« Ishiguro and the Nobel | Main | But he played such a convincing gay guy in Miss Doubtfire »

October 08, 2017

Comments

Trump would have hated Benjamin Franklin.

Trump "It is frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write"

All aside from the train wreck that is Trump, does anyone ever trust anything that comes out of the mouth of a person who uses the word "frankly"?

Can we shut down Donald Trump for conducting a 'fake' presidency?

All aside from the train wreck that is Trump, does anyone ever trust anything that comes out of the mouth of a person who uses the word "frankly"?

Only if it's Rhett Butler.

I fell asleep once watching Solaris (not the remake)... does that count ?


Speaking of dogshitteries...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/judicial_gerrymandering_is_coming_to_north_carolina.html

the NC GOP is a fucking disgrace, even by GOP standards.

The NC GOP is the right wings test market.

The NC GOP is science fiction -- at once one year ahead and 50 years behind the baseline GOP timeline.

Quick, someone send us a film in which Huey Newton and X are both still alive.

does anyone ever trust anything that comes out of the mouth of a person who uses the word "frankly"?

Stop calling me frankly!

Trump does use the word quite frequently... but he has yet to match the incomparable Dan Quayle:
"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children..."

Dan Quayle! Quite frankly, those were the days.

Dan Quayle! Quite frankly, those were the days.

Shirley you jest.

Of course I do, but stop calling me Shirley!

On the other hand, the days of George H W and Quayle, though bad at the time, seem quaintly reasonable compared to the clusterfuck of today.

On the other hand, the days of George H W and Quayle, though bad at the time, seem quaintly reasonable compared to the clusterfuck of today.

Yes. Things can get worse. We're on that trajectory. I don't tell that to the youngsters.

potatoes v potatos

ha ha.

suck it, originalists.

Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to sell firearms to the public? No, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, a landmark decision affirming the government’s constitutional authority to strictly regulate gun shops.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/10/11/ninth_circuit_rules_there_s_no_second_amendment_right_to_sell_firearms.html

Thanks, cleek. Happy day!

I read a lot of comments here (and not just from the count) which suggests that all Republicans are horrible people who are out to hurt everyone else. But out here in the outside world, I see something rather different.

Today, I got an email from my Assemblywoman (Catherine Baker, R), talking about healthcare:

Recently, I supported SB 17 to make drug prices for both public and private health plans more transparent. This bill requires pharmaceutical companies to notify health insurers and government health plans 60 days before scheduled prescription drug prices are increased and provide reasons for the increase. The goal of this bill is to bring much-needed increased transparency to drug prices, which can also bring prices down.
Doesn't quite fit the stereotype, does it?

And now for something completely different...

Yankees 5, Indians 2, Yankees win the 5-game series and go to the ALCS.

I'm only the most casual of fans, but any year when the Yankees get further than the Red Sox is a good year as far as I'm concerned. Just don't tell my New England neighbors or my Cleveland-area family I said that. ;-)

Stacee Etcheber

What's happening to the California wine country is horrible:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Thousands-more-evacuated-as-Wine-Country-blazes-12269691.php#photo-14332361

Sonoma is a wonderful place.

Doesn't quite fit the stereotype, does it?

dude,you live in CA. (R)'s in CA are not real (R)'s.

I live in MA. we have a (fairly popular) (R) governor. same deal.

I'm also a bit confused, because you've often talked about some of the developments that have forced the Republican party in California to be moderate (I think you have, but I can't remember exactly what they were) If I'm wrong about that, but it seems to me that political parties have to have various oppositional conditions or they just end up fanatics.

I'd like to see Catherine Baker's political strategy for seeking higher national office as a republican.

Does it resemble Trotsky's, with a stint in exile/vacation in Mexico?

https://votesmart.org/candidate/151690/catharine-baker#.Wd9n-jtrypq

She seems to be against the concealed-carry reciprocity between states legislation now zipping through Congress, Planned Parenthood gives her a 29% favorability rating, way too high, by 29 percentage points, for the absolutists in her Party (do they party? They look too glum for party hats).

But she does seem to favor clean air and water, as far as I can tell, for both pre-born AND post-born children, maybe even into adulthood.

She's against forest fires, but is a fiscal conservative. How's that gonna work?

If I looked up a photograph of her, would she be a pony.

Would Baker favor transferring some of the $200 billion now going to Texas to California for firefighting?

Or would she take it from the Puerto Rico account, as rump would?

Too much fire in California, too much water in Texas. They should do a trade.

Carrie Rae Barnette

This bill requires pharmaceutical companies to notify health insurers and government health plans 60 days before scheduled prescription drug prices are increased and provide reasons for the increase.

Is "I'm not getting rich enough fast enough" an acceptable reason?

dude,you live in CA. (R)'s in CA are not real (R)'s.

Man, you need to read up on California Republicans. They went down the far right rathole earlier than the rest of the GOP (outside the deep South, of course). And a lot of them, a majority actually, are still there. Ms Baker, like a lot of (R)s, is moderate.

A lot, but still a minority. For now. However, the nut cases' hold on the party does seem to be easing. (R)s who hold local office (cf the Mayor of Fresno) have figured out that reactionary and xenophobic posturing doesn't get the streets paved and the trash picked up. That is, they are getting back to actually governing.

It will be a while yet, but I think we may finally return the GOP to sanity. It's the reason (almost the only reason) that I hold out hope for the party nationally -- albeit not soon.

I'd like to see Catherine Baker's political strategy for seeking higher national office as a republican.

I don't know that she has one. After all, we've got an incumbent (moderate) Democratic Congressman in a district which has a substantial Democratic majority -- it is, after all, California and the Bay Area at that. My expectation is that, when she term limits** out, she will go for the state Senate -- our (Democratic) state Senator will term limit out about the same time.

** Term limits are one of the bright ideas which we implemented to try to deal with "career politicians" at the state level. Unfortunately, all that got us was inexperience; and a lot of laws written by the only folks left in Sacramento who are experts in how the legislature works: the lobbyists. Whether we will eventually have the wit to emulate the Kansas Republicans and scrap it as a failed experiment remains to be seen.

Count, you left out her vote in favor of prohibiting (not just not requiring, but prohibiting) landlords from disclosing the immigration status of tenants. And the one in favor of (carbon) cap and trade.

She really is a moderately conservative Republican. Part of the reason I know that we aren't non-existent; it's not just me.

I saw those bullet points.

She's a breath of fresh air in some ways, I'm not denying.

It's unfortunate the National Republican Party wants to gut the Endangered Species Act, since there are only two of you left, maybe four, if we include Marty and McKT, on some issues.

Her voting record needs to be declared a Wilderness Area and a National Monument to protect her and the spotted owl.

For every wild animal you see, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, that you don't. Just sayin'....

Not for nothin', as they (who?) say, wj, but you're a flaming leftist by Republican standards.

You may be center-right on the global spectrum, but I'd but you center or even center-left on the American spectrum. In any case, you're no moderate as far as Republicans go these days.

You're a D.F.H., bro. Embrace it.

The idea of me as a hippy would cause everybody who knows me to collapse on the floor in hysterical laughter. Especially the ones who really were hippies, back in the day.

Got a giggle out of me, too, I must admit. Thanks, I needed that.

Meanwhile, Trump seems to be demonstrating his capacity for empathy by threatening to pull Federal support for the recovery out of Puerto Rico. The man just goes from strength to strength.

She really is a moderately conservative Republican.

Barack Obama was a moderate conservative.

By my lights - white middle class white collar suburban ranch house owning AARP member me - *I* am a moderate conservative.

The spectrum in this country runs from very slightly to the left of me - which is to say, Bernie Sanders - to folks who are basically Augusto Pinochet without the epaulets.

There are moderate conservatives, and everyone to the right of them.

And Noam Chomsky, I guess.

The letter in front of the name is not the problem. The fact that approximately half the country has lost it's freaking mind is the problem.

Trump seems to be demonstrating his capacity for empathy by threatening to pull Federal support for the recovery out of Puerto Rico.

aided by the shifty counting of fatalities.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/10/11/16424356/puerto-rico-official-hurricane-maria-death-toll

Well, they invent numbers on lots of stuff. Hardly a surprise that they have done so here.

Again, Puerto Rico needs to solicit help from China and Russia. A Russian destroyer in port down there would get our white supremacist, racist, republican federal government cracking, despite the deep state full of decent Americans.

The roads would be paved, hospitals rebuilt and the electrical grid would light up like a Christmas tree with American republican pigfuckers finally under the Russian and Chinese gun, triggering the only fucking thing the former have empathy for, their own stinking, worthless white republican asses.

Also Iran, once they are forced to start building their nuclear arsenal, needs to deploy some warheads in Puerto Rico in self defense.

I'm not so sure a Russian naval vessel would bother Trump at all.

But a Chinese one? That would definitely get Trump going. And what a propaganda coup it would be for the Chinese -- probably irresistible. (And only imagine his reaction if Iran could somehow manage to get a ship with supplies, even a civilian one, there!!!)

If they could work out a way for either Jamie Dimon or Jared Kushner to own it after fixing it, PR would be back up and running in a week.

PR had been suffering from bad policial and economic policies long before the hurricane. And depopulation. Which will get much worse now.

a Chinese one? I'd rather see a Cuban or Mexican one.

Dimon would just gut it out further, drain any remaining equity, and try to list it so he could sell worthless shares to the public. Probably arrange a bunch of credit default swaps betting on a failure as well.

Kushner would just mortgage it to try and shore up the equity black hole at building 666.

Neither of them would fix an 'effing thing.

Oh Dimon and Kushner wouldn't fix anything with their own money. But get Federal money to fix things, so they could then sell them at a profit? Definitely in their wheelhouse.

And depopulation. Which will get much worse now.

As will the demographics for the GOP in Florida.

Trying to decide if I want to see the Supremes take Robinson v. United States or not. That's the case where the 4th Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled that if the police suspect you are carrying a concealed firearm, the police can treat you as dangerous even if you have a concealed-carry permit. A 4th Circuit panel had previously ruled that legally carrying a firearm did not automatically make you dangerous, and police were limited in how they could treat you.

What does "treat you as dangerous" mean? Shot on sight? There was a recent tragedy at Georgia Tech where a student with mental health issues was killed by an officer because of suspicion of carrying a firearm (student had a Leatherman multitool on their belt).

Is the Court going to consider, as part of this brief, whether a person who is legally concealed-carrying shoots law enforcement in self-defense, after law enforcement has drawn their weapons and/or fired them, or behaved in any other threatening manner, that person is within his or her rights or not.

The Second Amendment is silent on whom may be shot, though plenty on the right assume it's government that was the originalist target.

In this particular case, full hands on the hood spread your legs frisking, and anything they find stands as evidence (it's not an unreasonable search if the police believe that you're "dangerous"). One of the 4th Circuit judges, writing in a concurrence, said that the majority danced around rather than coming straight to the point in their opinion: exercising your second amendment right means you give up some of your fourth amendment protection.

There's a whole bunch of cans of worms that the SCOTUS could open up if they take the case (they haven't granted cert yet). Eg, suppose the Court finds that in concealed carry states, the police must make an effort to determine if you have a concealed-carry permit. In my state, they would have to take your word for it: the state constitution forbids creation of a statewide database of such permits.

Presumably they can search you like that if they think you're dangerous, regardless of whether you're armed/permitted or not. It would be a bit perverse (although the way the world is spinning these days. . .) to have a holding where carrying a weapon precludes a search of a "dangerous" person, but aggressively searching unarmed folks is just fine. More incentive for everyone to carry guns, so I guess the armaments industry would welcome such a ruling.

Back to the original topic (even if it is an open thread). Michael Gerson offers this, discussing Congressional Republicans vis a vis Trump:
“Brave men are all vertebrates,” said G.K. Chesterton. “They have their softness on the surface and their toughness in the middle. But these modern cowards are all crustaceans; their hardness is all on the cover, and their softness is inside.”

I don’t generally have a lot of use for Gerson. But this time I think he's right.

" But these modern cowards are all crustaceans; their hardness is all on the cover, and their softness is inside.”

Or the line from the Lyin' King: "crunchy on the outside, slimy on the inside!"

I like Diogenes' formulation:

"Real men nowhere; but in Sparta, real boys".

if the police suspect you are carrying a concealed firearm, the police can treat you as dangerous even if you have a concealed-carry permit.

as the 2nd A mandates.

rump/republican hate of the Other spreads across the globe.

Vhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/the-trump-loving-buddhist-monk-inspiring-genocide?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning

America is the example for all to follow.


to rump voters, we are the Rohingya of America. Our children are Rohingya children.

www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/

This from the National Review, who for 60 years helped build the right wing hate and rage machine rump is now putting into motion to kill all of us.

Too late, fuckers.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/

Hate:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/10/donald-trump-and-the-rage-of-rural-voters/

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad