« Adult Day Care -- Open Thread | Main | What we have lost »

October 13, 2017

Comments

So if the 2nd Amendment was for states rights vs the Federal government, wouldn't the most visible current manifestation be something like the sanctuary cities movement?

I mean, you've got local government simply declining to give the Feds assistance that they have become accustomed to. So not actually fighting back; more like passive resistance. And apparently sufficiently effective that the traditional enthusiasts for states' rights are going crazy. (Ironically amusing, that.)

Ethel Lance

also ironically amusing: Law And Order types are the same people who insist they will be the first to overthrow the government if they don't like what it does.

ugly bags of mostly grievances.

Silly cleek, it's Law and Order for thee, not me, especially if thy skin is ... you know.

After inspiring the mass murder of the Rohingya Other in Myanmar, rump demands the mass murder of unarmed coca farmers in Columbia:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/colombian-security-forces-massacre-coca-farmers-under-pressure-from-trump?via=newsletter&source=Weekend

Conservative murderous republican principles spreading around the globe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqzH8mQVci8

They tell us every day, for decades, what they are going to do to us, the Other. They don't speak in metaphors.

Neither do I. Please, Gorka and Bannon and rump and republican values voters, do your worst, please.

Previous values voters summit after-parties:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx-rrBv2lyc

gorka, bannon, ingraham. i'm finding the term vermin less and less offensive.

these folks have no respect for popular democratic governance or institutions. they have an agenda, and they are going to do their best to impose it on everyone else.

if your first reaction to that is "lefties do it, too", you are part of the problem. this is not about left vs right. it's about reactionary authoritarianism vs democratic self-governance.

these people are dangerous. they are a threat to the united states as a constitutional republic.

there is no middle here. we're all going to have to pick a side.

easy for me, I don't claim any association with any organization, institution, political party, or freaking bridge club that has anything to do with these creeps.

republicans, conservatives, "family values" folks are going to have to make a choice. I don't think the "I'm a conservative, but not like *those* conservatives" thing has a lot of legs left. I don't think the "I'm a Republican, but not like *those* Republicans" thing has a lot of legs left.

Not your fault, but assholes have stolen your party and your political identity. They're not leaving you any middle ground. Don't look for it, you won't find it. It's no longer there.

grifters and nazis. I'm not speaking metaphorically. reactionary thugs who nurse violent resentful fantasies of violence toward their neighbors and fellow citizens. and not just fantasies. and randian greedheads who think they're fucking ubermenschen deserving of every dime they can scam.

that is the modern conservative movement.

you all are going to have to distance yourselves from them, or get sucked into the mire. they're not going to allow you a middle ground.

you all are going to have to distance yourselves from them, or get sucked into the mire. they're not going to allow you a middle ground.

Thank you for this.

In my spare time I've been helping out on some issues involving immigrants here in VA. Come to find out, the state courts here (assisted by a Republican general assembly) have (arguably - it's still somewhat up in the air) screwed children fleeing violence from Central America.

Kids. The Republican Nazis hate kids. The kids are being treated like "vermin". By the vermin.

I was going to look up Christopher Hitchens' old stuff defending the Kurds, who need defending, against Saddam Hussein, as we were lying to ourselves and embarking on the stupidity AND the artificial stupidity (because our native American stupidity was not sufficient for the job at hand) of the Republican Party's (yes, yes, Clinton voted for it, so it's all HER fault, I guess) invasion of Iraq, but I'm not up to it.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/10/15/conflicting-reports-from-kirkuk/

OK, I broke down and flushed out the national "conversation" we had about our pristine, exceptional intentions in Iraq:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqg8Z21Pvh4

Well russell remember back when Karl Rove was the worst conservative around? Yesterday he was asked if the Republican mainstream should worry about Steve Bannon and he pretty much laughed.

Yesterday also Lindsey Graham basically said the President shouldn't continue illegal payments to the insurance companies, and the health insurance issue should get fixed by Congress.

Aside from OMG block grants there seems to be actual Republicans still there, not even counting Jeff Flake, and the new gen RINO governors.

With the alternative I have I will just stick it out.

You can't declare away the middle or the actual conservative right. We still exist and the party will move back there.

We still exist and the party will move back there.

no, it won't.

"sir, please make my next batch of meat several shades redder" is something no seething mob ever requested.

"sir, please make my next batch of meat several shades redder"

umm...

"sir, please make my next batch of meat several shades less red"

damn these dark mornings.

We still exist and the party will move back there.

maybe, but sitting on your butt and saying it'll all be fine won't make that happen.

nobody gives a crap what Karl rove says.

deeds not words.

You mean like getting Trump to fire Bannon?

Or have Sessions send someone to help prosecute a hate crime?

Or not pass an incomplete ACA replacement?

Or make a tax plan that actually helps the middle class?

Policy eventually wins.

Policy eventually wins.

You need a clear definition of "policy" and "win" for this to make any sense at all.

What's true is that some kind of policy will eventually be implemented. What that looks like is an open question.

My larger point is that your party, and your "movement", is full of creeps. Starting right at the top.

As far as "centrists" and "moderates", Lindsay Graham is not a centrist or a moderate. Karl Rove is not by god a centrist or a moderate. Mitch McConnell is not a centrist or a moderate. Paul Ryan is not a centrist or a moderate. Jeff Flake is not a centrist or a moderate.

I think you mistake "centrist" for "not an obvious flaming asshole". Which could apply to Graham or Flake, probably could not apply to the others.

I'm a centrist. Those folks are not.

The POTUS and his circle and all of the folks spouting off at the "Values Summit" are creeps. Greedy vain weirdos, with disordered antisocial personalities and characters.

That's the public face of your party and movement.

Not my circus.

I'm sure it will all be fine.

Actually, what I'm sure of is that you'll get your tax cut. Markets are holding up pretty well, too.

Is that what happy days means for "conservatives" nowadays?

Enjoy it.

Re: The Count's BJ link on Kirkuk:

How refreshing it is to have what are ostensibly two sets of "good guys" fighting against each other in Iraq, as opposed to the bad guys that have been fighting against each other in Syria. It's whole 'nother kind of ambiguity.

Where are Alan Ladd and Jack Palance when you need them?

Or not pass an incomplete ACA replacement?

I am reluctant to give much credit for "our attempt to do something bad failed".

From the perspective of my primary policy concern (summarized as keeping the lights on in the long term without baking the planet or too much other environmental damage), the last nine months have been a disaster. The only good news is that the federal courts are forcing the Administration to go slowly.

You mean like getting Trump to fire Bannon?

office politics will not save your party.

My larger point is that your party, and your "movement", is full of creeps. Starting right at the top.

Russell, it's a fair point. But I'm old enough to remember when there were a pretty serious number of creeps in the Democratic Party. (And making similar Bannonite "our way or the highway" comments about them as well.) But the Democratic Party eventually got rid of most of them.

Granted, they never got quite as much of a hold on the Democratic Party as the alt-right et al have gotten on the GOP. But it does suggest that the situation may not be as utterly hopeless as you suggest. Not that it's not bad, but not hopeless.

Or make a tax plan that actually helps the middle class?

Krugman. Still shrill, after all these years.

Not that it's not bad, but not hopeless.

I don't think the situation is hopeless. I think people who consider themselves conservative, or (R), need to do a head check and decide what they're going to do about it.

Gorka's a new kid on the block, but a lot of the folks I'm talking about have been around a long time. They've been given a platform, by the (R) party and the conservative movement.

Quit giving them that platform.

You can say "hey, that's not me", but somebody's doing it. It sure as hell is not me or anyone like me.

Krugman is partisan who sold out his actual profession years ago. Calling him an economist is like calling Stephanopoulos a news man, or Trump presidential.

Heather Lorraine Alvarado

...or Trump presidential

right.

but he still has an 80% positive approval rating among Republicans.

Krugman is partisan who sold out his actual profession years ago. Calling him an economist is like calling Stephanopoulos a news man, or Trump presidential.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Of course, there's a link that will take you to words you can read. You could read those words and address their meaning directly. You could refute the actual content of the article. It's fairly specific and based in verifiable/refutable assertions of fact.

Yeah, but, putin polls nearly four times higher than obama among republicans, thus putting to rest any doubts about conservative partisan love for their rotting country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/04/vladimir-putin-polls-better-with-republicans-than-obama-does-thats-not-unprecedented/?utm_term=.66b70c60c221

Krugman is partisan who sold out his actual profession years ago.

OK, your turn. Show me the tax cut that is going to be wonderful for the middle class.

Show me the (R) plan for replacing the ACA, and explain how it's going to improve anyone's life.

(R) policies are about taking money out of the middle class's pockets and shifting it into the pockets of wealthy people.

If you think otherwise, show me. Because that's been the agenda, and the reality, for my entire lifetime.

Trickle down! Laffer curve! Let wealthy people get even wealthier, and they'll spread it around.

There's a lot getting spread around, but it don't look like money to me.

Not my circus. I just have to live in it, and it is pissing me the hell off.

Quit giving these jokers a platform.

But I'm old enough to remember when there were a pretty serious number of creeps in the Democratic Party.

You mean folks like James O. Eastland, Richard Russell, Strom Thurmond, John Stennis, et al? If you remember them you might also remember that those types either died or became Republicans.

There ilk are not found in the Democratic Party any longer.

As one observer repeatedly notes, a prion disease has taken over the GOP, and nearly every Republican is infected with it to some extent.

That is why they do nothing about it.

You mean folks like James O. Eastland, Richard Russell, Strom Thurmond, John Stennis, et al? If you remember them you might also remember that those types either died or became Republicans.

Yeah, I do remember them. And that they ended up in the Republican Party. Yes, they were creeps; also scumbags.

But I was actually thinking of the creep types on the far left. Some of whom I knew personally.

let's be honest: can you really put a price on GOP-brand Freedom™ ?

Depends. Is a negative value a "price"?

Krugman is partisan who sold out his actual profession years ago. Calling him an economist is like calling Stephanopoulos a news man, or Trump presidential.

How is being partisan different from any other given economist ?

Name me one truly impartial arbiter economist...

"But I was actually thinking of the creep types on the far left. Some of whom I knew personally."

Any Senators in that bunch? Cabinet members? Presidential Advisors?

Rahm's kindof a jerk.

Any Senators in that bunch?

wj has consistently put Barb Boxer on the "far left fringe" of the Dem party. I have asked him several times to provide examples of alleged ideological "left" lunacy on her part....but so far bupkis.

I find this both puzzling and hilarious.

Rahm's kindof a jerk.

Where Dems are the overwhelming majority, you will find a good deal of DINOs, because that is where the power is. Terming them a den of left wing lunatics is, to say the least, a misnomer.

cf. Erik Loomis' take on Dem party politics in Rhode Island.

Marty: Krugman is partisan who sold out his actual profession years ago.

This is why, despite his many charming qualities, Marty is an ass.

Too personal? Tough noogies. I would be delighted to discuss anything with Marty in a civil, impersonal, fact-based way that would not bring a blush to the cheek of the tenderest moderator -- but that would require something like, you know, facts.

I will spot Marty this point: Krugman is indeed a partisan. I say it's because he is a top-notch economist who looks at the facts and concludes that sane people who are not simultaneously rich, selfish, and stupid are ill-served by most of the GOP orthodoxy.

Marty may not agree. Let him present facts supporting his assertion that Krugman "sold out his actual profession years ago", and we can examine them dispassionately -- like the Nobel-level economists we both are.

--TP

Name me one truly impartial arbiter economist...

Why Greg Mankiw, of course!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Policy arguments should lay out the facts, the trade-offs, the priorities, and hence arrive at preferred policy.

Priorities are partisan. If you disagree about priorities you'll prefer different policies.

Krugman's argument is like that. If you disagree with him about who should benefit from tax cuts, you'll disagree with him about the merits of the proposed cuts. Fair enough.

The modern Republican part has discovered a different sort of argument. If the facts are inconvenient, you present alternative 'facts' - it doesn't matter, only a few people are going to do the research to distinguish truth from lies. You eschew any sort of analysis - that's elitist. Instead you jump to a 'gut' conclusion.

The ugly twist is that the Republican politician's gut always tells him to do whatever most benefits the rich.

what tp said

The ugly twist is that the Republican politician's gut always tells him to do whatever most benefits the rich.

While I don't disagree with this for the national-level Republicans, it's not entirely true for the state- and local-level Republicans in my purplish state. There are assorted reasons why this is the case.

I've long said there was a growing divide between the national Republicans and many of the state Republicans. The ACA repeal debates made that crystal clear -- look at the Republican governors who supported Medicaid expansion.

If all you read of Krugman is is NYT editorials, then yes, it's fair to say that he's "not (much of) an economist". But the fact is that it's near impossible to fit sensible economic analysis into a NYT op-ed piece.

If you read Krugman's blog entries (particularly the ones that he labels as 'WARNING: wonk inside", you'll see that Krugman is indeed a knowledgeable economist.

The MSM doesn't publish detailed supernova nucleosynthesis articles either; if the RW thought they could make milage out of it, the LIGO results would be labeled "fake news" also, too.

Tough noogies.

What is a noogie? Google is strangely unhelpful on this point.

Rule #1 of the noogie club: don't explain noogies.

GftNC, maybe you already found this but hey, it's fun.

There's this. Also this.

From the first link: But didn't Todd use the term "noogy" when he gave Lisa a "dutch rub" or "burn," knuckles rubbing on her head?

I don't know about the character Todd, but I know I heard (and experienced) that usage when I was in college.

The floor remains open for Marty to rebut the points Krugman makes in the NYT piece.

I suppose if it's fair for me to characterize the national (R) leadership as thugs, creeps, and grifters, it's fair for Marty to characterize Krugman as a partisan.

The fact remains that, at the national level, (R)'s are not advancing a tax reform program that is going to be "good for the middle class". They are not advancing anything that is good for the "middle class".

Give it another generation, and there will be no middle class.

The (D)'s don't have that sorted out all that well, either, but at least they're not about kicking people when they're down.

The thing that I see in common among the folks that support people like Trump et al is that they are perfectly happy to see calamity fall on somebody, as long as it's somebody else. I personally have a really freaking hard time looking past that.

People need to wake the hell up. Not "get woke", just wake the hell up. Pay attention. The crap that you're willing to see fall on other folks' heads, is gonna fall on yours, too.

Then what?

Think DJT will have your back? Or McConnell, or Ryan, or any of the Breitbart Lord of the Flies crowd?

If you find yourself in a room cheering on some guy who's talking about all the "damage he's gonna be able to do" to somebody else now that he's "no longer fettered by being in government", you have a problem. You *are* the problem.

If you find yourself cheering the idea that some guy gets sick and dies because he can't afford health insurance, you *are* the problem.

If you find yourself thrilled by the idea that some poor shlub who hoboed here from Guatemala so he wouldn't get killed in some gang BS, worked his ass off for ten years, has a family and a business or a couple of jobs, is now going to be tossed out on his ass, you *are* the problem.

If you see justice and fairness in the idea that kids who were brought here by their parents, who have no memory of living anywhere else, are going to be sent "back" to a country they do not know and whose language they don't even freaking speak, you *are* the problem.

If you think that black people just need to STFU, pull up their socks, and quit bitching about stuff that happened 200 years ago, you *are* the problem.

People need to wake the hell up. This country is not doing so well. The markets are great, the country not so much.

I understand that people are afraid and feel unsettled and insecure. I don't understand the idea that somebody else's life turning into shit is going to make your life any better.

Wake up.

A near noogie:

https://condenaststore.com/products/sherlock-holmes-and-the-case-of-the-missing-cocaine-harry-bliss-bath-sheet.html

What is a noogie?

It's an American variation on a traditional Bavarian cream filled pastry.

That's our story and we're sticking to it.

The (D)'s don't have that sorted out all that well, either, but at least they're not about kicking people when they're down.

Just a thought: could you provide some evidence for that, given the actual economic numbers under Obama?

Yeah, not trying to undermine allies here, russell, but you're underselling Democrats (as usual) by a longshot. (Please? Stop underselling us?)

If you find yourself cheering the idea that some guy gets sick and dies because he can't afford health insurance, you *are* the problem.

I confess that, if "some guy" is a Congressman who voted to repeal Obamacare and replace it with nothing, or someone who voted for that Congressman -- OK, I'm probably not actually cheering, but my level of sympathy for his plight is pretty damn limited. Call me callous, or part of the problem, if you must.

My point is that I don't think anyone has a really clear plan for how to restore what was lost with the decline of manufacturing in the US.

I'm not hearing, from either side, a clear story about we get from where we are now, to a place where there is a basis for a braod and robust middle class. By middle class I mean basic financial security and an ability to build modest wealth over a lifetime.

I don't necessarily fault anyone for that, it's a complicated question, the answers to which will probably depend on conditions that don't currently exist and which can't really be predicted.

At a minimum, the (D)'s are committed to preserving a basic safety net. Which puts them head and shoulders above the (R)'s.

If you think I am being unfair to the (D)'s, please take this as your cue to amend my understanding!

wj, my reference is to the (R) presidential debate in 2011 when ron paul was asked a hypothetical question about a healthy 40-year-old who decided to take his chances, forgo insurance, and then got sick.

who should pay, asked wolf blitzer?

in a free society, paul answered, the man would be free to make his own decision and take his own chances.

i.e., die.

the audience loudly applauded.

blitzer followed with, society should just let him die?

some folks in the crowd shouted, loudly, in the affirmative.

the whole thing struck me as ghoulish. all of it.

...with the decline of manufacturing in the US.

To be pedantic, there's been a decline in manufacturing jobs, but not manufacturing.

Part of the decrease in the size of the middle class is due to people moving into the upper class.

Part of the decrease in the size of the middle class is due to people moving into the upper class

and part, to the lower.

look at the distribution of wealth in the us, and how it has changed over time.

who cares if some people are really rich? i don't, particularly. what disturbs me is the enormous size of the pie, and the very large number of folks who have virtually no piece of it.

the dollar store is planning on doubling their number of stores. they are moving into all the places that don't generate enough revenue per square foot for a walmart.

sam's getting beat at his own game.

nothing to worry about, it will be fine. policy always wins.

russell, things like this<.a>.

The previous try dissapeared into monatoring bin...

Manufacturing: Up? Down?

Is the middle class moving up?

Maybe surrounding the links with text will help.

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