the brains of a squid, the essence of their nuuttines is that they are vile violent humans beings.
No sensible person should stir the toxic pot of white nationalism/supremacy/chauvinism.
The ideology of people with serious mental health problems is pretty much meaningless.
It is irrelevant whether some paranoid is a left wing nut like the unibomber, or a right wing nut.
They are in that very small group of people with mental health problems who are violent.
Trying to find some theme in their ideology is lunacy.
Quite often they have left and right elements.
Or they are kill people over things that do not make sense – like Grammar.
Trying to divide people with serious mental health problems into groups by ideology – makes YOUR sanity suspect.
There are a number of mental disorders that SOMETIMES result in violence.
Paranoid Schitzophrenics are only twice as prone to violence as normal people.
Most people with mental health issues do not hear voices.
At the same time – no they are not merely violent human beings.
We have another name for violent human beings – CRIMINALS.
Criminals are not particularly ideological.
While pretty much the entire class of people that you seem to think are politically motivated are people with mental health problems. In fact a significant portion of “terrorists” are people with mental health problems.
People with mental health problems that draw them to violence will near certainly find some real world justification for their violence – they will wrap themselves in left or right ideology, or both or weird things like the unibomber.
But their ideology is irrelevant. They were going to adopt some rationalization no matter what, and they were going to be violent no matter what.
Antifa and the altright are different – while these people are often not that smart, they are also not generally criminals – in the normal sense, and not mentally disturbed.
Though they are people who blame all the problems in the world on ideology.
They might even be right about some of that.
Where they become an issue is when they become violent.
Real political violence is nearly always group violence – not individual violence.
“SOme of these people are truly psychotic, like the nut who shot up the kindergarten or the nut who shot Giffords. ”
Bad writing,those two cases were not racist nuts but they were cases of violent nuts who were utterly insane. They have a legitimate insanity defence. Brevik didn’t, Root didn’t
You keep trying to sell this garbage that it is in anyway meaningful what someone with severe mental health problems beleives ideologically.
The FBI was provided emails from Hasson. They did not find him, they merely did what local law enforcement would have done had they been provided with the emails.
If things at the FBI are so bad we have to praise them for just doing their job – we are in trouble.
I would further note this guy had not acted.
Maybe he would have – most like this actually do not.
What we do have in this instance is law enforcement not ignoring a potential lead.
Regardless, it sounds like another in the long line of people with mental health issues.
@Anon. I was going join you in criticizing Dave, but it would just be feeding a incoherent troll, a big one.
Thanks for your efforts, they are appreciated, at least by me.
George is pissed:
“George F. Will: Republicans who abide Trump’s trashing of the Constitution should be expelled from public life”
“Every Republican who supports the president in this trashing of the Constitution whose creation began here thereby violates his or her sworn oath to defend it and to “bear true faith and allegiance” to it. Voters should expel all of them from public life.”
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/02/21/george-f-will-republicans/
There are a lot of people like George Will out there, the discarded old guard of conservatism and the GOP. Their words are from some forgotten era. They do not reach the minds of GOP voters today. He will sway no one, other than those who already long ago understood trump and his meaning.
I have a great deal of respect for Will built over a long time.
Further TODAY Will is more libertarian that conservative old guard.
Your respect for Will is near certainly contingent on Trump remaining president and Will continuing to criticise him.
You would not give a fig about Wills oppinion if he were criticising Obama or Hillary.
I am not particularly intertested in your appeals to authority that you do not really respect.
Will is rare among #nevertrumpers in that he is not a neocon.
I have no interest in the critiques of neocon’s of anyone.
I have not read Will’s remarks about Trump but he is likely right – save one thing.
Trump Remains “the lessor evil” – compared to Clinton, and compared to the democratic field for 2020
BTW what is it that you expect Will to change republican minds about ?
I could diminish my already poor oppinion of Trump substantially – and it still would be higher than Sanders or Harris or Fauxchantas.
Attacks on Trump accomplish nothing until democrats put up a candidate that will not make a lousy president.
We should have a better choice than we do.
But we do not.
What is it that you think is “Trump and his meaning” ?
There is NEVER going to be a president that I like in all things.
I am ALWAYS going to have some disagreement with any president.
Trump is far from perfect – Absolutely.
Give me a better choice.
Ron likes to keep pushing this theory that if the primary’s were somehow different Trump would not have won.
Absolutely – but everyone understood the rules of the contest, Those rules applied equally to all. If you do not like those rules – change them.
Trump won – both the primary and the general according to the rules.
You can not predict what would have occured with different rules – whether it is the primary of the general – because different rules would have resulted in different tactics.
You can not presume that you can change one thing – like the way the primaries were run, and have everything else remain the same. Change one thing and everyone responds to that change. You can not know what will happen – but the probability is that the winner of the contest with one set of rules – will likely win with others. why – because people with the skill level of presidential candidates and their top staff know how to make any set of rules work for them.
What I see as “the meaning of Trump”
Is that the number of US voters pissed off by the left is greater than I expected.
That the number of people offended by blanket accusations of hateful, hating hater directed at whoever they disagree with is larger than I expected. That voters rejected 4-8 more years of Obama.
Most of what has occurred since Trump’s election – though some started before, is the left engaged in criminal abuse of power. Is a coup attempt by those int he FBI and DOJ.
If that is too strong for you – whatever you want to call it – it was wrong.
What I have seen is a press that is inflaming passions – even hatred to make money and score points with the left.
What I see is a left that is unwilling to accept that they are not universally going to be able to get their way on everything and that they can not expect to permanently impose their will on the rest of us by force.
What I see is clear evidence that overall the economic/regulatory management of the country over the prior 16 years was a failure and that it has improved by almost 50%.
Is forgery impeachable?
If you read the article – Trump could have nominated himself or any one in his cabinet.
It is highly unlikely that Trump would have forged something he could do legitimately.
I would also suggest that if the forgery is obvious – it is likely a false flag.
Regardless, I would strongly suggest post Smollet that you might want to wait and see before rushing these or you could find yourself like AOC or pelosi quitetly deleting Tweets that now sound stupid.
Like AOC’s tweet brutally taking someone to task for saying “alleged” before the Smollet attack.
I liked Smollet and I still sort of hope this will NOT turn out to be the fraud it looks like right now.
I would ask you what brings people to fake being the victim of hate crimes ?
One article I read suggested that the left has made victim status so valued and actual hate crimes increasingly rare so the easiest way to acquire that status is to fake it.
Are you so dense as to think I meant he actually forged the document with his own tiny hands?
No. I think you are so stupid that you beleive Trump would commit a crime that he would with near certainty get caught at, rather than do something far easier that would accomplish the same thing.
But then you beleive that Trump conspired with Russia to get Putin to run $5M in really bad FB adds, rather than call up someone on Madison avenue and say here is $5M go run a bunch of really good FB adds.
Something lighter.
https://www.theonion.com/pope-spends-afternoon-filling-in-glory-holes-all-over-s-1832756030
Let us not forget this week in trump’s America
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/18/hate-crimes-sayoc-bowers-bush-beierle-bombs-race-shootings-pittsburgh/2298754002/
Yup – 4 nut jobs.
Bowers opposed Trump
Beierle appears to have no connection of any kind to Trump
There were some old things suggesting he was a reagan fan – maybe.
He was registered as an independent.
He did not have any republican or conservative stuff on his social media.
Sayod was self medicating with lots of steroids.
Bush is a paranoid with serious mental health issues for a long time,
As well as lots of bizarre violent incidents in the past.
Your point ?
James Hodgkinson
Or what of Jeremy Christian – turns out he was a sanders supporter.
Here is a list of those arrested for assorted acts of violence at a SINGLE antifa event.
Lacy Macauley,
Hannah Baker,
Daniel Smigel,
Aaron Brown,
Ian Young,
Chin Russell,
Mark Huff,
Zachary Guerra
Joshua Morgan,
Hayley Currier,
Alexander Bennett,
John Shade III,
John Martin,
Stavros Glitsos,
Mackenzie Faerber,
Jacob Chamberlain,
Benjamin Greer,
Blair Walker,
Shay Matmanivong,
Hannah Manela,
Or this – is this OK with you ?
The fog machine is already hard at work. Listen guys, the POTUS is a demagogue who calls the press the “enemy of the people” on a fairly regular basis. Cut the shit, yes there have been violent nuts on all sides before, but we have NOT had a POTUS who stirs them up by calling the Press the enemy of the people, among many other demagogic provocations, at least not in my lifetime.
Cut the shit. I am going to lose total respect for any poster here who tries to play what is happening down.
Roby “Cut the shit, yes there have been violent nuts on all sides before, but we have NOT had a POTUS who stirs them up by calling the Press the enemy of the people, among many other demagogic provocations, at least not in my lifetime.”
I dont support any of this! But what is the difference than Obama bringing a gun to a knife fight? It is all dividing America.
The division got going big time during Obama’s term. It continues today.
But the internet and news today is far different than news 15 years ago. They are part of the problems. And they are not doing anything to reduce the hate being promoted, either directly or indirectly.
You may not agree. But from my perspective when Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Arizona in 2011 by someone diagnosed later as paranoid schizophrenia, the press immediately blamed the right, Sara Palin and a number of other right wing groups and issues. They tried linking distrust for government as the right wing hate issue as the reason, but failed. So in this case, as with many others, they were the enemy of the people by promoting news that was incorrect and they knew it. They were promoting a reaction against another group of individuals by restricting rights in the constitution.
The issue is not the result that needs to be eliminated. The issue is determining why and reducing that. How about starting there and then all the other results would not be an issue.
The Giffords shooter was insane. There was a political angle to his insanity:
“He had become obsessed with Giffords,[64] and had previously met her at a “Congress on your Corner” event in a Tucson mall in August 2007.[65]…
Loughner had been posting material online for some time via his Myspace account and on YouTube under the name “Classitup10”.[61][68][69] He gave his views on terrorism, federal laws, and his belief that the government was brainwashing the citizenry with language.[61][63][69][70] Hours before the incident, Loughner’s Myspace page was updated with posts from his account stating, “Goodbye”, and said to friends: “Please don’t be mad at me.”[61][71][72]”
So, it was political but it was not Sarah Palin. But, there is no way in hell that Sarah Palin should have been using crosshairs on districts of democratic politicians in a political ad, so the shit she caught was shit she got herself into, I’ve no sympathy.
This is what wiki has to say on the shooting and its political overtones and I think its pretty accurate:
“In the wake of the shooting, Democrats and Republicans both called for a cooling of political rhetoric and a return to bipartisanship.[19] On the eve of the shooting, Giffords had written to a Republican friend, Trey Grayson, Secretary of State of Kentucky, saying, “we need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down.”[130] In March 2010, Giffords had expressed concern about the use of crosshairs on a national midterm election map on Sarah Palin’s campaign webpage denoting targeted congressional seats, including Giffords’s, in Arizona’s 8th district. Shortly after the map’s posting and the subsequent vandalizing of her office that month, Giffords said, “We’re in Sarah Palin’s ‘targeted’ list, but the thing is that the way she has it depicted, we’re in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize that there are consequences to that action.” At that point in the interview, however, the interviewer said, “campaign rhetoric and war rhetoric have been interchangeable for years.”[27][131] The image was removed from Palin’s “takebackthe20” website following the January shootings.[131][132][133] Palin responded to her critics in a January 12 video, rejecting the notion that anyone other than the gunman could bear any responsibility for the Tucson shooting, and accusing the press of manufacturing a “blood libel” to blame her and the right wing for the attacks.[134][135][136]
The political climate in the United States and in Arizona in particular was pointed to by some observers as a possible contributing factor for the violent act. For example, Clarence Dupnik, Pima County Sheriff, initially expressed concern that overheated political rhetoric and violence may be related, observing, “When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.” He believed that Arizona had unfortunately become “the capital” of such feelings. “We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry,” he said.[137][138] But, Dupnik later said that he had no evidence that the killings were a result of anything particular which Loughner may have read or heard.[139] International media referred to the political climate in the United States and the Palin map in particular.[140][141][142][143][144] The French newspaper Le Monde said that the attack seemed to confirm “an alarming premonition that has been gaining momentum for a long time: that the verbal and symbolic violence that the most radical right-wing opponents have used in their clash with the Obama administration would at some point lead to tragic physical violence.”[145] “
Grow up.
I keep pointing out Obama’s “guns and knifes” rhetoric.
Politicians – and nearly everyone in any competitive endeavor uses that kind of language and those kinds of symbols.
Palin did not invent the political use of crosshairs – and further she did NOT put people in the crosshairs – her crosshairs map identified specific congressional districts she was targetting.
Democrats did the same thing, the same year using bullseyes.
Many politicians left and right to this day use crosshairs of bulleyes.
Further we talk about the WAR on drugs, the WAR on crime, the WAR on illiteracy, the WAR on poverty.
One of the reasons that we do – is that we all understand, left and right that in war extraordinary measures are justified, that WAR justifies the infringement on liberty.
Further we are competitive creatures and winning in politics and business, and …. is about motivation.
You are pissed at Palin and Trump for doing what is incredibly common not merely in politics but business, sports, EVERYWHERE.
If you took your argument to its conclusion – there is very little we could say.
The pew data which is the most common source for the claim that we are more idiologically distant than ever has the gap narrowing prior to 2009 and widening from 2008 to the present.
AND it has “the right” shifting slightly left during that time, and “The left” moving further left to expand the gap.
This is entirely a left wing problem.
Roby
Why should anyone care who you respect ?
Why should anyone respect you ?
It is crystal clear that your standards are completely hypocritical
That the only rhetoric you care about is that of Trump and the left.
It did not take much effort to find Chris Cuomo not merely defending Antifa – but claiming their violence is justified.
We listen to you and others rant about the evils of Brietbart or Info wars or Fox.
All the time – if attacking the press is vile – then attacking fox and infowars and brietbart is too.
It is FOG – to try to connect every single violent person with mental health issues to Trump.
Do you really want to start assigning blame for the violent actions of disturbed people to one party or another ?
Simple question – YES, or NO ?
If that is your standard – then I can produce a long list of nutjobs that are atleast as tied to democrats or Obama as the guys you what to attribute to Trump ?
Or maybe we can be SANE and grasp that we can not tie the actions of people with mental health issues to politics.
My wife had a disturbed Trans client who murdered someone in a paranoid fit.
Should we blame all transexuals for that ? There are plenty who would have in the past ?
You are quite litterally employing the same repulsive tactics that racists and homophobes did in the past.
“the POTUS is a demagogue”
Probably – that is a very common attribute of POTUS’s – Obama certainly was on.
“who calls the press the “enemy of the people” on a fairly regular basis.”
Has be bugged them illegally ? Has he sought and received warrants against the press ?
Obama did both of those.
“Cut the shit, yes there have been violent nuts on all sides before, but we have NOT had a POTUS who stirs them up by calling the Press the enemy of the people, among many other demagogic provocations, at least not in my lifetime.”
I do not recall a POTUS who did specifically that.
I do recall a president who talked about bringing guns to a knife fight, about getting in opponents faces, about taking the fight to them. about ….
Odd standard of your – Obama’s rhetoric involves ACTUAL WEAPONS, specifically INCITES followers to ACT and with violence.
Trump merely identifies the press as an enemy.
Obama identify groups with “patriot” in their names as “enemies” and the IRS went after them.
“Cut the shit.”
Absolutely Robby – CUT THE SHIT.
End the hypocracy. You are not so stupid that you do not understand that your remarks are thoroughly one sidfed, that you have completely different standards for right and left.
“I am going to lose total respect for any poster here who tries to play what is happening down.”
What is happening ?
Overall rates of violence in the US have been dropping – they have been doing so since a spike in the 80’s
There are only two forms of violence that have recently increased – murders in a small number of democratic urban areas and ANTIFA.
So what is going on Robby ?
Are you claiming Trump is inciting violence ?
Shouldn’t that be easy to prove ?
Is violence increasing ? No! It has been declining for a long time.
Trump does not get credit. Nor Obama.
Is some specific form of violence increasing – yes – that of Antifa and that of murders in places like Chicago.
Are you arguing that Trump is responsible for Anti-fa or chicago murders ?
You say that the fog machine is running.
What is being obscured ? Where are your facts ?
You claim a trend – there should be data to support that.
Otherwise you are just cherry picking (badly) specific instances of violence our of a slight downward trend.
I think you are claiming “incitement”.
So what did Trump do – he identified a group – the press as enemies of the people.
“they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them”
Is that free speach or tareting a group ?
BTW in 2016 Obama essentially repeated that remark – though without the guns and bibles and targeted at Trump
Which is exactly what you are doing.
Please explain to ma how what you have argued regarding Trump does not devolve down to:
Large numbers of americans – particularly working Class white males,
are too stupid to think for themselves.
Trump or Steve King or Gavin McInnes or Putin or some other person you hate, dog whistles to them and activates their innate hatred and racism and causes them to kill or vote agains their interests ?
Please explain to me why that is NOT what you are arguing ?
“Cut the shit. I am going to lose total respect for any poster here who tries to play what is happening down.”
So lets address that.
What is it that you say is happening that is being played down or denied ?
Please explain ? Actually say what it is that you beleive is being hidden ?
Are you saying that working class white males are being driven to violence by Trump ?
Put your actual claim to words, Actually say what you think, what you mean.
If you are going to accuse the rest of us of hiding or playing down something – then you should be able to state what it is that is being payed down – out in the open and clearly.
If you think there is some kind of cause and effect releationship – then state the WHOLE THING openly and clearly.
I highly doubt you will – because without being evasive or obfuscating by fixating on one end or the other rather than the entire cause and effect relationship from end to end – you look stupid, and I think you know that.
But go ahead – prove me wrong. Say what you actually think and beleive.
Say what the rest of us are “down playing”.
Bus say the WHOLE THING – from end to end.
You are accusing everyone else of pretending there is no connection – well EXPRESS the connection CLEARLY.
I will throw this into the pot. The responsible people who the current whipping boys of the week of the GOP propagandists-opinionists, McCabe and Rosenstein, did what responsible people in their position Should do in the case of a POTUS whose behavior was exceptional, demagogic, erratic, chaotic, obviously ill informed, impulsive, and at times even in opposition to US interests regarding Russian meddling in his election and the appraisal of it by our own intelligence agencies. I’m bloody glad if his access to the nuclear launch capabilities was kept under close eye by Mattis and his attempts to interfere with the FBI aroused great concern. Thanks for for opposition to trump in the government. Its some sign that there is hope. That is my universe.
Someone may say that I have TDS. Trump derangement syndrome cuts both ways, is it his supporters or his detractors who have the worst case of it? History will make its judgment in time.
Here are some of the comments on Trump by those who know him:
“A f…ing moron.” Rex Tillerson
“An idiot, unhinged.” John Kelly
“An idiot and a dope.” H. R. McMaster
“An idiot surrounded by clowns.” Gary Cohn
“A racist, misogynist and bigot.” Omarosa Newman
“He’s like a 11 year-old child.” Steve Bannon
“Has the understanding of a 5th or 6th grader.” Jim Mattis
“An empty vessel when it comes to the constitution and the rule of law.” Scott Pruitt
“An idiot.” Reince Priebus
“A complete idiot.” Steven Mnuchin
“a terrible human being” Mick Mulvaney
“a terrible person” George Romney
“The dumbest godd@mn student I ever had.” William Kelley (Wharton professor)
“One of us.” David Duke
a sexual predator– at least 16 women
Comments on Trump from his own staff/supporters:
“A f…ing moron.” Rex Tillerson
“An idiot, unhinged.” John Kelly
“An idiot and a dope.” H. R. McMaster
“An idiot surrounded by clowns.” Gary Cohn
“A racist, misogynist and bigot.” Omarosa Newman
“He’s like a 11 year-old child.” Steve Bannon
“Has the understanding of a 5th or 6th grader.” Jim Mattis
“An empty vessel when it comes to the constitution and the rule of law.” Scott Pruitt
“An idiot.” Reince Priebus
“A complete idiot.” Steven Mnuchin
“The dumbest godd@mn student I ever had.” William Kelley (Wharton professor)
“One of us.” David Duke
Ooops, Word editing error on my part. You get the point nonetheless. WordPress is now sending my post before I even press the button and have a chance to read it over.
It remains to be seen what Rosensteins actual culpability is. But it is difficult to imagine him escaping this unsullied.
As Derschowitz has pointed out clearly – there is zero confusion about the use and purpose of the 25th amendment. Anyone disusing the use of the 25th amendment to remove a sitting president – who is NOT the VP or a member of the cabinet is out of line and should be fired.
Anyone discussing using the 25th amendment to remove a sitting president that is not incapacitated – by virtue of stroke or gun shot or some other physical infirmity – even a member of the cabinet – is acting OUTSIDE the constitution.
The 25th amendment was passed to address 2 specific problems.
Wilson had a stroke while president that left him essentially unable to function.
The next was that Reagan was shot by John Hinkley and unable to perform the responsibilities of the job for several hours.
The 25th amendment does not provide for the removal of the president. It allows the VP to act as president for a very short period of time – after which congress, by a margin greater than needed to impeach must remove the president or the president resumes his role.
Nothing close to what Rosenstein and McCabe were discussing was ever contemplated.
Nor do the head of the FBI or a DAG play any role in the 25th amendment.
Wearing a wire on any sitting president is actually worse. A wire requires a warrant.
These bozos quite obviously did not have the basis for a criminal investigation much less a warrant.
What “behavior” are you refering to ?
McCabe claims that he was justified by Trump’s removal of Comey – McCabe has waxed Eloquently about how great Comey was and how respected and loved he was.
Well Hillary Clinton and lots of democrats think Comey cost Clinton the election.
James Comey would have been fired by Clinton on DAY ONE.
He should have been fired by Trump on DAY ONE.
Aparently the entire upper staff of the FBI and DOJ should have been fired.
Rosenstein wrote the definitive memo justifying Comey’s firing.
Regardless, the president ANY PRESIDENT, can fire anyone in the executive he pleases.
Firing someone is NOT exceptional behavior.
It is also not justification for an investigation.
We have myriads of instances during the Obama administration where Obama acted far more favorably towards Russia than Trump has.
Absolutely Trump has SAID some things regardin Putin that are disconcerting.
We elected him ANYWAY. The Acting Director of the FBI and a Deputy AG do NOT get to decide that voters erred.
If Trump is all these things you claim – why is the country doing BETTER than under Obama ?
How have US interests been harmed ?
The LEFTS interests have been harmed. Obama’s interests have been harmed, YOUR interests have been harmed. But the nation is doing fine.
Regardless the constitution does not empower ANYONE in the executive branch to substitute their judgement for that of the president.
The perogative of choosing our president belongs SOLELY to the people through elections.
The perogative of removing a president at any time aside from an election belongs SOLELY to congress.
The actions of McCabe and Rosenstein that you are blessing are UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATIONS OF POWER NOT GRANTED THEM.
The fact that you do not understand that is very disturbing.
There is not a great distance between McCabe’s actions and assassinating the president
Would you condone McCabe plotting an assassination on the same basis ?
These people had no more authority to act as they did than they did to assassinate the president.
You say that all these things are wrong with trump – that is your subjective judgement.
And yet the country is doing better. If as you say the interests of the country matter – then any justification of the actions McCabe discussed and took would have been equally justified under Obama.
Obama changed US policy twice to improve relations with Russia – does that make him a Russian agent ? Clearly he served the interests of our greatest enemy.
Could DOJ/FBI stage a coup for that ?
Obama shifted US policy from favoring Saudi Arabia to favoring Iran.
Flynn disagreed with that and was fired.
Are you saying Obama could not fire Flynn ?
Are you saying that because Flynn beleived he was right about US policy and Obama was wrong – that Flynn was free to stage a Coup ? Are you saying that he could have assassinated Obama ?
Because that is what your argument really boils down to – that officers int he federal government can substitute their view for that of whoever is elected president and that they have the right to work to remove the president if they disagree with his policy choices.
I do not like Trump’s emergency declaration – it cracks open pandora’s box.
McCabe through open the lid and has allowed all kinds of evil into the world.
Niether he, not you have presented anything remotely close to a basis for the acts McCabe took.
Every argument McCabe and you have made would work for any president you disagreed with over policy.
Every single justification you have offered regards a choice – that only voters of congress have the authority to make.
No TDS does not “cut both ways”.
You are are extremely litterally arguing for a COUP.
We have never ever had one in the US,
You (and McCabe) are making the same arguments that John Wilkes Booth did for assassinating Lincoln.
Everything you or he has said about Trump could be said about many other presidents – FDR, Wilson. Lincoln.
And in fact WAS SAID of them.
Many republicans said much the same thing of Obama.
No Robby, Trump is NOT some special case.
Further if our constitution does not provide for some case you think it should – you must change the constitution.
McCabe violated his oath to uphold the constitution. It appears likely Rosenstein did too.
to address the first few sentences in your comment.”But it is difficult to imagine him escaping this unsullied.”
I will be very surprised if anything happens other than maybe resigning. Nothing happens to people in these type positions
Rosenstein did exactly what he was supposed to do when a private citizen with no government or military scrutiny but NUMEROUS warning signals – legal, social, dubious business practices, who is behaving SUSPICIOUSLY in word and dealings with RUSSIA, is elected to a position of high authority.
The FBI and DOJ responded properly, conscientiously, patriotically to an implied threat to the nation. They responded as I would have if I was in charge; and they responded as you would have, Ron, if Trump had run and won as a Democrat.
Jay, I think your TDS has taken you postal. “They responded as I would have if I was in charge; and they responded as you would have, Ron, if Trump had run and won as a Democrat.”
You have not been reading anything I have said!!!!! This action was not only illegal, it was against everything the constitution stand for!
Not until politicians and political appointees start getting charged and spend time in the pokey will people begin to understand what is right and what is wrong.
But like I said, nothing will come of it, just like nothing came from an illegal server in Clintons basement ( which I consider small transgression compared to an almost mutinious act).
“Rosenstein did exactly what he was supposed to do when a private citizen with no government or military scrutiny but NUMEROUS warning signals – legal, social, dubious business practices, who is behaving SUSPICIOUSLY in word and dealings with RUSSIA, is elected to a position of high authority.”
BZZT Wrong.
To Quote obama – the 80’s called and they want their foreign policy back.
Regardless, We know little about Rosenstein – as he has made almost no comments and avoided testifying. Something that must be corrected.
The only information we have are texts, emails, the testimony of Strzok, Page, Ohe, Baker, Comey and McCabe – Not Rosenstein.
McCabe in particular has repeatedly contradicted himself. He has actually walked back nearly all of what he has said on 60M – probably because his lawyers told him he had just confessed to a crime. McCabe is now blaming Rosenstein – according to McCabes NEW remarks – he was almost utterly uninvolved in any of the 25th amendment discussions and merely heard them mentioned by Rosenstein in passing.
It is beyond any doubt that McCabe is lying – it is not possible for all of what he has said to be true – it is self contradictory.
Unfortunately knowing that McCabe is lying does not help us determine what the Truth is.
But it does ABSOLUTELY confirm something extremely important.
That there was atleast one thoroughly disreputable creep and liar at the core of the Trump investigation.
You can play all the games you wish Jay, but the acting director of the FBI was called out by the IG as a repeated LIAR and the evidence of that has only gotten much much worse as time has gone by.
I would noted that McCabe is tied to EVERYTHING.
McCabe as an example has been after Flynn’s blood since Flynn provided an affidavit complimenting an SAC who served with him in the Mideast who had filed a sexual discrimination claim against McCabe.
McCabe is pond scum.
Directly addressing your assertion – absolutely NOT.
The FBI does not have the authority to act as they did against ANYONE, much less an elected president.
The word “suspicion” in the context of the law – has a specific meaning, and it is NOT “fear”.
It requires EVIDENCE. The constitution requires evidence.
Arguably the constitution does not permit the FBI or DOJ to investigate the president at all under any circumstances – it assigns that role SOLELY to congress.
It is ALWAYS possible for anyone in government opposed to the policies of the president to claim “suspicion”.
You fixate on Russia. Well the People elected Trump. The elected him KNOWING that he sought a more favorable relationship with Russia, The elected him KNOWING he intended to get us out of Syria and Afghanistan. There is very little that Trump has done as president that he did not publicly speak on.
The actions that you claim are Suspicious, are what he promised to do. And what he was elected to do.
I know that it is unusual that a politician would actually do what they promised,
It is NOT however “suspicious”.
It might be “suspicious” if Trump did the opposite of what he promised – but even in that instance it would NOT justify the FBI opening a criminal investigation.
As to your specific assertions regarding Rosenstein.
I am going to assume – just for this discussion that what McCabe claims and Baker has testified to regarding Rosenstein is true. I think that is likely – but it is far from a fact yet.
Rosenstien has “sort of” denied it.
Aside from the fact that both the text and the history of the 25th amendment are specific regarding their purpose, and the mechanism does not work in the fashion the left claims.
The 25th amendment has more requirements and imposes a higher burden to operate than impeachment. It is nearly useless except in the instance where the impairment is universally accepted and glaringly obvious – such as Wilson’s stroke or Reagan’s incapacity while undergoing surgery, no 25th amendment claim will survive a president with the will and resources to oppose it. The 25th amendment was structured to make it obvious that absent an actual universally accepted impairment – any removal would be temporary – just a few days at most, and that any removal driven by politics would be treated as a coup and would empower rather than disempower the president.
Further the excercise of the 25th amendment is the exclusive domain of the Vice President and the president’s CABINET, and then Congress. There is no role at all for DOJ/FBI.
A deputy AG or FBI director should never initiate any conversation regarding the 25th amendment – doing so would be REQUIRE dismissal – likely even as a joke.
Only Sessions within DOJ could have such a discussion, and would be unlikely to have it with subordinates. Nor is it a role that Sessions can constitutionally recuse himself from.
You create these stupid messes when you seek to try to expand every single law to be a vehicle to accomplish whatever you want at the moment.
Law is a grant of power to government. It is intended to grant only the explicit power referenced by the law construed narrowly. When we find the provisions of a law insufficient or that they require stretching to fit our desired use – then the law does NOT authorize that.
If that makes you unhappy – CHANGE THE LAW.
The 25th amendment was a specific response to a very specific set of constitutional inadequacies. It addressed those. It was never intended as a substitute for impeachment.
Beyond the 25th amendment – the FOREIGN POLICY of the United States towards Russia or any other country is the EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN of the president of the united states.
It is constrained by the constitution, and possibly applicable constitutional laws.
The rest of the executive have a role in advising the president on that foreign policy.
They have no authority to determine it.
Disagreement with the president on an issue of foreign policy is NOT EVER justification to act in any way to thwart the president. McCabe and Rosenstein were not allowed to investigate the president over policy differences.
And that is precisely what was done.
It is entirely irrelevant whether Trump is right or wrong.
BTW the determination of “Our #1 enemy” is the exclusive domain of THE PRESIDENT.
Presidents – like Obama are free to make BAD CHOICES – when they do we do not relect them, or if they are egregious enough we impeach them.
The executive branch of the government may not investigate the president because some weasles in DOJ/NSA/CIA/FBI do not like his policy towards russia.
I would note that McCabe in particular on 60m used statements Trump made publicly while campaigning as “evidence”.
How stupid do you have to be to not understand that McCabe was not merely challenging Trump – but the decision of the ELECTORATE.
When this is called a COUP, it is not merely because McCabe sought to remove a president, but because he sought to reverse an election.
If you can not understand that is OUTSIDE the domain of a deputy AG and an acting FBI director then you think this is some third world country.
Regardless, everything you claim as “evidence” is not.
It does not even meet the criteria necescary to OPEN an investigation – and yet multiple investigations have been opened over the past 3 years.
If this was republicans seeking to investigate a democrat based on “fear” you would be rightly howling.
“I will be very surprised if anything happens other than maybe resigning. Nothing happens to people in these type positions”
Will he face the kind of inquisition he targeted at others and richly deserves ? Mostly not.
But his reputation is shot. Even his own perception of himself is damaged.
Rosenstein in particular seems to see himself as some white knight.
He probably will not lose that perception – but he will have to live in a world were lots of others – even people he thought of as friends perceive him more as failed Casius.
Nothing bolsters ones self image more than success, nothing damages it more than failure.
Dave he will go to work for some large DC legal firm making a high 6figure, low 7 figure salary and live happily ever after. What he did will make no difference
No one has done anything special regarding “nuclear launch codes” and Trump.
There is a very long and detailed process for launching nuclear weapons. We do not know all of it. But we know most of it, and it has ALWAYS been impossible for any president to launch a nuclear weapon on a whim.
It is further not possible for any single person to launch nuclear weapons.
In further point of fact – though the constitution vests all power and authority int he president. in reality NO president can do almost ANYTHING on their own.
Pompeo was grilled about Trump’s private converstation with Putin in the senate.
He made it clear – the president can have private conversations with anyone he wants.
But the president can not ACT as president in a private conversation. All ACTS of presidents are either done publicly or at the very least through others. Pompeo responded to the questions of Senators regardiing the content of Trump’s conversations with Putin by asserting that – the Policies of the US towards or involving Russia did not change as a consequence of that meeting. And that congress knows that as the US has no policies secret from Congress.
You can see how this works in the recent Border emergency declaration.
Trump has determined what he will do. To do so he had to PUBLICLY provide new policy.
He must DIRECT various cabinet officers to implement it.
If they are actually opposed to that declaration – they can resign or be fired.
And Trump can continue through the ranks of DoD until someone is willing to impliment his policy. Just as occurred with Nixon’s Saturday night massacre.
For the president to act in the ways that you claim are so dangerous – he would have to force the resignation or fire a significant part of the federal govenrment, and he would near certain be impeached immediately.
That is the constitutional check on presidential conduct.
Not this made up garbage of yours.
McCabe’s (and your) arguments regarding Trump – are a basis for resigning and speaking out. There is nothing in the constitution that allows anyone in the executive branch to do anything else. That is all that is legitimate, that is all that is necescary.
I would ask you for sources for all your quotes – nearly all of them are not direct quotes, they are from press stories based on unattributed tips.
But I really do not care.
As you keep getting wrong – it is actions that matter – not words.
The country is doing better than it has in 16 years.
If all those people actually said what you claim – it reflects badly on them.
As to your wharton professor – has he made several billion dollars ?
Has he succeeded in NYC commerical and residential real estate,
Has he succeeded in Cassino’s and resorts ?
Has he succeeded in beauty pagents ?
In global real estate ?
In reality TV ?
In Politics ?
I can not think of a truly stupid person who has succeeded at ONE of those.
I can not think of a fraud who has succeeded at ONE of those.
The EVIDENCE is that Trump is NOT and idiot – it is that anyone who says he is an idiot, is themselves.
“The country is doing better than it has in 16 years.”
Most of us see a much uglier picture. I don’t think history is going to see this as some golden age.
“The country is doing better than it has in 16 years.”
“Most of us see a much uglier picture.”
It is already a given that you are unable to see the world as it is.
If you want to debate whether things are better – fine, but the facts say otherwise.
“I don’t think history is going to see this as some golden age.”
No one called this a golden age. I have been repeatedly clear that the improvement under Trump is still below 20th century norms.
Despite his claims conditions under Trump are not good. They are not even average.
They are just significantly less bad than the prior 16 years.
At the same time – we are not talking in absolutes – things were ABSOLUTELY better under Bush, and ABSOLUTELY better under Obama.
But the rate of improvement under Bush was barely over 2%/year under Obama 1.8%.year
The worst plausible scenario for Trump is the average is 2.3% over 4 years by 2020.
More likely will be closer to 2.8%.
I am also hearing economic data that inflation is at or near zero – this is what is stalling the Fed from raising interest rates further.
Even better would be if they were mildly negative – but the Fed will never allow that.
But low rates of inflation mean that the economy is more stable. They also mean all the data is more trustworthy. Calculating inflation and then factoring it out is complex and error prone and small errors have large effects.
If inflation is really zero or close right now – the 2.3% projection for 2019 is near certain wrong and low.
My last point is that rising standard of living does not merely mean economic improvement, it means improvement in our quality of life.
A rising standard of living does not mean EVERYTHING is improving.
Racism could be getting worse, political division could be getting worse.
But it does mean – by the values that we as the people of the country hold important, weighted by each of our individual ranking that the net effect of all the positives and all the negatives is not merely positive, but more positive than before.
Further in the long run improved quality of life is recursive – whether racism is worse or better at the moment, whether political strife is worse or better – as our quality of life improves they will be pushed to improve too.
I have repeatedly said the post 2016 outrage of the left must burn out – it has surprised me in how long it has endured. But it can not long endure a rising tide.
“The FBI and DOJ responded properly, conscientiously, patriotically to an implied threat to the nation. They responded as I would have if I was in charge; and they responded as you would have, Ron, if Trump had run and won as a Democrat.”
You are spot on, exactly right. TDS is the syndrome the deniers have. You have TAS, trump awareness syndrome.
To my knowledge the DOJ/FBI has never investigated an opposing political candidate.
The closest we have to this is watergate.
I am sure that the Plumbers had an excuse too.
When has there ever been a criminal investigation by the FBI without an actual crime having been committed – or atleast being able to identify a specific one that was probably committed ?
When was the last time the FBI conducted an investigation without evidence ?
When ever has the FBI conducted an investigation based on unverified evidence from a third party ? When that third party has lots of motive to want an investigation ?
When ever has an investigation been conducted entirely by the top brass at DOJ/FBI without involving agents ?
The answer to all of the above is never.
It is further highly unusual that investigations are conducted out of the DC offices of the FBI.
The only other time I am aware of that occurring is another politically tilted investigation – the Clinton email investigation.
There are laws, regulation and DOJ/FBI guidelines that govern how and investigation can be started, and exactly what measures can be employed based on the evidence available.
Those guidlines laws and regulation were violated repeatedly.
In many instance even by Mueller.
You say they responded professionally ?
How so – you did not support an investigation of Clinton’s violation of the espionage act despite the fact that we had – a crime that from the begining it was self evident had been committed. We now find that the top counsel in the FBI thought Clinton should have been charged from the begining right through to a few days before Comey let her off.
And again laws, regulations and guidlines were violated.
You will have to forgive me if it seems self evident to me that the DOJ/FBI had one set of standards for Hillary and an entirely different one for Trump.
You will have to forgive me if it seems that the DOJ/FBI were intent on acheiving a specific outcome in the election, and when they did not get that arranging the same result through abuse of power.
I do not know if they would have done the same had Trump won as a democrat.
That BTW does not help you.
It is completely irrelevant whether they abused they power to aide on political party over another or to favor or disfavor one person.
I would further note that there is plenty of evidence of greater than or equal quality that Clinton was “colluding with the Russians” – as well as the Ukraines and and foreign spies.
And in fact Clinton provided some of that evidence to the FBI when the FBI was provided the Steele Dossier.
Many of those that have testified have openly admitted that they violated doj/fbi guidlines.
So that is not even an open question. There is no argument this investigation was unprofessional. –
Trump accolade:
So who is more dangerous – the man with a cache of weapons and a bunch of crazy emails who has never done anything.
Or the man who pulls a gun on someone over politics ?
Again ACTS matter more than words.
I am afraid of what Hasson might do.
I KNOW that Phillips is dangerous.
https://www.wbko.com/content/news/Man-accused-of-pulling-gun-on-man-wearing-MAGA-hat-appears-in-court-again-506232721.html
Getting off the Trump train and on to something else.
Interesting article and what people face when taking on the people of this country (Government)
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/a_citizen_suing_the_department_of_justice_needs_more_than_just_a_winning_legal_argument.html?fbclid=IwAR3jvIi6mDhSYSPwZ2fxMzDiMPPIXDBUCzT39h_xRxsKHUeYh36lgxUKKiM#.XG8ZQLZltE4.facebook
“Federal law bars gun ownership by felons, fugitives, drug abusers, people adjudicated to be mentally ill, those dishonorably discharged from the military or living in the country illegally, and by convicted domestic abusers or others subject to domestic violence restraining orders. But experts say the number of people who are barred from owning guns but have them anyway may reach into the millions.”
“That’s a challenging situation for law enforcement to knock on a door and say, ‘Hey, we’re here to take your guns, Mr. Dangerous Criminal,’” said Adam Skaggs, chief counsel of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates tighter gun laws’
““If they hadn’t been allowed to get the guns in the first place, we wouldn’t be talking about having to get someone to get the guns away from them,” he said.”
.
dduck, this is an excellent article. It shows what “feel good government” provides. Someone decides a law needs to be on the books. The law is passed. The law gets massive media coverage and the politician(s) responsible puff up their chests and stut like bantum chickens. Then they move on, not providing guidance nor funds to enforce the law as they apparently have in CA.
This is exactly why I have such disregard for government. Dont pass laws you are not going to enforce. And when there are laws, enforce them. Neither of these are happening in these cases.
And why do we not hear outrage and demonstrations against government that allows these laws to be ignored by law enforcement, but we have article after article and demands to create new laws to control guns that would in all likelyhood end up like these.
Enforce the laws already on the books before creating more.
Ron, of course government laws and regulations don’t always yield their stated intention and sometimes are even counterproductive.
That don’t mean that most of us don’t want them to work. Sorry, as opposed to a world without rules, I prefer an imperfect world with them.
I am for fewer guns in general, and am lucky enough to live in NYC where they are rarer. But especially, as listed in the article, I don’t want those people to have easier access.
I agree, enforce current laws first.
The weighted crime index in Wyoming is 20% lower than NY.
Wyoming has the highest rates of gun ownership in the country.
The more guns per capita, the more gun deaths
New York: 3.3 guns per 1,000 residents has 7.9 gun deaths
Rhode Island: 3.8 guns per 1,000 has 3.4 gun deaths
Wyoming: 197 guns per 1,000 – 17.4 gun deaths
Are these violent or total deaths per 1000. There is a difference.
All deaths, including suicides.
Suicide by gun much more lethal than any other method, except jumping off a high building or bridge.
If you extract the suicide numbers, other deaths, and accidental shooting injuries, are higher in states with more guns.
If you compare state crime statistics to legal gun ownership, Wyoming is an annomoly. There’s no statistical consensus that higher numbers of armed citizens reduces crime.
I want to keep my two guns. I don’t want anyone else to own more, or more lethal guns than I do. Reducing the number of guns in circulation increases my chances of staying alive. If I’m in a duel with a psycho, I don’t want him armed with automatic weapons. Shotguns at 20 paces makes more sense.
While the rest of your data is dubious your assertion that states with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun suicide are correct.
It is the ONLY statistic with a statistically significant correlatation to guns ownership.
The claim that because gun suicide attempts are more fatal that means overall suicide rates are lower is not statistically sound.
AU did find that for a few years. But in the long run AU and NZ have the same suicide rate.
The speculation by demographers is that people who chose guns to commit suicide are the most determined to kill themselves. Depriving them of a reliable method like a gun, does NOT make them less determined. Ultimately they find another way.
Many attempted suicides are a “cry for help” – those people do not use guns.
BTW why do you presume someone does not have the right to end their own life ?
I am 60. I hope to have many good years left. There are many possibilities as to how I might die. I had two close relatives die from cancer. Had I been my father in law – I would have taken my own life before the last two weeks.
My father died from complications associated with Vascually dimesia.
He desparately wanted to die at home. False accusations by relatives resulted in the sate throwing him in a home where he spent the last month of his life absolutely miserable, deprived of contact with those he loved and his dog and confined to a bland room in an old folks home. He was an architect. He wanted to die in the home he designed in the bedroom he designed, surrounded by his own things and his family and friends.
Before I will let the state take over my life – I will take it myself.
One of the problems with the mess we have now – is that I will be forced to make that decision earlier than I would otherwise, while I am still CERTAIN to be able to, because I can not take the risk of losing the ability to do so myself.
Why shouldn’t I get to decide when I am ready to die ?
Back to this concensus nonsense.
Neither Science nor statistics are by CONSENSUS.
Science that is supported by the actual data is correct – until it is falsified by data that contradicts it. If the hypothesis can not be falsified by contradictory data – as in CAGW, then it is religion not science.
In statistics – which is frequently used in science when controlled experiments are not possible. the determining factor is statistical significance. This is a mathematically determined value. If a result is statistically significant, if the data set is sufficiently large, and not cherry picked, if the mathematics and statistical process used are correct, and if the methodology of gathering the data and performing the analysis is correct – then the results are correct – whether there is concensus or not.
The 2014 CDC study that Obama commissioned – actually a survey and analysis of all previous studies found that the existing studies and literature demonstrated a statistically significant link between the absence of gun control and lower crime rates.
Property crimes in particular – home invasions and burglaries were much lower in places where criminals were not certain they would not encounter an armed home owner.
I beleive the only thing with a stronger correlation to lower property crime rates was dog ownership.
The CDC did NOT perform the studies. They just reviewed and evaluated all of the previously done studies. But there results were pretty much the opposite of what you asserted. They asserted that there was a statistically significant basis to conclude that higher rates of gun ownership resulted in lower crime. In some instances RADICALLY lower crime.
In the CDC estimate the number of crimes prevented by gun ownership was about 3 times the total number of crimes actually committed.
Needless to say Obama and the left did not like this result.
It did not get burried but the CDC was not advertising it on billboards either.
Regardless it killed efforts at gun control for some time.
And WE discussed this here on TNM AT THE TIME.
I have no idea what his numbers are – they do not even come close to anything I find anywhere else – not pro gun control sites, not the CDC.
CDC has exactly the same Gun Murder rate and Gun Death rate for NY and WY.
Also these rates are usually expressed as per 100K.
I think Jay has a figure that is per 1K and it is higher than the TOTAL gun deaths in WY
There were only 92 gun deaths of any kind in Wyoming in 2014. That is less than Jay is claiming per 1000 people – there are more than 1000 people in Wyoming.
“The more guns per capita, the more gun deaths”
False – there are plenty of counter examples.
Also irrelevant – presuming your objective it to prevent murder rather than to prevent gun murder.
AU implimented some of the most draconian gun laws in the world in the late 90’s.
NZ did not – otherwise they are demographically nearly identical.
At the time the crime and violent death rates in AU and NZ were the same.
Today the crime and violent death rates in AU and NZ are the same.
In fact even the effect on “gun deaths” has been marginal – there was a brief drop in gun suicides, but suicides overall stayed the same.
There are almost no gun deaths in the UK which has incredibly draconian gun laws. but the rates of violent crime and death do to crime when normalized for differences in demographics – are the same. While those in Scotland are much higher than the US.
London has moved to banning knives – because if you are intent on murder – you are going to use something – a gun, a knife, Rope, a screwdriver, a toothbrush,
Regardless I stand by the US census data – the rate of violent crime is HIGHER in NY.
Apparently it is fine with you to be garrotted or stabbed – so long as you need not worry about being shot.
Please tell me again why you are not a left wing nut ?
“False – there are plenty of counter examples.”
As there are plenty of counter examples to your Wyoming quote. But hypocrite ditz Dave promoted it as gospel. So I responded in kind.
And I’d like to applaud your survival smarts (or lack thereof) for thinking (or lack thereof) that getting attacked with a knife is not less lethal than shot at with a modern gun. But OK, bring your knife to the gun fight, let me know how that works out.
“As there are plenty of counter examples to your Wyoming quote.”
We are talking about real world data and statistics – not opinions.
I would support the right to gun owners even if the statistics did not demonstrate that gun control is at best meaningless and at worst harmful.
Just as I support ending the war on Drugs – even if that means more drug addiction and death.
Freedom is of sufficiently high a value that its positive benefits outweigh the fact that sometimes it also results in harm
But fortunately I do not need to do that.
I have no idea where your statistics came from – mine came from the CDC’s huge 2014 survey that Obama directed after Sandy Hook I beleive.
The numbers are what they are. And they do not support any of your arguments.
At the very best for gun control advocats the results are neutral – gun control laws might not make things worse. The only area in which gun control has a stastitically significant benefit is in gun suicides (not overall suicides).
“But hypocrite ditz Dave promoted it as gospel. So I responded in kind.”
Nope I cited statistics – from the CDC.
“And I’d like to applaud your survival smarts”
As I have said repeatedly – the facts are readily available for all of us.
Being able to use google is not a laudworthy skill.
” (or lack thereof) for thinking (or lack thereof) that getting attacked with a knife is not less lethal than shot at with a modern gun.”
This is not my claim. This is the data. You are also conflating different things.
I am saying that if you intend to murder someone – restrictions on the type of weapon are an inconvenience. They might well make it much harder. But statistically they do not change whether the murder takes place or whether it succeeds. Just as the effect of gun control on suicides statistically is temporary. If someone wants to kill another person or themselves they will. People who use guns – do not intend to fail. Deprive them of guns – they STILL do not intend to fail.
If you stab someone with a knife with the intention of killing them – and you do not kill them.
What comes next ? Do you stop say “sorry, I have reconsidered” and pull the knife and leave.
Or do you stab them again and again until you succeed ?
Once you have attempted to kill someone – you are committed.
In fact murders often happen when you are caught committing a nonviolent (or less violent) crime. One of the problems with crime is that once you are committed to a serious crime, you are committed not only to it, but to anything needed to get away with it.
One of the most grisly murders in my country occurred when two teens robbed a teachers home when they though she was not home. She interrupted them and they did not know how to deal with it. She ended up raped, tortured, beaten and ultimately murdered in a very grisly fashion – because they did not have a gun or a knife and every bad thing they did made it all the more critical that she did not live to tell.
One of the assailants – who had never committed a crime before, likely did little beyond stand by and do nothing. The crime was so horrific that he was tramautized and has had a psychotic break.
It is not that important how lethal a weapon is – once you use it to try to kill, you are committed.
“But OK, bring your knife to the gun fight, let me know how that works out.”
My point – and the CDC”s. If I might have a gun and all you have is a knife – you are not likely to break into my home.
Dave, there is a group of people that believe gun restriction laws will work as well as our drug laws. I have seen some estimates that over 10% of gun are semiautomatic rifles or 3.5 M. In addition, there are about 1M semiauto pistols. Or about 4.5 M total. They believe when you make these guns illegal, everyone will sell them back or give them to the LEO’s.
I believe just the opposite. Many with these weapons owners are not ones that look kindly on government. They will keep their guns and a black market for them will develop, including groups that will see a huge profit in illegally trades.
But thats just me. Maybe passing laws that are not enforced will be as effective as our war onbdrugs has been😂!
BTW your own data proves you are wrong.
Why does RI have slightly more guns per 1000, but half the gun deaths of NY ?
Finally – where are your statistics from – they are WAY OFF.
Mine are from the CDC.
In the US there are approx. 88 guns for every 100 people.
32% of HOUSEHOLDS have guns,
Even Hawaii the state with the lowers gun ownership rate had a rate of 6.7% or 67/1000
Next the average US gun death rate is 11.7%/100,000
So you are again about a factor of 100 off.
There are 30,000 gun fatalities in the US each year. By your rates, Montana would have 6 times the number of gun deaths as occured in the entire US.
Wyoming is not in the top 5 for gun deaths. The highest state is LA with 18.9/100K
The homocide rate in WY is 5.1/100K
The homocide rate in NY is 5.1/100K
You chance of being murdered in WY and NY is exactly the same.
Dead is dead whether by a gun or a garrotte.
But your chance of being a victim of a violent crime is 20% higher.
Oh according to CDC the death by firearm rate in WY is 10.2, the Death by firearm rate in NY is 10.2. So apparently CDC does not think you are less likely to be killed by a gun in a place with far far less legal guns.
I honestly do not understand why you keep opening this debate up.
Obama actually tasked the CDC to look at gun deaths shortly after he was elected – expecting the data to help push for gun control.
The results were DISASTEROUS.
The CDC found no significant effect of gun control on GUN DEATHS.
and little on deaths overal.
But found as statistically significant decrease in crime in states with LESS Gun Control.
As many gun rights advocates pointed out – must of our gun laws have just CREATED shooting galleries.
Just about all mass shooting since the first “gun free school zone” and other gun free laws have passed have occurred in places where it is NOT legal to posses a gun.
There is a reason that the NRA and gun rights groups are now advocating allowing teachers to bring guns to school.
The data demonstrates IT WORKS.
Most of these nut job mass murderers pick places that will get them the most attention and where they have the highest odds of the largest number of kills before being stopped.
They know that it will take the police significant time to respond, and that they must kill as many people in that time as possible.
Anything that slows them down – such as the mere possibility that a teach with a pistol is in the next room, makes them likely to pick another target.
I can not speak to other states, but fellons – even minor fellons are not “Allowed” to keep guns in my state. It is illegal for them to posess guns.
Lots of them break that law – we are talking about people who are kn own LAW BREAKERS.
We can have a discussion about how to disarm convicted fellons.
But it is complete idiocy to beleive that you are going to prevent people who are already breaking the law from doing so by passing more laws.
We do not need more laws – we need far far far less.
WE do need the laws that we already have to be enforced.
That is not a problem solved by passing more laws.
Well back to trump.
Interesting comment from Chris Christie concerning Russian collusion.
https://abcnews.go.com/theview/video/chris-christie-dismisses-claims-trump-campaign-colluded-russia-60731542
CC is sleazy liar.
Two weeks ago Trump’s approval rate was 4% below Obama’s at this time in his presidency.
Today it is 9 points above.
These swings are mostly noise. The long term smoother trends for Obama and Trump are identical.
Obama was relected.
43% of Americans want Trump impeached.
In March 1974 43% of Americans wanted Nixon impeached.
Nixon was impeached.
I am not the one fixated on the polls – you are the one who thinks they are meaningful.
I do not.
I point various polls out mostly to get you to understand how small the value of polls are.
35% of americans wanted Obama impeached over Libya.
I think that if Democrats want to bring impeachment proceedings – they should.
I do not think anything would better guarantee flipping the house, expanding the GOP majority in the senate and re-electing Trump.
But if you think otherwise – go for it.
“I am not the one fixated on the polls”
Then why did you quote one to start the thread?
Have I mentioned lately that you’re slap-happy?
“Then why did you quote one to start the thread?”
You or one of the others suffering from TDS made a big deal of Trump’s low numbers a few weeks ago – relative to Obama at the same time Trump’s numbers have flipped almost 20pts.
This is not particularly meaningful – the lows and the highs are just noise over the long run.
But so long as you wish to hop up and down shouting ” “see, See, everyone hates him”.
I can point it out everytime he is 14pts above where Obama was at the same time.
What matter is not these weekly oscillations – but the long term trends – in those he is doing as well or better than Obama
There is no guarantees, but any claim that a different outcome is likely would be contrary to the odds.
Another recent poll of democrats found something like 63% would prefer a candidate that would beat Trump over one they agreed with or whose policies they prefered.
My guess is that means Biden is a lock.
If democrats actually want to win they should draft Howard Schultz, I do not think even Biden can beat Trump. But the other candidates are two far left and are mostly polling in single digits.
As you like Nate Silver – he seems to be saying that Sanders – the current #2 time has passed. His strong showing in 2016 was driven heavily by the #NeverHillary vote.
he can not repeat that.
Dopy Donald’s Tariffs Cost Taxpayers Billions
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/usda-has-paid-out-7-7-billion-help-farmers-hit-n974516
Tariffs, so big deal its cost some money! BFD.
No one will agree with me here, including Dave because anyone with a job wants the creapest product available. But when you’re an auto worker out of work and GM is building Envisions in China and importing to the USA basically free, but GM and others cars going to China have anywhere from 25%-40%, we are at a severe disadvantage, causing lost jobs.
Get over it! And most likely this will disappear, but at least he is trying, more than I can say for all the other free trader presidents we have had for years.
If I were to control trade, it would be buck for buck on like products, no exceptions. If Canada protects mike producers with high tariffs on milk products, then wood would be taxed accordingly. No exception. Stop screwing us or we will screw back!
Ron.
You are correct I do not agree with you.
But there is wrong, and there is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!
The actual cost of Trump’s tarriffs – thus far, to the US is almost non-existant.
These soy subsidies are another stupid unnecesscary government subsidy.
US Soy exports have not deviated from trend.
Tarriffs are always a bad idea, but the magnitude of the harm varies greatly.
China’s counter tarrifs on US soy result in the chinese paying slightly more for Soy because they must buy it somewhere else. And ameican soy farmers selling to other countries – because the soy those countries would normally buy is headed to china.
Absent large elasticity in supply and demand and large inelasticity in global markets Tarrifs are mostly ineffective.
Trump is more effectively targeting China – because much of what Trump is targeting China can not easily replace from elsewhere.
According to Trading economics there was a doubling of soy bean exports in 4Q 2016 and 1Q2017 that immediately reverted back to the norm.
Soy Bean exports today are increasing consistent with a Trend that has been in place since 2005.
If the USDA is subsidizing SoyBean farmers – that is GRAFT.
Most economists who are not total idiots have addressed this long ago.
Narrow localized tarriffs have negligable effect on prices or trade.
They change who buys from who, they marginally increase profits for shippers, and that is pretty much it.
If The Chinese do not buy Soy from the US – they buy it elsewhere.
And that supplier’s normal customers buy from the US.
Global markets in common commodities are not elastic enough (the differences between total supply and total demand are too small), for tarrifs to significantly effect anyone.
Put differently if the World needs 200 B tons of soy, Tarriff or not it needs 200B of soy.
Have I ever claimed to be a propponent of tarrifs ?
Have I ever claimed to be a proponent of ANY govenrment subsidies ?
At the same time I am not going to rush off and impeach Trump for every minor bad Idea he pushes.
Though if he wants money for the wall – he should take the soy subsidies.
They are litterally a gift to soy farmers. The trend for US soy exports has been RISING for 15 years, The Tarriffs had no effect.
Another Trump cabinet member approaching a legal banana peel.
“Prosecutors Broke Law in Agreement Not to Prosecute Jeffrey Epstein, Judge Rules”
“MIAMI — Prosecutors led by Alexander R. Acosta, who is now the secretary of labor, violated federal law when they failed to tell victims about an agreement not to prosecute Jeffrey E. Epstein, a wealthy New York financier accused of molesting dozens of underage girls, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.” Dozens!?
“Federal prosecutors had initially drafted a 53-page indictment against Mr. Epstein, but under the deal negotiated in 2008, he pleaded guilty to lesser state charges of soliciting a minor for prostitution and served 13 months at the Palm Beach County Stockade. While there, Mr. Epstein was allowed to leave custody and work out of his office six days a week.”
Really? Why so harsh?
Two kinds of justice? I think so.
It appears that a substantial portion of the cases was/is still prosecutable by the state of NY,
and yet like Acosta todate they have not.
While I have some problems with the Judges assertions – victims do not have rights.
Obviously prosecutors should be respectful of victims, but the prosecution of a crime is the role and duty of the state.
At the same time the Acosta/Epstein Plea has always seemed fishy – as has NY’s failure to prosecute.
Trump has very minor ties to Epstein – but Clinton has significant ones.
If there was some kind of special treatment given to Epstein – alot of people were apart of it – prominent democrats and republicans.
I would be surprised if this goes anywhere – but it probably should.
There is no doubt the Epstein case looks fishy.
And yes it looks like a doubles standard – favoritism for the rich and well connected.
And Epstein is incredibly well connected to BOTH parties at the highest levels.
“Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, “Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,” or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker.
“If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything—God and our friends and ourselves included—as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”
C.S. Lewis
Unfortunately Lewis’s language is a century old and less than accessible, and lewis is discussing our hatred for acutally bad people who just turn out to be less bad than we thought.
Still Lewis and Heather McDonald below make better than I a point I have been trying to.
You destroy yourself when you WANT to find hatred and bigotry – even in your enemies.
You not only make them worse than they are but you demean yourself.
I still keep hoping that somehow what now appears to be true of Smollett will prove false, that it is just a mistake of somekind.
But it is not.
https://www.city-journal.org/jussie-smollett-bigotry
Those even southern white cops – racial profiling a black man – a pastor no less and the head of the local NAACP
https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/video-naacp-president-claims-he-was-profiled-on-stop-then-chief-releases-video-f5MW5-PVDUG3o96HZJJACw/
My guess is this is part of what Nunes says has not yet been revealed that was used in the FISA warrant that is worse than the Steele Dossier.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/430717-the-family-secret-bruce-ohr-told-rod-rosenstein-about-russia-case
So those of you who seem to think that campaign finance law violations are a really really big deal
How much jail time should AOC be getting for this really complex scheme to circumvent campaign finance laws ?
View at Medium.com
I would suggest reading the whole thing.
This does NOT appear to be about using campaign funds to be a sugar moma.
Though there are problems with her actions regarding her boyfriend once she arrived in DC.
This appears to be using a PAC to create a fake job for her boyfriend to pay HERSELF off, from political donations.
Whoops, another crack in the wall: “Prosecutors have begun presenting evidence to a grand jury in Washington in their probe of whether former interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lied to federal investigators, according to two individuals briefed on the matter.” WAPO
If Zinke violated 18 US 1001 – which requires more than merely lying, then prosecute him.
And Comey
And McCabe
And Simpson
And Clinton
And Cheryl Mill
And ….. a long list of others in the the government and Clinton campaign.
What of Louis Lerhner ?
We have had massive leaking about the trump investigations and about the Clinton email investigation. I beleive 3 people have been prosecuted and they are not the sources of the vast majority of leaks. We KNOW that Comey McCabe leaked – We know Comey leaked classified documents.
Why aren’t those being prosecuted ?
BTW Adam Schiff took a meeting with a witness in the probe he is conducting.
Similar too but actually worse than What he accused Nunes of. Nunes met with a whistle blower in a SCIF in the russell office building.
Schiff met with a private witness in Aspen.
Nunes stepped down until the House ethics committee cleared him of wrong doing – another thing Schiff continues to misrepresent.
Speaking of lies – Schiff told us in early 2017 that he had seen with his own eyes evidence that was MORE THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL or Trump russia collusion.
Where is that ?
If we are going to prosecute Zinke – why not Schiff ?
We have Brennan and Clapper lying under oath to congress – no prosecution.
Clinton lied under oath to congress about her email server and about the attack on Benghazi – no prosecution.
From what I can tell you care a great deal about inconsequential lies by those on one party and not at all about consequential lies by the other.
This is 5 years old – but nothing of consequence has improved for the CAGW thesis.
You righties are so weak, that I thought you could use an “invasion” story. 🙂
“ICE: Armed suspect shot, killed by Napa sheriff’s deputy deported 3 times, had lengthy arrest record, multiple aliases”
https://abc7news.com/ice-armed-man-shot-killed-by-napa-cops-previously-deported-3-times/5149672/
The failure of local authorities to comply with federal law that DOES apply to them nearly got one of their own killed.
The US government has better luck extradicting criminals from foreign countries than from California.
“The US government has better luck extradicting criminals from foreign countries than from California.”
No luck required. Its because people in foriegn countries want the criminals there arrested while liberals in California have shit hemmorrages when an illegal one is arrested in their state. Why else have sanctuary status?
The concept of “sanctuary” has always been rooted in religion.
I am prepared to preclude law enforcement from busting down the doors of churches to arrest people when they are not actively committing a crime.
Sanctuary is extra legal and governments are about the law. State and Local governments are obligated to follow the law. The federal government should send federal marshalls in to remove those they have filed detainers against.
If they are opposed – send the national guard.
This is not fundimentally different from Southern states seeking to keep separate but equal.
If democrats want sanctuary cities – they can have congress vote for it.
One of the more interesting differences between democrats and republicans – is that GENERALLY republicans try to force votes on their issues – even when they are out of power and going to lose. Voter ID is broadly supported even by minorities. There is no subtantive political support for the status quo regarding voting. There are super majorities supporting most changes republicans want. States have changed their laws. And yet these laws are thwarted by a tiny majority based on constitutional claims found nowhere in the constitution.
We have sanctuary cites – we have no law for that, and it actually runs afoul of the constitution. There is no real public support for it. Congress would not dream of voting for it.
Very interesting court ruling.
In 2018, NC had a vote on amendments to the state constitution. One was to cap the income tax rate for high incomes at 7%. The other was to require photo ID for voting. Both passed with substantial margins.
These amendments were approved and placed on ballot by state legislarure.
Subsequent to that election, courts ruled that 2 state districts out of 120 were gerrymandered and ordered new district lines. The house approved 72-40 the original placement on the ballot.
Yesterday, it was ruled these amendments unconstitutional because they were placed on the ballot by a state government that did not represent the people since two district lines were unconstitutional.
So the people spoke. But their vote doesnt count. One judge reverses 2+ million votes.
This is what has conservatives royally pissed about the left.
I do not know the basis of the “gerrymandering” claim – though pretty much every one I have heard thus far is rooted in “I do not like the way you laid out districts”.
How is it better to have unelected partisan judges decide congressional districts, laws, etc. than to have elected legislators ?
These decisions appear to be federal court decisions regarding the state and the state constitution. They are wrong.
SCOTUS needs to reign in the federal courts – or judges need to be removed.
The constitution directs that the construction of federal districts is the domain of the state legislature and the US congress. Not the State governor, not the state constitution, not the state courts. If you are unhappy with the way the legislature creates districts – take it up with the state legislature and congress.
SCOTUS has already determined that Voter ID is constutional on several occasions.
Every state that has passed voter ID laws has follwed the model of the Law that SCOTUS has approved. Al the garbage the left claims about disenfranchising minorities is false. About 20 states have voter ID laws – and about 1/3 of those have actually been able to run elections using them. The purported problems DO NOT EXIST. Minority voting WENT UP.
I have REPEATEDLY said not merely that there is no actual objective standard for determining congressional districts but that the process is inherently corrupt, and WE DO NOT WANT to bring that political corruption into the courts.
We have a debate about the courts – but one of the fundimental principles of lifetime judicial appointments is to keep the courts above POLITICS.
Is there anyone that does not grasp that many of the decisions Ron is refering to are blatantly political ?
Thus far I do not think trump has suffered a significant loss in SCOTUS – in many instances he has gotten unanimous results. The reverse was happening under Obama, who was overruled by SCOTUS 9-0 more than all prior presidents, BTW – the point is NOT about Trump, it is if the current SCOTUS is so frequently overruling lower courts and so often by such large margins it is SELF EVIDENT that those lower court rulings are POLITICAL and that those judges need to go.
This is not about judges that are right or left.
The method of constitutional and statutory interpretation – originalism, that I offer, is hundreds of years old – it predates the United State, It is enshrined formally in many state constitutions written over 100 years ago. Nothing provides an answer automatically all the time,
but originalism provides a means to write laws and amendments and KNOW how the courts will understand them, and to KNOW whether they are constitutional when you write them.
It provides the means by which the people can KNOW the meaning of the laws they are subject to. That no one will have to wait for SCOTUS to rule to find out if they have committed a crime or not.
I am entirely open to any proposal from the left for constitutional and statutory interpretation that produces the same results. What I am not open to is this – we make it up as we go along nonsense.
Ron notes that this court just stomped on “the will of the people”. It is broader than that.
Fundimental to this is that the left – from Antifa through college professors and community activists and politicians and even democratic presidents does not like, trust or respect the people. We are litterally in Animal Farm –
All animals are equal – but some are more equal than others.
SCOTUS ruled this illegal already.
http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2017/05/23/assessing-supreme-courts-gerrymandering-decision/
Maybe our idiot conservative legislarors that want to maintain complete control and not let citizen groups place iniatives on the ballot like other states will see how screwed up that is. Had this come from the citizens, this ruling could never have been made since the “illegal” legislature would never gave been involved.
I forgot this decision.
As I recall this is a much more complex decision than appears
As I recall CONSERVATIVES brought the challenge.
The purpose was to end race based district lines.
It would be unwise to draw broad conclusions about SCOTUS and gerrymandering from this case – it was 5-3 with Thomas concurring specifically to eliminate race based gerrymandering.
More significant is that in 2018 several lower courts struct down state redistricting and SCOTUS refused to grant expedited review.
And even that Might not mean much – as that often depends on which justice represents the circuit where the challenge took place.
What is really weird about this is that the left imposed the “race based” redistricting in the past, and in 2017 the left struck it down.
While the decisions was correct it was also an example of opportunism and hypocracy.
Race based redistricting was a favorite of the left – until they grasped it was costing THEM seats in the house.
IT is extremely unwise to create congressional districts any way but through the legislature.
The process is inherently corrupt – you can not fix that. The political pressure will be enormous.
The good news is that the self interest of legislators acts AGAINST the interests of the party.
A party can have lots of safe seats or try to push its majority – but not both.
Further pushing the majority risks small changes in voting producing huge shifts in which party controls.
Regardless, you do not want the courts doing this.
You do not want them involved. The PA supreme court has been a political mess for over a decade – and as I understand it we have another corruption scandal that may take out 2 more justices.
Regardless, though the PA SCOTUS ballance has sifted back and forth between liberals and conservatives – BOTH have produced notoriously politically bankrupt decisions.
The 2018 redistricting decision of the PA supreme court was a farce.
The new district lines were more politically biased than that of produced by the legislature.
Further the districts produced by the republican legislature were approved by a democratic governor, Further the balance of power in one PA chamber is just a few votes – the purportedly “republican” plan was NOT particularly bad.
The court listened to stupid pseudo scientific evidence regarding “voter efficiency” and bought it hook line and sinker.
The entire voter efficiency assertion – is just a different form of gerrymandering.
Regardless, there is no fair way to create districts, there is no way that will not be inherently corrupt.
The consitution specifically gives control of congressional districts to the state legislature and the congress.
The constitution should be taken as written.
The state legislatures can draw congressional district maps – there is no role for governors or the state courts (except for state legislature districts). State law and constitutions CAN NOT trump the federal constitution.
The federal courts should stick to very limited review – I forget what the many decades old test is – but it is very simple. The decision you cite removes race from the equation.
If Congress wishes to impose other rules – it can. But the courts should NOT legislate – that is what congress is for.
This sickens me. These cowardly thugs need to be thoroughly prosecuted, lose their jobs, etc. Campus police say they have identified the attacker. We will see what happens to him (them).
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/22/us/conservative-activist-assault-uc-berkeley/index.html
Roby, I agree, but this is California. I suspect their long arm of the law will wrap its arm around them and tell the “bad boy” and give them a suspended sentence of some short duration.
Roby;
I am glad this bothers you.
Lets be clear – this is POLITICAL violence.
It is the use of FORCE as a response to SPEECH.
Speaking is NOT the same as using FORCE, it is rarely the same as ACTING.
We have the RIGHT to speak as we please – even badly and offensively.
We do not have the right to ACT as we please.
We can speak in ways that another finds emotionally hurtful.
We can not ACT in ways that actually harm others – we can not give others black eyes.
There is no requirement to justify speech.
ACTS of force MUST be justified – by defense of self or others as an example.
The violent actors on campus are POLITICAL, they are not delusional people with serious mental health problems.
TODAY – and for the past several decades, ALL the political violence or threats of violence on campus (and many many other places) have been by the LEFT.
Berkeley was not burned down by conservatives. Evergreen did not devolve to near anarchy as a result of conservatives. Middleburry was not an example of right wing violence.
Even the conflicts involving the patriot prayer – which is arguably conservative but not alt right, and Proud boys, or even actual KKK and neo nazis – involve instances where the LEFT uses violence to silence OTHERS.
In many instances the targets of LEFT violence are NOT conservatives.
Charles Murray is closer to a libertarian than a conservative. Jordan Peterson, David Rubin, Sam Harris, the Weinstein Brothers – not one of these would identify themselves as a conservative.
Stealing a MAGA hat, silencing a campus speaker these are all acts of COMMONPLACE POLITICAL VIOLENCE that the left has done nothing about.
Every time some nut job is caught shooting up a church or a school or with a cache of weapons several things happen:
The media nearly always jumps on it bemoaning gun violence.
They typically decide nearly instantly that it is somehow political and driven by the left.
Many on both sides practically HOPE that it is a perfect example of how those with views they do not like are dangerous and violent.
Some shooting occurs – the left HOPES that the perpitrators Social media will be full of Trump, the right HOPES he will have ties to Al Qeda or Bernie Sanders.
And yet these guys are pretty much ALWAYS off their meds loners with serious mental health issues. They are not acting on a political agenda, they are acting on gibberish in their brains.
There are few if any examples TODAY of the right, libertarians or ANY other group besides the left engaging in ACTUAL POLITICAL VIOLENCE
The only Group violence is by the left.
The only politically motivated individual violence is by the left.
Worse still – democrats – presuming they are not entirely owned by the left, do nothing about this.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/02/22/jussie-smollett-empire-attack-fired-cut-video-chicago-fox-column/2950146002/
https://pjmedia.com/trending/donald-trump-gay-rights-hero/
Trump’s shutdown seriously effected our national security.
“After Shutdown, Grounded Planes and Delayed Repairs Ripple Through Coast Guard”
“The delays are expected to significantly limit the number of ships and aircraft available for Coast Guard operations, which generally include drug interdiction as well as search-and-rescue and maritime safety missions. They will also affect the training of the uniformed and civilian Coast Guard force.
“You can get the money, but you can never get the time,” said Mark F. Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s going to hurt them for quite a while.”
“Internal documents obtained by The New York Times show that the Coast Guard’s ship maintenance command lost at least 7,456 productive workdays — or 28.5 years’ worth of workdays — as a direct result of the partial shutdown, which furloughed 6,400 civilian employees.
“This reality poses significant risk to operational availability of cutters and boats,” the documents concluded.
The service also noted a “domino effect” that has caused delays in repairs and maintenance on its roughly 200 aircraft, which, in turn, could keep them from being immediately available.”
********Trump you are a total schmuck.**********
People are just dying all over the place.
Sorry DD – do not care.
Instead of this Emergency Declaration Trump should have said no, and shutdown the government again.
These stupid “the sky is falling” posts are nonsense.
Mostly what they demonstrate is that there would have been ZERO problems at all – if 22% of the federal government had been PERMANENTLY shutdown rather than 25%.
In past shutdowns Both parties passed legislation treating the CG like the military and exempting them from the shutdown.
Democrats refused – all the CG problems are on them.
Here’s a real emergency, ask your EPA department. It has been going on for many years. ****You can even blame Obama for the problem/inaction.****
“Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Drinking Water Leave Military Families Reeling”
“The residents of Fountain, a mountain-flanked suburb of Colorado Springs, were told of the contamination by local officials who had been required by the E.P.A. to test the water for the substances, a step toward possible regulation. Soon dozens of communities from New York to Washington State discovered their drinking water was also polluted with PFAS.
Many people began demanding that state and military officials test their blood for the chemicals, hoping to learn the extent of their presence in their bodies.
The military has started an expensive cleanup effort that has involved shifting entire municipalities to new water sources and assessing toxic plumes that continue to spread for miles.”
Why are you just pointing this out? This was news almost a year ago and was a subject of a senate hearing sometime last year.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/04/26/dod-126-bases-report-water-contaminants-harmful-to-infant-development-tied-to-cancers/
Hear is a link to 2015. Need to copy and paste to browser to get it to access the link so this does not go to moderation due to two links, Just try adding the WWW. before this.
burr.senate.gov/press/releases/senators-burr-and-tillis-recap-north-carolina-military-and-veterans-related-legislative-and-policy-gains-for-2015
This is the same thing that keeps happening with our new great social media, I keep getting stuff and it looks like it has just happened, Upon further research it is something that happened 2,3,4,,5+ years ago.
Sorry, sorry, oh so sorry I was late.
So it’s too late for Trump to declare an “emergency”, let’s just keep doing what Obama did, ignore it.
Sheeesh.
Well I thought it was being addressed through the EPA funds.
According to Military Times, a publication that does not appear to be right of left, but just reporters reporting what is happening with the military it is.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/06/08/dod-explains-whats-being-done-about-water-contamination-on-bases/
This was back in June.
So are you saying it is not being aid for through EPA funding and is not happening?
Let me ask this in another way.
Since 2017, and even before based on the 2015 report I accessed, this information has appeared in the paper numerous times. Then it was addressed by the DOD and they began identifying the different reasons for this happening. Then it was reported by the military times that superfunds given to the EPA was being used to fix the problems once they are identified and the corrective measures needed to fix the problem is known. Apparently there are different reasons like contaminated individual wells at housing, contaminated water systems on base, contaminated city water being sold to the military and contaminated water in foreign countries provided to the military.
Reading the NY Times article, I see little that has changed in their reporting from reports from 2017 and 2018.
So was there something new? If not, why are they reporting it now? What has changed?
I am one that posted something way back about this mess along with many things about crappy VA health benefits. But the VA keeps getting more money and NOTHING has improved. So is money the answer or is firing some big fat asses sitting in government jobs that civil service has protected from being fired the problem?
When they say the issue is being addressed through EPA super funds, I am going to accept that until it is shown it is not being addressed. I don’t see that has happened. I don’t see a report that says DOD is ignoring the problem as they did in the past.
Am I wrong in this belief?
Please show me where this problem is growing and DOD is not addressing that. All I can find online is data from 2017 and 2018 where a number of bases have been shown to have problems and that was the beginning of the problem being addressed. I can’t find anything online, but I remember something back in the summer where Burr and Tillis had meeting with military families about this issue at Camp Lejuene.
But I could be completely wrong. Don’t know.
Millions of people must have died!!!!!
Read the EPA summaries of the guidance from the EPA website.
The correlation is so weak that even the EPA is only “suggesting” changes.
Regardless, presuming the EPA is correct and there is even crappy science on this – the problem will solve itself.
Pretty much guarrenteed that even a weak threat will result in mass torts against the companies that release these chemicals, terror will quickly spread throught he chemical industry and they will quit releasing.
BTW the “toxic forever” claim is completely garbage.
The fact that these substances to do not break down easily does not mean that they will massively pollute our water forever. There is no substance that can do that – Nature is self regulating. Atleast two things have been happening and will continue over time – the stuff will become highly dilluted and it will get filtered out by nature.
Are people dying from this all over ? Nope, The studies cited think MAYBE there is a link between this and high cholesteral – but the weak is very weak.
Studies with other animals and generally massive does have shown other effects – but in the real world – they are not showing up.
To be clear – I am not saying these are not harmful, only that the level of harm is very low.
That BTW is what you would expect. It would be incredibly unusual for something highly toxic to suddenly show up broadly in our water or food supply.
Anything that was highly toxic would have been discovered long ago.
BTW most of the studies trying to link pretty much any purported toxic substance to actual real world harms is pretty much garbage and bad science.
It is extremely rare that we find even HIGHLY toxic substances that strongly correlate to problems.
The classic modern examples are asbestos and cigaret smoke.
Though different both are much more “toxic” – asbestos technically tends to work mechanically not chemically.
Yet both cigarets and asbestos take years of exposure to shorten life expectancies of smokers by 6 weeks. The risks associated with Cigaretts and asbestos are both about double the natural risk – but the natural risk is quite low and double very little is still not very large.
Most of the modern “science” purporting to link some pollutant to diseases and cancer based on studies of exposure (as opposed to lab tests), are crap.
If as an example the natural rate for lung cancer is 1:10000, that does NOT mean that for every 10000 people there will be one case – nature and chance do not work that way.
It means in one place there will be 10:10000 and in 9 there will be 0:10000
The 1:10000 is the AVERAGE accross nature.
To actually find a causal relationship between a purported polutant and some problem it is NOT ENOUGH to find a correlation between places with higher levels of the substance and some health issue. you ALSO have to find that the number of places with high rates of the health problem you are looking for no longer distribute along a bell curve.
Otherwise you can not tell if you have just been fooled by the fact that chance does not distribute things evenly.
Ron, silent on the CG problem I see.
I commented during the shutdown that the Coast Guard should be under the DOD and not DHS. I got no reply from some and others explaining why it wax under DHS. A couple years ago I commented I commented about our military cannibalizing equioment to keep other equipment running.
So everyone should know my opinion about the military!
So, Ron, you anticipated the damage Trump caused in the CG as described in the article?
1. I dont read or believe anything in the NY Times
2. I dont read or belueve anything in Huff Post
3. I care more about the impact on the sailors and their familiesimpact
Show me an article in another news outlet.
I do not treat opinion as fact.
I do not universally treat government failing at something as a bad thing (or govenrment succeeding as good).
For the most part your rants about the CG mostly prove how small the effect of the shutdown was if the CG is the best you can come up with.
Lets say that I accept EVERY left wing nut claim of harm from the Shutdown.
That would still indicate we can eliminate 20% of govenrment with no consequence.
All the ranting about the harms of the shutdown if accepted do not amount to more than 5% of government.
What damage ?
The CG was unable to do something perfectly.
No one is.
I do not expect CG to do their job perfectly.
I do expect them not to waste money that belongs to others.
Government sucks at that.
CG might be less bad than others.
Of course if we ended the “war on drugs” The CG could be put to more important tasks.
Or cut back.
I have hopped over to Rick’s new post.
Nothing from the NYT. Hmmmmm. Have to process that a bit.
NYT and other left media can be useful.
But it is alot of work to strip out all the unnecescary and biased adjectives and spin, the personal oppinions masquerading as facts, and the unnamed sources and after you have done that there often isn’t a story left – and I am talking about hard news stories not Op Eds.