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

October 13, 2017

Comments

Not that one shouldn't read the LGM commentary at my link. Especially someone quoting John Cole regarding the republicans:

'John Cole's famous postulate about how you can't even negotiate what to have for dinner when the other party's response to the question is "anthrax and tire rims" is as true today as it was then.'

Please lay off Donald this time around.

Why?

I knew a dementia sufferer who babbled incoherently most of the time, but once in a great while would simply declare "Who is Eleanor Roosevelt!", as in a game of Jeopardy.

Nothing to disagree with there.

Just so, rump's outbursts about Pence:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/new-yorker-stands-by-report-trump-mocks-pence

Humor me.

Donald's a wonderful saint, we all know, to post links to Intercept both sides do it and Democrats are worse articles.

I'm sure whatever hearsay somebody overheard about Ai Wei Wei and his expert views on US politics, and how we got to Donald Trump from Barack Obama, is extremely valuable.

Humor me.

Not if it means humoring Putin, Mercer, Nazis. Sorry.

Sapient, the article is an interview with Te-Nehisi Coates, and the anecdote about Ai Wei Wei is contextualized in the interview. You disagree, that's fine, but I'm asking you to either chill or step back. Thanks.

oops I did it again.

Okay, banhammer. Bye.

The article didn’t say that, sapient. Not even close, afaik. I qualified that because the Wei Wei reference went over my head. I have been meaning to look up who Wei Wei is because I have seen the name a few times and am utterly clueless up to this moment.

As for saintliness, I have been under something of a partial self ban for awhile as I need to think about how to interact online on topics where I get as angry as you do. My solution, the one that works best, is to mostly just lurk.

Ai Wei Wei is a very considerable artist, and a brave man who has been persecuted and almost killed by the totalitarian regime in China, as his father was persecuted before him. Whether one agrees with him or not, he deserves a respectful hearing when he talks about politics, he has suffered a great deal to be able to do so.

Donald whatever. I commented on that earlier article that you linked to, because it was historically inaccurate, and kind of dumb. I'm a big fan of Ta-Nehisi Coates for his many articles on the Civil War, and on race, but he and I got into a bit of a tiff on an artilce he wrote regarding Obama's foreign policy.

As far as Ai Wei Wei is concerned, I've been following new articles about him since he was incarcerated in China. A close relative of mine lives in China, so I'm interested (concerned, aware, learning ... etc.). You know what? Most Chinese people have nada insight on US politics, which I was responding to about lj's comment. As for your choice of places to find news? Okay, "both sides do it, but neoliberal Clinton etc. are worse. "

You know what? I've actually been doing some granular work with people who've been affected by Trump's cruelty. You're so freaking wrong, and I really can't hold back on how much damage your failure to support Democrats (versus fascists) has cost lives. Maybe you're just dumb or something (although you don't seem intellectually impaired). But you're wrong, whatever your problem is.

I've been warned. I'm not supposed to argue with you. So just go do whatever it is that makes you feel affirmed. Bye.

Whether one agrees with him or not, he deserves a respectful hearing when he talks about politics, he has suffered a great deal to be able to do so.

It's not disrespecting someone to note that they have little knowledge of US politics. Almost nobody in china does. Just saying. Pretending that Chinese people have an objective view of the US is just not correct.

Sapient, he lived in the States for approximately thirteen years, and went to U. Penn and Berkley.

Sapient, he lived in the States for approximately thirteen years, and went to U. Penn and Berkley.

In the late eighties/ early nineties. So he had an objective view of the Obama administration? After having been jailed by Chinese authorities in 2011? I'm sure the Chinese government gave him an unhindered view of life in the US during that time! All good gftnc - leaning in to the Chinese regime's post 2011 view of Obama! You're so wise!

Also, not to be unkind to artists, but they don't always have the most accurate view of political life. Ezra Pound, anyone?

Also, not to be unkind to artists, but they don't always have the most accurate view of political life.

People who are obsessed with political life don't always have the most accurate idea of it either.

People who are obsessed with political life don't always have the most accurate idea of it either.

Maybe. But as opposed to incarcerated Chinese people, who don't have internet access except for VPNs that are banned, well,

maybe there's a difference in their primary sources.

But it's all good. Both sides do it, and Democrats are worse.

sapient, you're losing your grip again. When the red mist clears, if you look back on these comments, you'll be embarrassed. I'm going to bed, if you're wise you'll have a drink, listen to some jazz, and then do likewise.

When the red mist clears, if you look back on these comments, you'll be embarrassed.

Or maybe I believe what I say. It's possible.

sapient, you're losing your grip again.

I would love to have that psychoanalysis done. Isn't calling someone crazy against the posting rules? Oh, only selectively.

Sapient, you are (I think) literally incapable of understanding people who disagree with you on politics, at least in some cases. I doubt it is just me, but when I am around it brings out the worst in you. I am mostly going to lurk, mainly because I keep rediscovering that arguing with people online doesn’t accomplish much of anything. I will post links from time to time.

I will post links from time to time.

BS links, like the one trying to say that the 2nd amendment was very much about hating on government? Congrats on those fabulous finds.

You may believe what you say, but you are being led by anger into saying absurd things. For example, Ai Wei Wei has been out of jail since, I believe, 2011,and now lives in Germany. Do you suppose this highly political artist has not informed himself of world developments in this time? I do not say his views are or must be right, just that your contention that Chinese people know little about US politics, or after that that he would not know about recent politics because of his incarceration, are inapplicable and demonstrably wrong in this case. You disagree with him, fair enough. Why is it then necessary to start throwing sarcastic insults around and making clearly ridiculous arguments to justify them?

And now I really must go to bed. Good night all.

I do not say his views are or must be right, just that your contention that Chinese people know little about US politics, or after that that he would not know about recent politics because of his incarceration, are inapplicable and demonstrably wrong in this case. You disagree with him, fair enough. Why is it then necessary to start throwing sarcastic insults around and making clearly ridiculous arguments to justify them?


Have you experienced Chinese censorship? Probably not. Maybe when you've been there you've had a good VPN. I would suggest that a dissident probably hasn't had a long and informed view of American politics. I would even say that my expat relative has to work on it a lot.

Okay, you win! Both sides do it, and Democrats are worse!

OK, folks. Enough. So, just who were the worst? It's time to settle this once and for all. My list is as follows (worst at the top):

Ralph Nader
JIll Stein
Bernie Sanders
Gene Debs
Norman Thomas
WJ Bryan
Phillip II
anybody named Koch
Hitler
Ghengis Khan
Caligula
Mao
Leopold III
Queen Victoria
Columbus
Churchill
Franco
Lenin
Palmerstone
Hillary Clinton
Stalin
Idi Amin
Assads (various)
George Bush
Mobuto Sese Seko
Barak Obama
Saddam Hussein
Lenin
Herbert Hoover
Yasser Arafat
Jimmy Hoffa

The top 5 are the worst because, duh! they made the perfect the enemy of the good...the worst crime a human being can commit, bar none!

Oh, also, Chinese Party Congress? Let's discuss!

C'mon, gftnc. And Donald too. Weigh in!

Correction:

left off list: Woodrow Wilson

Trump not on list. Still in rookie season.

C'mon, gftnc. And Donald too. Weigh in!

No? Will take a few [minutes] [hours] [days] ?

Yeah. Of course. JanieM? You've been to China, surely you have a view?

Confession: Haven't got a clue.

Trump not on list. Still in rookie season.

But I will add that his stats so far are impressive.

Oh, also, Chinese Party Congress? Let's discuss!

This is limited to individuals. Group awards to follow. We note the 80th Congress should be there as well.

Time for a newer cliche: That escalated quickly!

sapient, lj asked you to chill or step back. Instead you chose to escalate, and now you're making a fool of yourself. What do you suppose that accomplishes?

fool of yourself

Not a fool, you?

By the way, JanieM, do you have an informed view on Chinese politics? Waiting ....

I’ve learned 3 things:

1. Donald Johnson is personally responsible for the election of Donald Trump.

2. Chinese people are incapable of discussing American politics.

3. JanieM is subject to sapeint’s demands.

Oh, and

4. I can’t type i and e in the correct order.

I’ve learned 3 things:


Donald Johnson is a saint, despite the fact that he posts links to bullshit.

Chinese people can get a grip on things despite absolute state control, and criminal sanctions for accessing vpn's.

JanieM is so adorable, even though she confesses to not being very interested in anything but The Lord of the Rings.

Bye, people. Y'all are friends, and I'm not really.

Sapient, I thought that link had some interesting points, but on second thought was probably misleading about the history of the 2nd Amendment. I liked the idea that if it was meant to protect freedom we shouldn't make a fetish of the material object but pay attention to the underlying motivation. So he compared it to people hypothetically thinking freedom of speech means we all get to own a printing press. I thought that was clever.

Of course if the real motive for the 2nd Amendment was to suppress armed rebellions by farmers or slaves, then the whole thing seems a bit anachronistic and there isn’t much of an analogy with the First Amendment.

And that was meant to illustrate how you could criticize the link without being really angry about it. I get how my presence is like fingernails on a chalkboard for you and given my own tendencies towards useless argumentation I am again going to greatly limit myself around here and other places. If you can’t handle even that much— well, whatever. There really won’t be too many links.

My list is as follows (worst at the top)

Bobby, while I don't necessarily disagree with the Kochs' position on the list, I'm having trouble understanding how the Mercers don't appear. And probably (certainly) higher than the Kochs.

seriously, WTF.

props to Ai Wei Wei for his courage and his activism.

But Donald J Trump is not "only a more extroverted version of what we've seen from the United States presidency in general".

Sorry, that's horseshit. DJT is an ignorant corrupt belligerent thin-skinned stupid vain old horse's ass, to a degree remarkable even for American plutocratic lucky sperm club members. He's a fucking crook, a misogynist pig, and a famous shyster. I'd call him a liar, but that presupposes an understanding of what it means for a statement to actually be true.

So I'll just say he is habitually and reflexively full of shit. He is in fact an excellent bullshit artist, but unfortunately for all of us not an excellent anything else.

He's POTUS because the American people contain a remarkably large proportion of gullible dumb asses. His presidency is an embarrassment to the nation, and an insult to the rest of the world.

He is, however, arguably extroverted.

If you disagree, kindly show your work.

I have no problem with Donald (ObWi Donald, not POTUS Donald). I have no problem with sapient. I have no problem with TNC. I have no problem with Ai Wei Wei.

Sometimes we all say stupid shit. The quote referenced above is stupid shit, whatever the context.

Thank you for this opportunity to reflect upon the person and character of the President of the United States. As with Dick Cheney's celebrated frank exchange of views with Senator Patrick Leahy, I feel better for having said it.

Good night all.

I didn’t actually post the link because of the Wei Wei comment, who I knew almost nothing about until tonight. I posted it because of all the other things Scahill and Coates said, most of which I agreed with. Towards the end I agreed more with Coates than Scahill, the latter who seemed to think it might have been a good idea if Sanders had run a 3 rd party campaign given that Trump won anyway. I think Coates was right to dismiss that as a bad idea.

Now for serious and much promised lurking to commence.

Donald shouldn't be blamed for the Wei Wei comment, I was the one who drew attention to it.

I have to disagree with Russell here, I think we have to look at Trump as both a totally new entity and the sadly logical continuation of some trends in Western and US politics and society. It's a comment that caught my eye because I know a bit about Wei Wei and when someone like that can be moved to observe that, well, ouch. Maybe he's totally full of shit, but seeing how Republicans are having their own problems disavowing Trump, and the discussion about Obama Scahill and Coates have in the article (the quote is just to set up some observations by Coates) I'm not so sure.

I'd welcome some chat about this, but if you think it has no merit, then I'm not sure there is anything to discuss about it.

Bailey Schweitzer

In his next job, rump could sign up as one of those paid professional tone-deaf, vaguely Cosa Nostra greeters at Vegas funeral homes to glad hand the mourners.

With pence in tow of course to put on a pious face and pray for heterosexuality, but not very much of that either:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/he-knew-what-he-signed-up-for-trump-tells-army-widow

America is a fucking disgrace.

Come back, sapient.

I have to disagree with Russell here, I think we have to look at Trump as both a totally new entity and the sadly logical continuation of some trends in Western and US politics and society. It's a comment that caught my eye because I know a bit about Wei Wei and when someone like that can be moved to observe that, well, ouch.

I am, unsurprisingly, entirely with lj on this. The quote, which I believe was referenced by Coates's interviewer, seemed to me to refer to the "American presidency", as opposed to any particular president, let alone Obama, and for any reflexive Dem-defenders out there don't forget that this would include Papa Bush, Baby Bush, Reagan etc as well as any Dems. With historical perspective (which I believe Ai can be assumed to have), and without naming presidents he might or might not have exempted if prompted to, this seems to me an interesting comment and a possible reflection of how nationals of other countries might regard, for example, America's wars and interference in the internal political affairs of other nations. russell's litany of ways in which Trump is exceptional can hardly be argued with, but I agree that when someone like Ai Wei Wei makes such a comment, it bears thinking about (although not necessarily agreement).

I'm now leaving for London, sans car (which I discovered yesterday evening has been written off - very infuriating and upsetting because I get one quarter of the cost of a new one, and it only had 35,000 miles on the clock), so I am putting down the cudgels for the moment, in the devout hope that I won't be drawn into taking them up again. I very much dislike engaging in personal argument here, particularly with sapient, and always hope it won't be necessary, but sometimes needs must.

I think we have to look at Trump as both a totally new entity and the sadly logical continuation of some trends in Western and US politics and society.

well, about half the folks who showed up to vote, voted for him. so yes, a continuation of some trends in (maybe) western and (definitely) US politics and society.

that said, as a POTUS, Trump is sui generis. thus far, anyway - maybe he is what presidenting will look like going forward. in which case, we're circling the drain.

bullying arrogance, proud ignorance, and the valorization of luridly vulgar wealth. definitely a part of the american fabric. not our best side, but a side.

It seems unnecessary to fight over a remark reported days later and out of context.

Trump and GW Bush have a lot in common - privileged backgrounds, military hawks who avoided the Vietnam War (they're the same age), intellectually uncurious, poor decision making, administrative incompetence.

However, Trump is personally repugnant on top of all that - lying, boasting, bullying, exploiting and abusing. Whereas GWB seems to be personally a likeable guy.

Trump is not just the worst president I've experienced, he's the worst president I can imagine. His only redeeming feature is that his utter incompetence stands in the way of his malign intentions.

Trump is the culmination of America, marking the transition from Republic to Imperial autocracy/oligarchy. He is our Nero, our Caligula as Bush and Obama were our Augustus and Tiberius (who was competent if decadent and disinterested)

Empire is slowly contracting instead of expanding, there are no jobs or opportunities but bread and circuses; welfare/ACA and twitter/streaming services; competitive empires are wary but gingerly testing our boundaries; military is taking charge to avoid disaster; masses have become disinterested in politics except as sport, like Red and Blue Chariot teams. Etc Etc.

It is actually a very boring time to be followed by boring competent benevolent tyrants. Obama was the last chance to avoid acedie and he didn't even try.

Lordon's "Willing slaves of capital" or Wolin's "inverted totalitarianism" are good descriptions, although Wolin was writing in 2004 or so, and imagined more war than will happen. Be just border patrol.

bout them malicious militias:

http://juanitajean.com/city-of-charlottesville-sues-militia-groups/

Charlottesville is going originalist.

on the lighter side, I thought this was pretty funny. probably because I'm a snarky smart-ass.

when jokes are all you got left, you might as well have a laugh.

FWIW, I find mcmanus' 9:51 persuasive. I think he mistakes Obama's personal style for acedie as a character trait, but I have no real quibble with the gist of it.

I think I understand the pro second amendment argument about good guys having the right to defend themselves against bad guys, albeit in seems in practice to end up with a lot of people getting shot.

But the argument about resisting government tyranny escapes me altogether. How is it different from saying I want the right to choose which laws I obey, and to shoot any policemen trying to enforce the laws I've opted out of?

http://juanitajean.com/whoa-facebook/

A little back-of-the-pushed-envelope math noodling:

Thirty thousand guillotines. Sixty-five million, give or take, rumpateers. We'll start at the top ... well .... just below the chin.

2167 heads per guillotine. Even more efficient than swimming pools.

We'll need plenty of baskets.

The job could be done in 24 hours.

I don't know how many boxcars FEMA would need ferrying the heads one way and the bodies the other.

I guess we'll have to wait for rump's Eastern European fake news fascists, whose ancestors had so much practice running the trains on time, to provide guidance.

what it means to be a Republican today:

https://twitter.com/KT_So_It_Goes/status/920029047526182912/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

h/t BJ

I always thought that acedie was a personal failing. but bob mcmanus seems to expand it to a societal one, which is new for me. Not saying it is wrong, but it seems to me that personification of society and societal trends is something that has caused at least to some extent the mess we are in.

Thinking about that, the line from Yeats about Slouching towards Bethlehem (actually Joan Didion changed the slouches to slouching) had me look up the poem here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(poem)

and it had this
A 2016 analysis by Factiva showed that lines from the poem were quoted more often in the first seven months of 2016 than in any of the preceding 30 years

So maybe there is a societal acedie here.

Though I think this guy gets some early American history wrong (read some Garry Wills, kid), and since we were talking about it:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-left-has-the-stronger-case-for-gun-ownership/

How is it different from saying I want the right to choose which laws I obey, and to shoot any policemen trying to enforce the laws I've opted out of?

you're missing the part where objective observers* will declare without qualification that the government has become tyrannical. once that has been determined, overthrowing it is no more unlawful than killing a scary looking black kid who's brandishing a bag of Skittles at you.

* - aka Good Conservative Patriots (and only Good Conservative Patriots)

"Thirty thousand guillotines. Sixty-five million, give or take, rumpateers. We'll start at the top ... well .... just below the chin."

Guillotines, while considered to be a newfangled innovation back in the 18th Century, are terribly inefficient in these modern times.

Today, we use WOOD CHIPPERS, readily available at your local hardware and garden store at very reasonable prices.

GOP traitors we feed in 'feet first', to give them an opportunity to rat out their co-conspirators. Be ready to get the russian translated, though.

Small print for small babies:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/dear-baby-connor-your-coverage-is-denied?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning

Lucky for the insurance companies, the kid, who wishes he could go back 10 months and be preborn again so he could secure his rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of American horseshit, didn't join the NRA as a fetus.

Hey, the kid knew what he was signing up for.*

*I'm starting a new series of best American Presidential quotes. The most recent ones, because they are so much more accurate and eloquent than "the worst sharron angles of our better natures" or "ask not what, but ask how high is your marginal tax rate" or "fear itself is what should scare the shit out of you"

A 2016 analysis by Factiva showed that lines from the poem were quoted more often in the first seven months of 2016 than in any of the preceding 30 years

Including many, many times by me, probably on this very site among other occasions. In addition, I'm guessing the first 7 months of 2017 outperformed 2016 very handsomely. Nobody can say we didn't know what we (loosely speaking) were signed up for.

Pro bono: Trump and GW Bush have a lot in common - privileged backgrounds, military hawks who avoided the Vietnam War (they're the same age), intellectually uncurious, poor decision making, administrative incompetence.

However, Trump is personally repugnant on top of all that - lying, boasting, bullying, exploiting and abusing. Whereas GWB seems to be personally a likeable guy.

I think, in fairness to Bush II, it should be noted that, while he was definitely intellectually lazy, that wasn't the end of the story. He might have preferred not to read briefing books, etc. But, in office, he actually did spend the time to read, not just single page summaries with bullet points but actual briefing books.

You can argue about whether he absorbed all that material as well as might have been desired. But there's no question that the difference in the effort Bush II was willing and able to make vs Trump is like night and day. Trump glorified ignorance; Bush didn't. (Which may have something to do with being married to a school teacher, rather than a model....)

And I should, perhaps, note that I have never been a Bush II fan. Didn't vote for him -- not in the primaries, not in the general elections. But putting him in the same bucket with Trump is giving Trump far too much normality.

i'd donate to W's campaign if the general election was somehow between W and Trump.

But there's no question that the difference in the effort Bush II was willing and able to make vs Trump is like night and day.

I wonder how much of the difference is age. Bush II and Trump are within about three weeks of being the same age. From what I can gather, Trump today is a quite different person in some ways compared to 16 years ago. Heck, I'm not as old as they are and my intellectual abilities were a lot sharper 16 years ago: I could read faster, retain more of it, and find the patterns across material better.

"That was some weird shit."

Have to say that was Lincolnesque of Bush II to point out after the rump Inaugural. There should be a statue erected near the reflecting pond of Bush tangled up in his rain mack with THAT as the engraved inscription.

Among utterances by ex-Presidents, that was right up there with "A guy could catch his death in this weather" uttered by Martin Van Buren at William Henry Harrison's Inaugural in 1841.

I guess I view Bush II, and Rove, as gateway drugs, one of many slouches toward Bethlehem accomplished by the republican party since Eisenhower to its latest apotheosis of the rump hard stuff.

They have rougher beasts in the wings.

In the not-too-distant future, I'm afraid this guy's name will be on a list of civilians cut down by weapons of war in everyday America.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/georgia-gop-candidate-holds-rapid-fire-bump-stock-giveaway-contest-n811451

I'll keep a watch out in the news and post his name here when the time comes and we can link it to his obituary.

just in case you weren't quite sure, Roy Moore is a dingbat.

http://time.com/4987441/roy-moore-nfl-protests-law/

Senate candidate Roy Moore believes that professional athletes who take a knee during the national anthem are breaking the law.

In an interview with TIME magazine, the Alabama Republican argued that NFL players and others who have protested police violence are violating a section of the U.S. code which outlines how people should conduct themselves when the anthem is played. (The code merely outlines proper etiquette, and there are no legal penalties outlined in the law.)

"It’s against the law, you know that?" he said. "It was a act of Congress that every man stand and put their hand over their heart. That’s the law."

I wondered why this got cancelled. Despite the terrible title, it was a very good show:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/10/18/good_girls_revolt_is_even_more_relevant_in_the_wake_of_amazon_s_harassment.html

I suppose it was unavoidable that Pat Buchanan would live long enough to keep flapping his lips and, like a chimpanzee, keep banging away on a keyboard and finally string some words together in some semblance of reasonable order that I could find agreement with:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-war-with-iran-now-inevitable/

Unlock and unload.

I might disagree with his next to last paragraph. But overall, as you say, Buchanan nails it -- thus demonstrating that wonders do never cease.

From the Count's link: The people who are going to decide the future of the Middle East are the people who live there. And among these people, the future will be determined by those most willing to fight, bleed, and die for years and in considerable numbers to realize that future.

This is a simple truth that our promoters of never ending war just never seem to understand. I am gobsmacked to be in a position of agreeing with anything spewing from PJB's poison pen....because he is, in just about every respect, a total and complete racist asshole.

Strange bedfellows indeed.

But Donald Trump was not elected to do that. Or so some of us thought.

WTF, Pat? Did you really believe a narcissistic asshole like Trump could resist the siren call of "easy" military victory? There is an easy rule of thumb here. If Obama was for it, Trump will be agin' it....no matter what.

...the siren call of "easy" military victory?

Have any of them bothered to look at a map? 80M people, more than double the size of Texas, mountains all over the place, nowhere to stage a ground invasion from...

Well, the man in charge is the one who asked what good nuclear weapons were if we couldn't use them.

Hey, it would be easy. For Trump. After all, it wouldn't be him getting shot at. (Or even his, to the extent he cares about that.)

As for the troops? Well, "they knew what they signed up for", right?

I dont really know where to put this. It is very interesting, not deep, there are spelling errors, but it references Vonnegut and struck me as something TonyP and I might be close to agreeing on.

http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/10/16/just-own-the-damn-robots/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Physical artifacts vanishing into software.

Marty, that is one if the most spot-on links ever posted at OBWI.

I've been thinking along these lines without conclusions, but this guy formulates what I intuit.

Thanks.

re Buchanan, Andrew Bacevich steps in.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/john-mccains-tired-dogma/

Laura Anne Shipp

it wasn't too long ago that McCain was ripping into Obama for saying pretty much exactly what McCain just said about Trump.

Obama's complaint was:

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

and McCain's campaign said:

“Barack Obama’s elitism allows him to believe that the American traditions that have contributed to the identity and greatness of this country are actually just frustrations and bitterness,”

but now he's all:

...spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history...

?

maybe McCain just likes to complain.

Thanks Count, my reaction too.

Well, cleek, they are talking about two different things. Obama had no problem, and regularly got McCain's support, on our "leaders of the free world" interventionist policy.

Trump, wants us to back off trying to be the world government.

The words sound the same but the policy he's criticizing is very different.

From Marty's link:

Friend of a friend owns a small chain of grocery stores in New Jersey. A few years ago, when Amazon got into groceries, he changed his mind about investing in the growth of his own business. He started buying Amazon shares with his investment capital instead. He saw what happened to Circuit City and Tower Records, Borders and Barnes & Noble. So he bought some Amazon and then he bought some more.

This wasn’t retirement investing. This was something else. What should we call it? Disruption Insurance?

I don’t know. Anyway, long story short, Amazon is up over a thousand percent over the last ten years, and [jersey accent]he don’t need the stores no more.[/jersey accent]


I cracked open another thread with Marty's link. I thought of using hairshirt's quoted passage, but settled on another.

Obama had no problem, and regularly got McCain's support, on our "leaders of the free world" interventionist policy.

Trump, wants us to back off trying to be the world government.

I partly agree with the first part. McCain (and Clinton) wanted more intervention than Obama, so there was a lot of criticism of Obama from the foreign policy pro interventionist establishment during his time in office. Obama was an interventionist, but not enough of one by the lights of some.

On Trump, he sometimes talked an anti-intervention line in the campaign and some conservatives at The American Conservative wanted to believe he meant it. But he also talked about taking oil and being much more brutal, so it was all self-contradictory. And now he seems to be setting the groundwork for war on Iran and N Korea. Well, with Korea it is largely incoherent. With Iran his policy makes sense if he wants to push Iran towards the hardliners and ultimately bomb or invade.

Forgot to put quote marks around the first three sentences, which were from Marty's post.

Larison adding a bit to Bacevich's column--

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/mccain-and-american-ideals/

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-majority-americans-think-reporters-make-up-stories

the same people, the same 46% filth, listened to and read this shit below as the 2016 Presidential election, plenty of down market elections, and a Supreme Court Justice slot were stolen by anti-American traitors from the American people, in other words, ME:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/russian-troll-farm-ran-twitter-account-posting-under-tennessee-gop-name

There is a reckoning so spectacularly and ruthlessly vengeful coming to the traitors in the republican party and their willing dupes who stole our franchise on American soil.

We're gonna dance, but not like you think, comrades:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIsZE550Iz0

About that fake Supreme Court Justice foisted on us by thieving republicans:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a13051847/gorsuch-supreme-court/

One day.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-campaign-staffers-pushed-russian-propaganda-days-before-the-election?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning

From the Count's like to TPM (at 12:59): "a new poll showing that nearly half of Americans believe the news media is inventing stories"

I'm not surprised in the least. After all, if you include Fox News in "the news media", I think that a substantially majority of those here would AGREE that the news media invents stories.

It's all about who you believe and who you don't. Or, perhaps, whether you occasionally confirm/refute stories with your own research.

From the Count's 1:24...

“Where did ‘one person, one vote’ come from?” she [RBG] asked him.

(Let us now pause here for your moment of existential terror. The arguments in Gill easily could lead one to believe that the conservative wing of the Court may be one vote away from "re-examining" Reynolds v. Sims, the 1964 Warren Court decision that established one-man-one-vote....

Slate has a similar story regarding the Supreme horse's posterior:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/why_rumors_of_a_gorsuch_kagan_supreme_court_clash_are_such_a_bombshell.html

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad