« Olympics, I Wish I Knew How To Quit You | Main | Timor mortis conturbat me - Weekend Open Thread »

August 18, 2016

Comments

I convess, the new team at the top of the Trump campaign had me simply at a loss for words. Just the latest in the on-going series of "If I told you, two weeks ago, that they would do this, would you have believed it for an instant? Or would you have been sure I was insane?"

It does make me wonder one thing. How will they contrive to outdo themselves, come the debates? I suspect that the Clinton Campaign, as they do their debate prep, are asking exactly that question. How do you help your candidate get beyond surprise, when a failure of imagination seems all too likely?

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/08/donald-trumps-campaign-is-basically-a-rss-feed-of-russian-disinformation-and-white-supremacist-sites

"If John Doe's head splits open and a UFO should fly out, I want you to have expected it."

Actually, it's quite remarkable how David Fincher was able to make a documentary about the Trump campaign 20 years before Donald announced his run for the 2016 GOP nomination.

and people are still falling for it.

the world confounds.

When I was a kid, really quite young, I had vivid nightmares, repeated quite often, of being chased and attacked by indomitable, inexorable foes, always human-seeming but not possessing human qualities.

For example, one of the usual ones was that our house was surrounded by SS Nazi troops and one time, still dreaming, I sleep-walked into my mother's bedroom and found her in her bathroom getting ready for bed (my Dad was out of town) and (my mother related this story to me, though I also remember every word I said to her) I spent the next ten minutes or so pleading with her desperately to wake the other kids and get out of the house and hide.

We must kill them before they kill us, I pled. My mother many years later told me that I was so persistent that for a moment or two, late at night with the house dark and my Dad not present, that a chill ran up her spine and just for a moment she thought about parting the curtains and taking a look outside to see if maybe I was on to something.

This is why the original "Invasion of The Body Snatchers" film struck such a note with me, to this day; it's one my central metaphors, one's humanity being stripped from one, usually while sleeping, and you would become empty consuming husks, the empathy glands switched off.

But the oddest, most horrifying part of these dreams was after awakening. Then reality, item, speech, actions, were acutely sped up, as in fast forward, hurtling toward some doom which I was unable to slow down, let alone process.

I would sit over my Rice Krispies at the kitchen table .... where Republicans, mistaking themselves for government, gather their families to decide whether or not to bomb the neighbors or stop payments for Sis's chemo and evict her because now that the neighbors are dead, we can't tax them anymore ... and I would try to contain this literally physical sensation of hurtling toward some unknown fate.

This is what reality feels like to me now. What is happening is a perfectly logical progression from the steady drumbeat of hate pounding like a metronome into America's consciousness from the usual not-quite-human suspects over the past 35 years toward the OTHER, toward government, toward every f*cking thing they find objectionable, toward everything but their own narrow self-interest.

Only, now it's sped up. It just keeps coming harder and faster like the birds hurtling against
Tippy Hedren's boarded up windows in the Hitchcock movie.

Meanwhile, vermin, subhuman, sadistic zombie alien murderer ... sorry, I misspoke, Governor Jan Brewer is what the bug that crawled up the ass of her formerly, now a husk, human self... Good grief! .... is having one of those strange Tourette episodes, happening more and more, daily ... numerous times, in quick time, among the shit for brains slithering, meat-eating reptile called the Republican Party.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jan-brewer-clinton-lying-killer-mispronunciation

Like I told me mother more nearly 60 years ago, we're going to have to kill them before they kill us.

"item"?

Read "time".

Maybe Aetna is planning on getting into the organ-harvesting business after if recovers the corpses of its victims.

http://juanitajean.com/you-used-to-call-this-blackmail/

Send those kidneys to the mother-ship.

Count,
any minute now you're going to wake up, and find that you're a kid again.

In early 2009, after Dubya made the GOP massively unpopular, the "Teabaggers" started up, claiming that the were NOT Republicans. Yes, of course, they were. It was just a limited modified hangout, to get past a few years of really, really bad branding.

Expect something similar in early 2017. It might not catch on, it'll probably have a new name, they'll initially claim that they're NOT GOPers (in spite of all evidence to the contrary), and probably include a few members that *claim* to be former Dhimmicrats to add some bipartisan credibility.

Either that, or (as Count seems to be predicting) they'll go on a violent rampage, and have to be put down like rabid weasels.

No need to abandon the GOP banner since it will (again) be claimed that Trump was a Clinton plant (like Dubya was not 'really' a GOPster but a liberal in disguise).

My prediction: the GOP will lose the senate but not go below 40, so they can and will keep their policy of total blockade and the Dems will not effectively challenge them*. The House will stay in GOP hands and do the same. In the midterms, with even lower voter participation than usual, they will retake the senate with a fair chance of getting to 60. Then all bets are off.

*even where the filibuster got officially abandoned but definitely with SCOTUS nominees. Court unpacking will proceed as planned.

now that their 2020 nominee can campaign on a 0% top federal income tax rate, repealing social security and providing that US citizens to be deported for "extremist views" will receive some sort of due process before they are shipped overseas (to where?) will be declared a "serious policy wonk" by media acclimation.

How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?

In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?

The same president who was so decisive, etc, when Deepwater Horizon went south?

The same president who so roundly denounced GWB in the Katrina aftermath, perhaps?

Plenty of conservatives--PLENTY--have denounced Trump and have been doing so for months. It is bullshit to act otherwise.

HRC will win. In 2020, we will have 12 years of a Democrat in office. Who will own what then?

How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?

You mean the flakka-infused face eating was just fine?

good thing there's no echo chamber on the right !

i'd hate to see what kind of bullshit false equivalence narrative such a machine could come up with given the two very different responses to the two very different LA floods.

Or who was in charge of FEMA during Katrina vs. the person in charge now.

what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?

Because disaster recovery efforts work just so much better when the President flies in and totally disrupts operations. Right.

Personally, I think the tradition of Presidents (or Governors) arriving to "show concern" in the midst of a disaster is a horrible one. And everybody, especially those directly impacted by the disaster, would be better off if they would stay far away.

Paul Ryan is in favor of tax cuts for high-income earners (and estate tax repeal) and cuts to social security benefits.

FEMA should pay for itself.

Plenty of conservatives--PLENTY--have denounced Trump and have been doing so for months. It is bullshit to act otherwise.

Where in the post did I state no conservatives have denounced Trump or act otherwise?

The fact remains, Trump is supported by the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the three top Federal Governmental Posts held by GOPers (all conservatives, I assume) and 3rd and 4th in line in presidential succession (Speaker and pro tempore).

It was the GOP primary process that put Trump in this position, supported by GOP voters and (now at least) the GOP leadership. The GOP nominated, the GOP owns him.

Same goes for the Democratic Party and Clinton.

How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?

Simple extrapolation?

The so-called 'conservative' movement has been laying down the magic markers for somebody like Drumpf to come along for decades (cf laffer curve). For the life of me, McKinney, I don't see why we shouldn't take the lunacy promoted by the so-called conservative movement seriously. I mean, you call yourself a conservative, right? I would assume you would take their beliefs as propounded by their intellectual lights such as Paul Ryan seriously.

Or is all that just fluff to feed the rubes?

Let me lay it out to you more simply:
Trump says stupid things.
These stupid things are merely GOP talking points wrapped in populist garb.
Paul Ryan and other "serious" conservatives, propound essentially the same policies. HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ THEM?
Therefore, it would strike an unbiased observer that they are, for all intents and purposes, virtually indistinguishable.

Q.E.D.

In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?

When you can demonstrate the failures of FEMA today vs. GWB's FEMA during Katrina, well, then perhaps we can talk.

Otherwise....you are just blowing smoke, and you know it.

Even Louisiana's paper The Advocate, which criticized Obama for not cutting his vacation short, had this to say about the actual response:

The paper praised the work of FEMA, calling it a "far cry" from the bungled response to Katrina.

Had he shown up, he would have been criticized for making it "all about him." It would have been an inappropriate photo-op for his own aggrandizement.

In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?

In the real world of global warming (which, I'm not sure whether you deny that or not, McKinney - feel free to remind us): "Since the flooding began Friday, more than 20,000 have had to be rescued in some of the worst flooding the state has ever seen. And at least 11,000 have hunkered down in shelters to wait out the floods."

Obama was supposed to have waved his hands and held back the rain?

"Had he shown up, he would have been criticized for making it "all about him." It would have been an inappropriate photo-op for his own aggrandizement."

Except from the left, including wj, who would have a completely different reason why abandoning his vacation made him a true hero.

FEMA learned something last time, that has not a damn thing to do with Obama.

FEMA learned something last time, that has not a damn thing to do with Obama.

Well, the guy running FEMA and appointed by Obama has been in emergency management since 1987, as opposed to having been running horse shows.

But you can't have it both ways (not necessarily you, Marty, but the general you) - either Obama has something to do with it or he doesn't. If he doesn't, his showing up has nothing to do with FEMA doing its job.

Nope, if he showed up he would have been criticized (by me, certainly) for getting in the way, using needed resources, etc. And rightly so IMHO.

On the other hand, not showing up can be safely predicted to get accusations (as here) of being uncaring, hard hearted, etc. So it's a no-win situation that way. Except that, while you get criticized both ways, at least staying away means that you won't be making the problems worse.

How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?

I read Ugh's statement as rather tongue-in-cheek. It seems from the response that you did not. Which, in turn, is a springboard for this assertion:

In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?

Are you taking issue with hyperbole via being hyperbolic?

The "worst" historically? What about the great Mississippi Flood of 1927? This was prior to the construction of the modern levee system or the Old River Control Structure on the Atchafalaya River.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927

During that event the river crested at 47.28 ft at Baton Rouge, which the NOAA still has listed as the highest flood crest ever at that location.

What metric is behind the use of the word "worst"?

Now I come to think of it, I don't recall ever seeing anything on Crooked Timber linked to here, so if there is some unwritten rule about not doing it I apologise.

http://crookedtimber.org/2016/08/18/donald-trump-is-the-least-of-the-gops-problems/#more-40446

I found this post very interesting, and wondered what anyone else thought of it. Any opinions as to the merits of its thesis?

FEMA learned something last time, that has not a damn thing to do with Obama.

Come on, Marty. Don't be ridiculous. No doubt FEMA learns something every time, but is that really the difference between now and Katrina, or does it have something to do with who the President appointed to run it?

I have some sympathy with Taibbi's view:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/science/2016/08/matt_taibbi_says_donald_trump_has_ruined_journalism.html

Ugh: now that their 2020 nominee can campaign on a 0% top federal income tax rate, repealing social security and providing that US citizens to be deported for "extremist views" will receive some sort of due process before they are shipped overseas (to where?) will be declared a "serious policy wonk" by media acclimation.

McK: How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?

Well, let's see.

Trump is proposing a 15% cap on income from pass-through entities. I doubt I need to explain to you what that means, as opposed to what some are claiming. Also no estate tax. Period. Other in the GOP have variations on this, including eliminating taxes on capital income entirely. That would in fact mean many very wealthy individuals would pay 0% tax, or very close to it.

Republicans repeatedly call for "entitlement reform." If you look at actual proposals, especially this put forth by Ryan, you will see that this translates into "cut SS and (mostly) Medicare and use the money saved for high-end tax cuts."

Cruz wants to "patrol and secure" Muslim neighborhoods.

OK. So Ugh exaggerated a little. But less than you claim.

McTX: HRC will win.

From your lips to FSM's ears.

In 2020, we will have 12 years of a Democrat in office.

For "office" read "White House". Unfortunately, it's likely that 10 of those 12 years will have featured a Republican Speaker of the House, with several of those years featuring the "serious", "policy wonk" Paul Ryan in that office. (He's a charlatan, of course, but Broderism is still alive even if David Broder is still dead.) And only about 1 of those 12 years are likely to have featured a veto-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. Quite possibly 5 of the 12 years will feature a Supreme Court with fewer than 9 Justices on it. So ...

Who will own what then?

... will still have the standard bubblicious answer: "America's problems are all the DemocRAT president's fault."

--TP

Up until Katrina, FEMA was one of a number of federal agencies where presidents sent people they owed political favors, but didn't want to let them near the dangerous stuff.

In any case, Katrina had a load of blame to go around to all levels of government.

Any opinions as to the merits of its thesis?

it sounds reasonable. but i think maybe a bit overstated.

IMO, Trump got lucky by being a celebrity tough-guy who jumped into an over-stuffed but under-powered primary field where none of the establishment types were strong enough to break away from all the other establishment types. there's always an outsider in the GOP primaries who does pretty well at the start; but eventually the establishment leader hits his stride and the base falls in line. this time, all the establishment types were weak and there were too many of them, so they just split that vote between the ten of them.

plus, the media took months to start being critical about Trump, treating him as a celebrity novelty instead of a regular politician, giving him unlimited free, uncritical airtime - which totally sucked all the air out of the room for the rest of the field.

and none of that has anything to do with the state of conservatism (as i see it). Trump really is one-of-a-kind.

CharlesWT,

Up until Katrina, FEMA was one of a number of federal agencies where presidents sent people they owed political favors, but didn't want to let them near the dangerous stuff.

In any case, Katrina had a load of blame to go around to all levels of government.

Your second paragraph is definitely true.

The first is definitely false. Check out James Witt, Bill Clinton's FEMA head.

GftNC, my suspicion about the absence of Crooked Timber links here is that a lot of us read them, but the folks there have way sharper elbows than we have here and folks here are hesitant to link to one of those threads that had 300+ comments. The other thing is that they often channel the ethos of the academy, which means 'my reading pile is bigger' is often the way to dismiss someone. As far as the CT post goes, I agree and disagree. Yes, American conservatism is not conservatism, but simply reactionary. But that reactionary group was only able to win by assembling the Reagan coalition, so my sense is that they are living on borrowed time. The problem is that they are willing to let the whole house fall down around their ears.

Was going to write a comment observing that everyone's channelling the Count here, but seeing the surprise of McT lead off and Marty take up his spot as cleanup hitter has me write this.

Nice to see McT and Marty, the two Pep boys of the party of Trump (you say you hate him, but deep deep down, you know he's your man), wading into the fray. Wading is the operative word, since you don't know (or can't be bothered) to figure out the difference between a hurricane and a flood. Guess they are too busy keeping up God's (at least the God of Tony Perkins) work, I know you have to counter all of us over here pumping out our love and glaze-eyed devotion for Obama and Hillary.

Find a place where I exaggerated. I dare you.

GftNC,

I'm not overwhelmed by Robin's analysis, but then I seldom am. I read CT sometimes, but it's a little too something - perhaps earnestly leftist - for my tastes. I don't think, for example, that LBJ's downfall had a lot to do with civil rights. Mostly it was Vietnam. (Yes, sharlie, I vas dere - not in Vietnam but an adult in 1968).

Marty: "Except from the left, including wj, who would have a completely different reason why abandoning his vacation made him a true hero."

Except from the right, including Marty, who would have a completely different reason why Trump shooting someone in the middle of 5th Ave. made him a true hero.

Mind reading and counterfactuals, they fit so well together, I know for sure that you agree.


What has become tiresome is the assumption that any criticism of Obama and Clinton shows some disguised love of Trump. (There is your exaggeration lj). I am actively campaigning for Johnson/Weld and would vote for Jill Stein before I would vote for either of them.

So I will take every accusation that Trump is somehow secretly my guy as calling me a liar, and will consider it an ad hominem attack.

I cleaned that up a lot from my two word original answer.

byomtov, I'd say LBJ's downfall was civil unrest. For which Vietnam was a major contributor, but civil rights was a contributor as well.

The other contributor being our generation's being allowed to grow up with a sense that we knew it all and our parents did not. And that we could do, and should be able to do, whatever we wanted without consequences. A lot of the carrying on (aka riots) in 1968 were as much about "let's do something exciting!" as any real attachment to the ostensible cause.

i guess i'm curious to know if the issue with louisiana and obama is one of optics or substance.

russell, I think the optics is the issue. No one believes his going to Louisiana will make any effort of the local, state or federal aid work better or more smoothly. I could go whatifbushdidit, but that's just stupid. A nice shot of him putting in Martha's Vineyard while his constituents in Louisiana are suffering the aftermath of this flooding is at least tone deaf.

A flyover, meet with the officials on the ground, assure them whatever they need he will support them getting, a pat on the back press conference for the strength of the people and the aid workers from all over and off he goes.

Shows caring, it's Presidential. He should actually want to. It is optics, sometimes that is the support he can give.

I think wj has it wrong. He isn't a distraction, he brings energy and hope and appreciation.

Given what a three ring circus it is any time a President goes anywhere, it's hard to see how it could possibly avoid being a massive distraction. Especially when the infrastructure is part of what's disrupted.

Maybe "shows caring" is important enough, politically, to outweigh the disruption. But that sure wouldn't be the way I would prioritize things.

So, Marty's list is
1.Johnson/Weld
2.Stein
3.Trump
4.HRC

Good enough for the bronze, eh?

And btw, when my facebook feed has is getting those 'X is marked safe' from my high school and uni friends who are still in Louisiana and I see you trying to make hay with the flood because Obama doesn't 'care' enough for you, you can keep your two words so I don't have to give them to you.

Oh for crap's sake. "Optics" is what you care about if you're running for something. Substance is what you care about when you have no more fncks to give about the pearl-clutching, salts-smelling, concern-trolling, right-wing critics you once thought, in your kumbaya optimism, might actually be motivated by "substance".

--TP

Why doesn't Obama order the HAARP guys to redirect the rains to California where lots of water is needed to fight the fires? Or are both disasters part of his wicked plans? ;-)
Would be a nice irony, if the Ark Park got hit by flooding instead.

"Political Schrödinger's Cat" is an excellent description

By the way you have "Cannon" for "Bannon" in the post

Thanks Adam, although Cannon seems fitting...

A silly reply to a silly reply: no, lj, no bronze. Trump won't ever get my vote, nor will HRC. I would write in the Count before validating either of them with a vote, and I am not sure he would make a great President.

I do not have to accept being bullied into choosing between someone with no conscience and someone with no shame, neither of them caring a twit about the American people.

I thought this was pretty good, and quite frightening.

As for your, and my, La friends, luckily I can have two thoughts at once. One that I am concerned about them and two that the Presidents visible support and commitment is never a bad thing for people in their position to see.

But there is no hay to make. Someone on the internet(here) brought up the subject so I added my opinion.

“It is a major ordeal, they free up the interstate for him,” Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Thursday. “We have to take hundreds of local first responders, police officers, sheriffs, deputies and state troopers to provide security for that type of visit.”

“I would just as soon have those people engaged in the response rather than trying to secure the president,” Bel Edwards continued. “So I’d ask him to wait, if he would, another couple weeks.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/louisiana-governor-dont-need-visit-president-now

luckily I can have two thoughts at once

Given that one of those thoughts is the basso ostinato of "Dems bad", I'm not too impressed. And given that the other thought is 'I'm worried about my LA friends, so why the hell doesn't Obama off the golf course and get down there', I think you are giving yourself way too much credit...

"“It is a major ordeal, they free up the interstate for him,” Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Thursday. “We have to take hundreds of local first responders, police officers, sheriffs, deputies and state troopers to provide security for that type of visit.” "

If they did this it would be the worst planned Presidential flyover in history, or probably not.

You fly him into New Orleans, put him on a chopper, land him in a not too central area where the press is and fly him out. I don't think anyone is talking about a walking tour.

ultimately, what would that accomplish? how many people would be helped by having the President touch the soil in Baton Rouge ?

ultimately, what would that accomplish? how many people would be helped by having the President touch the soil in Baton Rouge ?

ultimately, what would that accomplish? how many people would be helped by having the President touch the soil in Baton Rouge ?

cleek, it's your Law in operation. If Obama had gone to Baton Rouge, the people now whining that he hasn't gone there would be whining that he was did so just for a photo-op and was diverting important resources away from rescuing people.

Haterz gonna hate. ODS in action.

Marty, a friend of mine was until his sudden death employed at FEMA, maintaining the network of Pacific Northwest fire alerts and other disaster stuff.

(Three quick side notes. #1. Working at FEMA meant that he and all his colleagues routinely got bomb and death threats, from people you tell us we libtards need to respect more. #2. He died fundamentally because only with the coming of the ACA could he afford the thorough whole-body evaluations that uncovered the things that killed him. I have a hard time figuring out why I shouldn't regard all those who worked so hard for decades to keep him and others away from care as engaged in a 20-year conspiracy to commit mass murder, in moral terms. #3. Every year, hundreds to thousands of lives and vast quantities of property are saved thanks to contemporary disaster monitoring and preparedness. Every year, Congresspeople you tell us we need to respect more fight to eliminate or grossly underfund that service. Same pondering as in #2.)

By law, FEMA and its state counterparts are not allowed to assume that a presidential visit will go as planned. They have to consider contingencies up to and including destruction of landing fields and destinations. Nearby cities have to be prepared to receive an unexpected presidential party, and so on. IMHO, these are good laws, because one (1) major failure would be bad for lots of people and perhaps the country at large. But it means that what you're talking about in your 10:25 am post is just irrelevant fantasy, as if I were to say "Yeah, but then the Democrats could just call for a vote of no confidence in the Senate and displace the current leadership."

From the evil Washington Post.

Final paragraph:

That's why Obama won't break off his vacation in Martha's Vineyard — or stop playing golf on said vacation — to travel to Louisiana. Because he believes he can monitor the situation as well — or better — from where he is. And that the sole reason to go to Louisiana is for the theatrical piece of politics, a piece that he not only rejects but detests.

Marty, if elected, I would have you and Slart and Sebastian and charleswt in my kitchen cabinet.

Great President? I'd be so great you'd soon grow bored with all of the greatness. So much greatness you'd run out of places to put it. You'd have to build a new wing on the White House for the overflow greatness, I tell you.

You would be in charge of preparing the cream pies for throwing during visits from the opposition in Congress. Also, throwing their clothing after them out on to the White House lawn as they flee before me.

Also, White House chandelier repair and maintenance, and making sure the dunk tank is positioned for me to sit on during my visits to aggrieved parts of the country.

I like a slight delay on the seat release into the water, into which I expect you to place hungry sharks beforehand, so I have a second or two to mug for the camera before the splash and the roiling, bloody-red waters close over my head.

That may seem like a lot duty-wise, but just between you and me, could you also hustle all of my female visitors out of the joint when no one is looking? And make sure they don't run into each other. Single President and all. I would have you do that for me now, but you'd have nothing to do, because none of my female acquaintances are the slightest bit phased or impressed when I tell them I'm running for President.

In fact, they grab their coats and back away with a look of horror on their faces. But I expect that to change once elected, given precedent.

You might think I've passed over McKinneyTexas for a slot in my Administration.

You would be wrong. He would have two jobs. He would provide my daily briefing which would consist of him throwing his briefing papers and his glass of Maker's Mark up in the air and yelling: "Mr President, you are full of shit!".

I need someone to keep me grounded.

Job number two for MCKT would be fielding the weekly bills of impeachment pouring in from Congress. I say fielding, but what I mean is stonewalling.

Regarding flooding, I'm wondering which section of the East Coast the President, whomever that might be, will visit once Greenland and the North Pole melt.

Probably Florida, I expect.

Or will he or she be too busy sending on federal troops to rescue Marco Rubio, Rush Limbaugh and assorted jackasses from dismemberment, disfigurement, and ritual drowning at the hands of very wet people.

for the record, i never thought it was so wrong that Bush wasn't immediately on the ground in New Orleans. it's not like his brush clearing skills made him personally valuable in a flood rescue and relief scenario.

it was the sluggish overall govt response that made Bush look bad. the golf thing just became a handy symbol of that response.

To perhaps sum up my post less pejoratively, the idea that Trump is some sort of Foundation Mule in the greater context of regular GOP operations and voter base is simply untrue and the various attempts by national GOP leaders and pundits to try and pretend otherwise is unconvincing to me, even if they may be ultimately successful generally and, as a bonus, enable a noxious right-winger such as Paul Ryan to be portrayed as a moderate and win the presidency in 2020 on that basis.

"Great President? I'd be so great you'd soon grow bored with all of the greatness. So much greatness you'd run out of places to put it. You'd have to build a new wing on the White House for the overflow greatness, I tell you."

OK, I concede.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/19/1561774
What bruce b said:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/19/1561774/-Flood-waters-in-Louisiana-may-look-like-Katrina-but-the-FEMA-response-does-not

I'm sure during Obama's first days in office one of his staffers came in to brief him on measures to get FEMA on its toes again, and Barack said: "What's a fema, bro? We gonna sequester their ass, too?"

Typical politically correct response in the accompanying pic from the liberal Obama-rejuvenated FEMA: rescuing dogs and cats first and leaving the women and children behind to mildew.

And will ya look at the grin on that liberal's face. She's enjoying it. No doubt the death threats and guide-dog-feminazi-if-blacks-would-only-learn-to-swim jibes are pouring in from the Trump base to get at the woman for serving others.

Bruce B's No #2 side note will be addressed in my first term as President. The mass-murdering sadists, and there are millions of them, will be concentrated in camps and processed for execution via unsterilized catheterization with the gloves off.

Paul Ryan is up first.

That first link doesn't link.

I fear you are right. What the rise of Trump showed is that a critical mass of the Republican base doesn't give a s**t about the so-called ideas of mainstream-ish conservative Republicanism and instead gets juiced up by appeals to ethnic nationalism -- to give it one of its more polite names. But because the republican establishment will be able to blame Trump's loss on his loathsome personality and amateurish campaign, they will be able to spin it as a Uniquely Personal Failure. The Ryan and Cruz can campaign in 2020 on the same old same old the Republicans have flogged forever, while returning to dog-whistle appeals to the actual motivations of the voters they cannot afford to alienate. Of course the reptilian Tailgunner Ted and the smarmy Paul "Eddie Haskell" Ryan* will set up yet another Uniquely Personal Failure narrative if 2020 doesn't go their way.

* Is the voting population too young to get the Eddie Haskell reference, or have re-runs of Leave It to Beaver on cable nostalgia channels imprinted him into the consciousness of younger voters?

That first link doesn't link.

Most likely a due breakdown of your utility function.

Go online to: http/::www.utopianthought/wallstreejournaleditorialpage.net and follow the instructions. Confirm the patent status of your function. A warranty may be available, but generally they are garbage. Lawsuits may be precluded by an arbitration clause (to check your arbitration status go to http//::sucks to be you.com).

If an army of thugs comes to your doorstep, wave the magic certificate of free market competition and invoke the watchman state.

But bribery generally works better.

This has been a message from the campaign to elect Gary Johnson. Gary has endorsed this message, and will pose in the nude for you for a small fee.

Thanks cleek, lj, byomtov and anyone else who responded re my CT link.

the folks there have way sharper elbows than we have here and folks here are hesitant to link to one of those threads that had 300+ comments.

I'm not 100% certain what you mean by the sharp elbows, but I have certainly noticed that their long comment streams often degenerate into extreme nitpickiness and contumely, with various of them calling for various others to be banned. Since I think you're right, and lots of them are part of academe, I guess it's what the germans call the narcissism of small differences. Or, to put it another way as attributed to many different academics, "Academic politics is much more vicious than real politics. We think it's because the stakes are so small."

Or, to put it another way as attributed to many different academics, "Academic politics is much more vicious than real politics. We think it's because the stakes are so small."

And you should just SEE the fighting over who should get credit for that quotation...

GftNC, your comment made me pull up sharp elbows on the Urban dictionary

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sharp%20Elbow

My use was a little different, I wasn't thinking ambitious, I was thinking of playing pickup basketball and there was always someone who would try to get position under the basket with 'sharp elbows' and if those guys got enough of a reputation, you would avoid them.

Plenty of conservatives--PLENTY--have denounced Trump and have been doing so for months. It is bullshit to act otherwise.

Yes, because he is losing. If he was winning, I don't think there is the slightest chance they would be denouncing him. Why should they? He hasn;t said anything that the Republican party ahsn't been pushing for forty years. He is more honest and open, doesn't dog whistle, but the xenophobic hatemongering is par for the course for Republican discourse. The other thing Republican politician don;t like about him is his seemingly sincere opposition to TPP and outsourcing and he does not have a history of being an extremist of the Ryan type. But the nastiness, the hatefulness, that's nothing new or different at all.

I fear you are right. What the rise of Trump showed is that a critical mass of the Republican base doesn't give a s**t about the so-called ideas of mainstream-ish conservative Republicanism and instead gets juiced up by appeals to ethnic nationalism -- to give it one of its more polite names.

That's alwasy been the case. REpubican politicans nkow that they would never get elected if they were honest about their policies. They have to appeal to the voters by deliberately downplaying their policies, when not lying about them outright, while making emotional appeals, appeals to negative emotions. Por-bashing. gay-bashing, Democrat-bashing. Spreading lies about voter fraud. Spreading lies about Planned Parenthood. Take the dishonest hatemongering out of Republican discourse and there's nothing left Conservative politicians do not talk in public about their real intentions.

"You would be in charge of preparing the cream pies for throwing during visits from the opposition in Congress"

hey man, that's my gig.

me and wavy gravy are gonna be the cabinet level officials in charge of national pranks.

"the golf thing just became a handy symbol of that response."

in bush's case, I think he was playing the guitar while NOLA drowned.

in any event, the larger objection was to a lack of effective planning and response.

that, and people getting shot when they tried to walk to safety.

Nice to see you wonkie! You might get some pushback, but as I said above, we are all the Count now...

LJ, yes I only knew the ambition usage, and it didn't seem to fit, so your basketball analogy makes much more sense. Meanwhile, back in the cesspit, Trump's pivot appears to be holding for at least 48 hours, which is naturally very worrying. I can't help feeling that Bannon and Ailes are going to be much better at this, having already separately succeeded in moving US discourse to the appalling end of the spectrum. I only hope I'm wrong, and that Trump proves uncontrollable.

GftNC,

You're welcome.

Another reason I don't read CT much is that many of the topics are of no interest to me. The posts on philosophy, for example, generally deal with subjects about which I know little, and am not much motivated to learn. Similarly for those that delve deeply into Marxist writers, or some other writers. My interest in science fiction is limited - I usually skip Dr. Science's posts on the subject here.

So a non-ideological reason is simply that I am only infrequently part of the audience to whom the posts are addressed.

In the 18th and 19th century, one of the real responsibilities of Russian emperors was leading fire-fighting and flood response in St. Petersburg during major emergencies. This was partly because no one else had the necessary command powers to direct the movement of all military units in the capital. (Russian czars took commander-in-chief responsibilities seriously. Nicholas I began every day of his reign by attending the daily morning briefing for the officers of the guard regiment in charge of his personal security.)

Anyhow, the personal courage and command ability demonstrated during emergencies were really important. The elite looked quite closely at these as a measure of the overall effectiveness of the autocrat.

In a modern democracy, the president should not direct emergency response personally, just like it should not be necessary for him to command the Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region in person. He is responsible for building a system that works when he is playing golf. If he needs to take operational lead, he has goofed up.

Assuming the AP isn't part of the Right Wing Noise Machine, here are extracts from an AP article:

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
* * *
But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.
* * *
The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.
* * *
Those planned changes would not affect more than 6,000 donors who have already provided the Clinton charity with more than $2 billion in funding since its creation in 2000.

Here's a shorter recap:

154 individuals give 84 million and have meetings with HRC or her top advisors at State.

16 countries give 170 MILLION.

Since 2000, 6000 donors have given 2 f'ing billion. How many charities raise that kind of money in 16 years?

But, she says if elected, she won't do this anymore and neither will her husband.

So, to Ugh's point, it may be that all Trump supporters are Klansmen in all but name. My thought is that there are a lot of Trump supporters who are nauseated full stop a the thought of these rent seekers being back in the White House.

As nauseated as I am by HRC and what seems to me to be her complete and total lack of integrity or accountability, I can't pull the lever for Trump.

If he were only half the asshole that he is, I could probably throw up and then vote for him.

But I get the lesser of two evils argument. Because it cuts both ways.


Damn numbers.

It wasn't 154 people giving 84 million.

It was 85 people giving 156 million.

Sorry for the error.

Just more Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Tex.

I can't wait for all the heart attacks on the reactionary right when she takes the Oath of Office, and I don't like her that much either!

And George W. Bush never spoke with a big campaign donor? Seriously?

I am so pleased that the Bush legacy has been so completely rehabilitated. In every discussion now the ultimate out is that surely Bush the lesser did it also, so it must be ok. But no, he probably didn't meet, while Secretary of State, with potential donors foreign and domestic to see what he could do for them.

CDS is a typical catchphrase employed by the Clinton left too demean the person questioning them to make the focus something wrong with them, rather than what she has done. It also provides the loyalists with a motto which helps cement their inclusion in US.

But it is not a real thing, you know, she actually has done bad things.

So, BP, because someone says "there's no story here", that fixes the problem?

Do you think the AP is making it up?

They matched the meetings at State with the Donors and the amounts. That's called connecting the dots.

But, keep whistling past the graveyard and telling yourself only those bad conservatives are capable of corruption.

What would be really interesting would be information on donors who got anything more than a meeting.

People give money for access all the time. Which isn't too good, but hardly especially reprehensible either. Fortunately, we can be confident that, if there is anything even remotely resembling real quid pro quo, it will get splashed across the front pages.

Do you think the AP is making it up?

Ha ha. That's an argument? Where did you learn that one...one of those lawyer conventions you get to write off as a business expense?

Look. Context matters. (so would a cite, by the way). How many people did she meet with? Who were they? If they were donors to the Clinton Foundation, how much did they donate?

Most importantly: What did they get from this access? Big contracts? An ambassadorship? A nice thank you note? WHAT?

In and of itself, the AP cut you posted shows absolutely nothing, and as mentioned, is totally devoid of context. Hilary Clinton meets with rich and powerful people.

This, somehow, is f*cking news? Are you kidding me? It's not even close to connecting dots.

So I looked at another breathless non-story on this latest manifestation of CDS here.

If you read this one, too, you will find a lot of breathless couch fainting....but really...NOTHING.

Gosh, she had a breakfast 'meeting' with a bunch of corporate bigwigs before a ceremonial bell ringing on the stock exchange.

THAT'S REALLY SUSPICIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really? How? How is that different from a group meeting of the swells you hang out with at your country club lobbying a guest city councilman about a zoning ordinance?

The bottom line is this: You are just making shit up. Show the quid for the quo, otherwise, just sit down.

The real problem is a system that creates vast disparities of wealth that enable the Bill Gates of the world to easily get the attention of powerful politicians in the first place. That is the real "access" problem we have.

Since we have an economic system based on the social reinforcement of personal greed, this is what you get. It is a problem across party lines (hey, how do all those nonentities get promoted to corporate boards of directors, huh? Must be something criminal going on....right?).

Well, I'd agree, in a sense there is.

But this shit fro AP and WA Po? It is worthless drivel.

It saddens me to see otherwise intelligent people go off the deep end when it comes to this kind of really abjectly awful "journalism".

Marty, Tex,

Dont' get me wrong. I have no issue with rich people hanging around with each other. It's a peer thing. If they did nothing else but gather at Davos and go skiing all the time, I wouldn't give a fig.

What I object to, is they, without the slightest amount of public accountability, get to overly dictate how I live my poor miserable life....merely because they have more wealth (a good deal of which was inherited, by the way) than I do.

Call me envious, but that I tend to have issues with.

Keep you head down!

RuPaul's endorsement might be appropriate to note here. Apologies for the language

http://www.vulture.com/2016/08/rupaul-emmy-nomination-trump-clinton.html

What do you think about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats?
[Laughs.] I fucking love them. I have always loved them. And let me just say this: If you're a politician — not just in Washington but in business and industry, you have to be a politician — there are a lot of things that you have to do that you're not proud of. There are a lot of compromises you have to make because it means that you can get this other thing over here. And if you think that you can go to fucking Washington and be rainbows and butterflies the whole time, you're living in a fucking fantasy world. So now, having said that, think about what a female has to do with that: All of those compromises, all of that shit, double it by ten. And you get to understand who this woman is and how powerful, persuasive, brilliant, and resilient she is. Any female executive, anybody who has been put to the side — women, blacks, gays — for them to succeed in a white-male-dominated culture is an act of brilliance. Of resilience, of grit, of everything you can imagine. So, what do I think of Hillary? I think she's fucking awesome. Is she in bed with Wall Street? Goddammit, I should hope so! You've got to dance with the devil. So which of the horrible people do you want? That's more of the question. Do you want a pompous braggart who doesn't know anything about diplomacy? Or do you want a badass bitch who knows how to get shit done? That's really the question.

So, to Ugh's point, it may be that all Trump supporters are Klansmen in all but name.

Actually I think my post and subsequent comments were notably free of accusations of racism, whether lobbed at Trump or his supporters.

Would it be too much to say that Trump won the GOP nomination because of the horrible things he says/supports/promotes, and that Hillary won the Democratic nomination despite her issues (real or imagined) with state department email and the Clinton Foundation?

Tex Mac

"So, BP, because someone says "there's no story here", that fixes the problem?"

No, the problem is, as has been pointed out, there really isn't a story here. I know you want there to be a story there and if you click your heels three times and wish really hard it may appear.

But neither the AP or you have produced one so far.

But honestly, good luck with that Dorothy.

Some things are just impossible not to share. This gem from Larry Sabato:
Trump polls 1-2% among blacks. In '64 Goldwater got 6% after voting no on the Civil Rights Act. In '68 segregationist George Wallace won 3%.

Think about that for a second. George Wallace got more black votes than what Donald Trump is currently polling. The mind totally boggles.

I have always thought that black people are smarter than white people, judging by their respective voting patterns.

--TP

...or pledged commitments to its international programs

I'd like to know what this means. It sounds like we may be discussing largely unavoidable intersections of people and interests on Planet Earth. The Clinton Foundation is large, prominent, international charity. It's programs include other charities all over the world.

Maybe the answer is that if your former-president husband starts a charitable foundation that becomes large, prominent and international in scope, you simply can't hold high political office. Is that it?

Does anyone need a link to the AP article or are everyone's heads in the sand?

Seriously, do the lefties here really think that declaring the AP article to be nonstory will make it go away?

Or that RuPaul is an effective spokesperson for HRC ("it's hard being a girl in this mean boys' world, so if you have to take a bribe here and there, sometimes a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do")?

What is it about the Clinton Foundation's brand that excites such a small number of people to write such large checks?

Can someone link me to the headlines extolling the Foundation's profound impact on the lives of others? But spare me the puff pieces from apparatchiks.

If you think this isn't news and isn't highly telling of your crappy-ass candidate, you are telling yourselves bedtime stories.

The fact that so many of you buy into her and her husband's bullshit is why they keep on doing it--you allow them to do it.

Note that the AP had to sue the State Department to get this info. It took 3 years. That's called stonewalling. During the stonewalling stage, the Clinton apparatchiks deny any wrongdoing, deny the existence of any evidence and claim it's all politically motivated (the AP, that well known extension of the RNC). Then, when evidence does finally falls out, they declare it to be a nonstory, no matter what. It's what they do and they've been doing it in one form or another for decades. It isn't isolated events. It's a clear pattern. They have a huge, reliable built-in excuse-making coterie. There is no reason for them to change.

It's news because it's news, sure. The question is what does this news mean in concrete terms. What did someone get? What ultimately happened, materially, that shouldn't have? How was the access people seemed to have gotten different from the access other people have gotten for various reasons throughout the history of people sitting in positions of power?

What did someone get? What ultimately happened, materially, that shouldn't have? How was the access people seemed to have gotten different from the access other people have gotten for various reasons throughout the history of people sitting in positions of power?

Ok, I forgot this one: either shift or raise the burden of proof. Lefties are absolutely convinced that corporate money perverts our electoral system, yet for some reason remain completely blind to the objective reality of their sleazy-ass candidate.

Does anyone have a picture of HRC taking a bribe? How do we know it's a bride? Does she say it's a bribe? She denies it. There you go, case closed. Nothing to see here, let's MOVE ON.

...yet for some reason remain completely blind to the objective reality of their sleazy-ass candidate.

The whole system is sleazy. I don't think Hillary Clinton is especially clean as politicians go. But I don't think she's nearly as dirty as you and many other people think she is, particularly within the broader context of how things work in the imperfect world. I would prefer that the Clinton Foundation had stuck to the promises made when she accepted the appointment to Sec of State. But it's not going to prevent me from voting for her when she's running against Donald friggin' Trump (fer cryin' out loud).

Note that the AP had to sue the State Department to get this info. It took 3 years.

The AP filed their initial FOI request back in 2013 and finally went to court to get the release of the information. It should be noted that Clinton was not running the department during that time.

That's called stonewalling.

That's called bullshitting.

It's a clear pattern.

cf "Clinton Rules" for the real clear pattern here. Same old, same old.

Ok, I forgot this one: either shift or raise the burden of proof.

You must be slipping, McKinney. Since you have no actual standard for burden of proof to begin with, I guess asking for actual evidence would be raising that abysmally low bar.

McTx: please clarify what the Hillary quid pro quo actually was.

Because it sounds like "A gave money to charity B, and asked for some face-time with C, which they may have gotten"

Is there more than that? Was the charitable foundation funneling money to Clinton? What was the "quid"? what was the "quo"?

"Lefties are absolutely convinced" STOP RIGHT THERE with the mind-reading and blanket accusations, unless you want to hear about how Righties are all goat-molesters.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad