« Your Boxing Day Open Thread | Main | 9 years »

January 02, 2018

Comments

sapient, I am pretty good at just not logging in if I reach that point so I understand.

Thanks, Marty.

Not worrying, at all...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/09/us-to-loosen-nuclear-weapons-policy-and-develop-more-usable-warheads

They are, thus Trump

Trump is POTUS because a lot of people voted for him. At a certain point, those folks need to own that, and leave the "Hillary made me do it" stuff behind.

Until Democrats stop colluding with them, Republican Hillary-haters are not gonna stop.

--TP

Until Democrats stop colluding with them

Good thing I am no longer a Democrat.

History will judge the Obama/Clintons hegemony. Not kindly.

Question, if things ever get better, and we you get enough Democratic to bring back better healthcare, say single-payer or Medicare-for-All or whatever...will the mandate come back? No way. And how will historians view the mandate? And Obamacare in general?

A catastrophic failure, a giveaway to industry, that damaged health policy for a generation. And along with the ending of Glass-Steagall, the bank bailout, the semi-austerian economics, the dragging of feet on net neutrality (See CT today) etc etc the whole Obama administration will be viewed as an ineffective feckless failure, in both policy and politics.

Give it a couple decades, and Obama will be ranked with Buchanan and Hoover or Quincy Adams down at the bottom of Presidents.

If we survive his incompetence.

bob,

It's actually a relief to know that you are "no longer a Democrat", because that way we Democrats can focus on saving your ass from He, Trump and you can focus on elevating our sights toward a purer, nobler Utopian States of America after we ITMFA.

--TP

History will judge the Obama/Clintons hegemony

noun noun: hegemony; plural noun: hegemonies

leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others.

so, by hegemony, you mean... Democrats? people who have shaken hands with Jimmy Carter? self-made successes?

what's this secret society that the Clintons (a white couple from Arkansas) and Obama (a mixed-race guy from Hawaii with a Kenyan, Muslim father) share?

or, is that yet another formerly well-defined word that has become a generic insult like "neo-liberal" and "fascist" ?

At a certain point, those folks need to own that

they won't.

modern conservatism is fundamentally "they have gone and broken [an imaginary] it!"

responsibility is only given, never taken. and the whole notion of the rugged individualist is gone. it's a grievance-based ideology, now.

Neoliberalism isn’t hard to define. In the US it has referred to people in the Democratic Party starting in the 80’s and 90’s who wanted to move away from New Deal and pro regulatory policies towards what were ostensibly more free market friendly policies. People online started objecting to it as a vague insult as part of the Sanders vs. Clinton fight or more generally, as part of the left vs. centrist liberal fight.

Since we are still helping the Saudis commit murder, it seems appropriate to the people at FAIR to see how MSNBC has covered it.

https://fair.org/home/msnbc-yemen-russia-coverage-2017/

Basically, almost not at all. There is a chicken and egg thing here. When some portion of the media avoids or distorts an important story, are they trying to fool their viewers or just pandering to them? I think it is a bit of both. I have a friend on the far right who watches Fox and reads the far right press and he is clearly making a choice to live in that bubble, but I think to a lesser extent some liberals do the same.

Good thing I am no longer a Democrat.

History will judge the Obama/Clintons hegemony. Not kindly.

for that matter, history will judge the united states in its entirety. our greed and wastefulness. our self-righteousness and self-satisfaction. our belligerence and sense of entitlement. our complacency with our own wealth, and our lack of concern for the poverty of so much of the rest of the world.

also our optimism, and energy, and scattershot generosity, and idealism, however myopic.

history will judge all of it, and all of us.

even you, bob.

it seems appropriate to the people at FAIR to see how MSNBC has covered it.

i don't know about MSNBC, but a google search for "US Yemem 2017" shows stories about US involvement in Yemen from WaPo, NTY, Guardian, al-Jazeera, CNN, Newsweek, PRI, Politico, the Atlantic, the Intercept, Vox and Fox. and that's just the first two pages of hits.

How long has Mike Pence's wife been blackmailed by this guy? I don't expect she'll comment because she's tied up at the moment with a sock in it.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/01/11/scratch-a-repub-find-a-creep-mo-edition/

As Governor, he encouraged the murder of senior citizens and the poor at the behest of conservative sadistic dark money.

The sociopathic pig, recruited to run for office for those explicit characterisitics, typifies all and every republican and conservative, a perfectly reasonable conclusion given the conservative republican practice of generalizing about all Muslims from a small ISIS sample, all blacks from a small sample of fake fat black welfare mothers, all Hispanics from old Eli Wallach depictions in movies, all liberals from the carbuncles on Karl Marx's backside, all unemployed and uninsured Americans from the
last guy Mitt Romney layed off and destroyed to enrich himself, all gays from the small sample of Roy Cohn, all Jews from the small sadisitic sample of Roy Cohn (while admiring and emulating and employing his individual sadistic viciousness).

Teach a republican Navy Seal to tie knots and they will restrain your wife. Give them enough rope and they will hang the disadvantaged.

A Pence favorite. An ump clone. Like all conservative filth in America.


Are people still doubting that we're facing a neo-Nazi in the White House?

Or is it still too early, or unkind, to place what's happening here in that category?

Are people still doubting that we're facing a neo-Nazi in the White House?

I presume you mean Miller. Trump hasn't got the wit to be a neo-Nazi. At most, he'll parrot what a neo-Nazi just said.

At a certain point, wj, we can't evaluate the mental acuity or competence of the person who has been elected as President of the United States. We have to take his comments for what they are. And Republicans are letting this happen. Don't be one.

i feel comfortable concluding that he is an asshole.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-attacks-protections-for-immigrants-from-shithole-countries-in-oval-office-meeting/2018/01/11/bfc0725c-f711-11e7-91af-31ac729add94_story.html?utm_term=.a499671b719f

Aint no ideologues as I see them in this WH. Just conmen, grifters, greedheads, clowns, using half-baked bullshit to get richer, powerful, popular. If Gorsuch's opinions made him poor and impotant he'd drop them. They make the Nazis look good.

Can't think of much in history that was this bad, this outrageous and contemptible. Even Louis Napoleon had Hausmann and the Rothschilds, constructed Frances infrastructure. The Greece of Alcibiades?
Maybe Rome at its worst, 3rd century before Domitian. Help me here.

I suppose scarey if we get a crisis, bank failure or war, but what I think is worse is that, noting than millions will suffer somewhat, I suspect we will just muddle through, keeping on keeping on, slow decline and decent times for most. Dogs ain't carrying severed hands in the street.

Until Oprah puts Deprak Chopra in charge of our chakras. The US is now ridiculous, without hope.

Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, according to these people, referring to African countries and Haiti. He then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries like Norway, whose prime minister he met Wednesday.

People from Norway don't want to come here.

"The US is now ridiculous, without hope."

Hmmm, Kemosabe.

My chakras do not align with the dog's dinner of Amerifuck conservatism has given us.

From cleek's link, did the White House really trot out a guy named "Raj Shah" to defend mp's "shithole country" comments?

Is he a poodle dog? A dressage show horse from the sub-Continent? One of them a-rab nazi pigfuckers whose faces melted in the Raiders of the Lost Ark?

An Aryan wannabee? Was he wearing a fez?

Norway? Blonde, blue-eyed, a riding crop snapping against the jodphurs as they pop a monocle and steer the little mothers to the boxcars?

No wait, those were the American Nazi fifth columnists during World War II, now ascendant in republican city councils, PTAs, and the entire federal government in 2018.

Norwegians have universal healthcare, reasonably high taxes to pay their fucking bills, and other civilized amenities, so Russell is on the money.

mp and his fascist lapdogs and the entire fucking republican party would welcome Anders Behring Breivik to American citizenship, along with a path to free NRA membership pending his upping his body counts to match the republican conservative Vegas shooter as a show of Supreme Court sanctioned freedom to mass murder.

Lindsay Graham and the other murderers were taken aback by mp's comments?

Bullshit.

"Shithole" is just another word for "nigger" added to the republican hate edifice.

Mass murderers:

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/01/trumps-closed-door-back-room-slimy-deal.html

Republicans are subhuman pig shit.

What we talk about when we find out Commie nigger Kenyan Obama may have written the 1956 Republican platform, with footnotes by Hillary Clinton.

The Overton Window now. in 2018, has a view right up republican mp's fascist asshole.

sapient's right. All fascists now.

Look what you have done, America.

Vengeance is coming to you.

link to 7:21 pm

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/01/11/republicans-then-and-now/

America, the republican shithole, sends its lying republican filth to serve as Ambassadors to decent countries:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/11/1731810/--This-is-the-Netherlands-you-have-to-answer-questions-Dutch-reporters-tell-U-S-ambassador

The few countries who have been "privileged" to have republican corrupt vermin appointed as ambassadors should immediately shackle the filth and put them on planes to the American Aryan homeland. Maybe in body bags. Then shutter the embassies.

Russia will probably demure from this suggestion.

We apparently sold fake fighter jets to Norway:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/01/11/trump-lauded-delivery-of-f-52s-to-norway-the-planes-only-exist-in-call-of-duty/?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true&tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.de077e215979

They should use them to bomb Washington D. C.

Aint no ideologues as I see them in this WH. Just conmen, grifters, greedheads, clowns, using half-baked bullshit to get richer, powerful, popular.

Certainly there are lots of conmen and grifters. But there are also a few ideologues -- Miller being one. (A conman, after all, wouldn't waste time and effort opposing DACA. Which a substanial majority, even of Republicans, aprove of.)

People from Norway don't want to come here.

This is going to be the USA’s new marketing slogan. (Is Virginia still for lovers?)

Small gummint republican:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/i-am-the-state

He, Trump is not America's problem. America is America's problem.

We see sensible Americans arguing that He, Trump has not been proved, by due process, with all the niceties of law, to be a shit-for-brains racist kleptocrat. This alone shows that America's decline and fall is underway.

The ancient Romans watched Caligula make Incitatus a Senator; Americans watched He, Trump try to make Roy Moore a Senator. The Romans redeemed themselves by hacking Caligula into little pieces; Americans are too squeamish to even ITMFA.

Mehercule, hoc quidem lapsus et ruina

--TP

Bashing Clinton may not indicate sympathy with the Republican party generally, but you are helping out with one of their tactics: to change the conversation to "Look! Clinton! Lock her up!"...

I disagree with the implication that we should censor our discussions of how our side should behave for fear that Republicans may come here, read critical remarks introduced with "Hillary is not a crook", and be inspired to redouble their lies about her.

Yes, Trump is much worse than I could ever have imagined a US President being. (Even after my scale of badness had been expanded by the extraordinary incompetence of GW Bush.) But we lost an election to him. And one of the reasons we lost is that we selected a candidate because two previous presidents owed her, rather than because she was good at getting herself elected.

How are we going to change things so that the President is usually a Democrat, and when it's a Republican it's a competent Republican?

Maybe a good time to point out that Roy Moore isn't a Senator, because our institutions are not destroyed, because Trump isn't capable or empowered to destroy them. There is a way to get rid of him, in 2020.

TP thinks I'm sensible, thanks man!

I think that's the first positive thing that you've posted about me.

And not to reopen a debate that long overstayed its welcome, but neither I nor anyone else said impeachment required "all the niceties fo law". I only said it required some due process beyond the purely political.

Adherence to the rule of law is not an indicator (singular or otherwise) of the decline and fall of America; it's what might save us. The comparison to Caligula may only be superficially satisfying, but to the extent it has anything to teach us today, the lesson is the opposite of your assertion. The conspiracy to assassinate Caligula was motivated by a desire to restore the republic. That didn't work out so well. The republic was not restored and the Romans got Claudius, a decent administrator but his reign was marked by more assassinations including his own (probably), and then Nero.

I can't say that adhering to the rule of law would have saved Rome from its eventual fate. I can say that ignoring it almost certainly didn't help matters.

italics?

Fixed -- wj

What does purely “political mean”? What level of due process is sufficient?

Just move those quotation marks one word to the left.

What level of due process is sufficient?

and where in the Constitution is it described?

no.where.

I didn't add the italics and I'm not inclined to rehash this again. I've previously cited both dicta in SCOTUS cases and the relevant portion of Art II.

We are not going to agree; let's move on.

Seriously, if this has gotten tiresome for me (a participant), then I can't imagine how irritating it is for everyone else.

How are we going to change things so that the President is usually a Democrat, and when it's a Republican it's a competent Republican?

By 1) supporting the Democrat who wins the primary (meaning working for her, and leaving whatever primary arguments people may have had behind); 2) trying harder to ignore Republican propaganda; 3) trying harder to insure people's voting rights, 4) trying to understand what influence Putin played and eliminating it to the extent possible.

Those things might be a start.

I didn't add the italics...

That problem apparently arose in Pro Bono's comment. Did you think I was accusing you of something?

Seriously, if this has gotten tiresome for me (a participant), then I can't imagine how irritating it is for everyone else.

This is a blog ... on the internet!

Sorry, I forgot to close the italics after the text I quoted.

in SCOTUS cases

which are not in the Constitution.

that SCOTUS wants to insert itself into the process is notable, however.

I just want to know how getting a majority of the United States House of Representatives and a 2/3 majority of the United States Senate to vote in favor of something isn't due process.

By 1) supporting the Democrat who wins the primary etc...

No, just no. After 25 years of paying attention again, I have no reason to believe that Harris or Gillibrand won't net make things worse. Yes, they will improve on the Trump years, as Obama was an improvement on Bush, but it is still two steps back, one step forward at best, at best...and I happen to think it is worse than that.

So I can't keep contributing to a system, to a delusion that is not only making America worse, but is hurting the world.

Are we better off than the 60s? Well, black wealth and opportunities I think are worse, and I can make a case that our 25 year ME war is much worse than Vietnam. The New Deal and Great Society are getting shredded.

Sure, blame as much of this, more than me, on Republicans. Fact then remains, that Democrats ain't resisting or countering Republicans for shit, and I am seeing nothing in the Party, in the leadership or rank and file, that makes me think they will grow a spine or abandon the corruption and opportunism that allows the leadership to get rich and secure while the 80% get screwed.

I don't have answers. I just know that repeating the same failures for decades isn't one either.

So Bob, who do you think would make a good Democratic candidate? That is, who among those who are a) Governors (past or present), b) Senators (ditto), or c) have some other kind of a track record to judge them on. Anyone?

Fact then remains, that Democrats ain't resisting or countering Republicans for shit

this is utterly incorrect.

"which are not in the Constitution."

Lot's of things are not explicitly set out in the Constitution, e.g., the right to privacy.

As a politically moderate attorney who is not much of a strict constructionist, I find it amusing that liberals on the internet will channel Antonin Scalia if it means lowering the bar to impeach Trump.

If we're talking specifically about Trump, and not generally about the clear constitutional requirements for impeachment and removal from office, do you think it would be difficult to find a reasonable-enough basis for Trump's impeachment, such that it would not be purely political? (Any impeachment is necessarily political to some degree or other.)

the impeachment process is described in the Constitution. we know why it was designed the way it was. we know the people who wrote it were aware of the things that seem to worry you. but you are not satisfied with it and insist there must be more to it.

this isn't my problem. it's yours.

hsh ... I think there's enough w/r/t obstruction to impeach Trump, but that's not politically sexy on its own; and I agree with you that there is a political hurdle to overcome, which is appropriate in my view. I don't know that he'll get tagged with collusion (conspiracy).

cleek ... the Court's job is to fill in the banks and they've indicated that in the case of a presidential impeachment, they may step in if removal from office is based on the president just being a bad guy (IIRC, "bad guy" was the phrase used). When you say that "we know why it was designed the way it was", I'm curious what your perspective is on that. I'm pretty sure the framers did not intend for impeachment to be used as a recall vote by proxy.

"this isn't my problem. it's yours"

My only problems are a couple of posters who seem to enjoy hectoring me with a dead horse whenever I post. ;-P

Maybe a good time to point out that Roy Moore isn't a Senator, because our institutions are not destroyed, because Trump isn't capable or empowered to destroy them.

It's great that Roy Moore isn't a senator. In and of itself, that doesn't demonstrate the health of our institutions one way or another.

IMO it's sufficient to say that the Trump administration is stressing our institutions to an enormous degree. Deliberately so, in the case of many things that are not matters of black letter law, but which have evolved over time as, for lack of a better word, best practices, and which are intended to foster confidence in the system.

Our institutions aren't unbreakable. There's more than enough wiggle room in the Constitution, per se, to allow bad actors with a little bit of luck to burn a lot of stuff down. That not happening depends on a certain basic level of good faith. It depends on people seeing them as valuable, and *not actually wanting to burn them down*.

It remains to be seen where the Trump presidency will take us.

Trump is not America's problem. America is America's problem.

We have a winner.

they've indicated that in the case of a presidential impeachment, they may step in if removal from office is based on the president just being a bad guy

right!

like i said: they want to insert themselves into the process.

I'm pretty sure the framers did not intend for impeachment to be used as a recall vote by proxy.

they didn't intend it to be that. but they were certainly aware that it could be used that way. as with many things, they put way too high a value on honor and propriety. they thought the fine upstanding citizenry would not tolerate such undignified shenanigans.

hectoring me with a dead horse

there's a house with horses on my running route. a few times now i've seen this one big brown horse lying on its side in the pasture, legs out, motionless. cars will slow down to look at it while it's lying there. i try not to breathe when running past. because, obviously, (the first couple of times i saw it at least), i assume the horse is dead. there are horse graves on the other side of the house and i was expect this one is going to join them.

but i always see it up and grazing the next day!

maybe the horse isn't dead after all? :)

Sunbathing horses do look a bit like they're dead...

Pro Bono: ... one of the reasons we lost is that we selected a candidate because two previous presidents owed her, rather than because she was good at getting herself elected.

In 2004, "we" selected John Kerry partly because Howard Dean was "not electable". Turns out Kerry -- a man I admired long before 2004 -- lost anyway. Dean might have lost worse, maybe, but there's no doubt in my mind that he would have run a much feistier campaign.

In 2008, "we" selected Barack Obama, but NOT on grounds of "electability", I think. "We" renominated him in 2012 because that's what Americans of both parties do to incumbent presidents.

In 2016, "we" nominated Hillary "because two previous presidents owed her", you say. Not because "we" thought her more electable than Bernie, nor because "we" wanted a 3rd term of Obama.

It's a theory, "we" suppose.

--TP

It's great that Roy Moore isn't a senator. In and of itself, that doesn't demonstrate the health of our institutions one way or another.

But if he had won, that would definitely say something about the (ill) health of our institutions.

Maybe more about Alabama voters.

..."we"...

Obama won the nomination because he was brilliant at getting people to vote for him.

Hillary Clinton won the nomination because she had so much political and financial muscle behind her. Who knows what other candidates might have emerged in a more open field.

The Democratic Party candidate lost an election to Donald Trump. Such a disaster ought to prompt consideration of what went wrong.

The Democratic Party candidate lost an election to Donald Trump. Such a disaster ought to prompt consideration of what went wrong.

Don't hold your breath

Just to save sapient the trouble, what went wrong apart from Comey and Russian interference.

"The Democratic Party candidate lost an election to Donald Trump. Such a disaster ought to prompt consideration of what went wrong."

This has been duly noted here. Speaking for myself and the horse sunning itself after its frequent beatings, the Democratic Party is hapless, useless and has near-McManus noted complicity in American horseshit.

Abraham Lincoln running at the top of the Democratic ticket would have had that election stolen from him, because America is at its core, full of shit, even without Hillary Clinton's contributions.

I voted for her.

That said, I didn't elect vermin mp by voting for Gary WhatsAllepo or highly principled vote-trading. That's all the splainin required of me.

However, the election was stolen (I would explain, but you don't speak Russian) as will be the 2020 election Marty thinks might be an out from re-electing vermin.

I spit on voting until the Republican Party is reduced to a ragtag mob of thirty or so white fucks showing up heiling their asses off to preserve the last racist Confederate monument and beaten to death by hooded patriots, the latter of whom will have monuments erected in every American town square for their charitable, patriotic deeds.

Doug Jones won his Alabama election over racist Christian vermin Roy Moore by a mere percentage point, despite the latter's finger fucking of the underaged and the nigger nooses he's been fashioning all these years and and frequent calls for Jew- and liberal-burning in the pizza ovens at Papa Adolph's.

Anyone want to explain the 48.5% Moore received?

I hope North Korea targets Alabama for its first nuclear strike.

Among the many qualifying red state targets. Some other pigfucking republuican state could move into the lead by tomorrow.

What GFTNC said and John Jay haters can bite me.

I voted for Hillary, but it was clear that purple Florida was going for Trump in the lead up to the election.

If Dems want to learn any lessons from that, I suggest an avoidance of hacks like Debbie Wasserman Schultz being the public face of the party would be a good start.

The HRC/DWS combo was toxic down here. I'm sure misogyny played a nontrivial role in that, but their reputations for being "transactional" were legitimate.

Transactional, strategic hackery is a necessary part of politics, but it shouldn't be the forward facing part. Dems need to find candidates that inspire or motivate voters with something more than competence at sausage making.

That's especially true in Florida where Dems have not produced an exciting politician in a long time.

I voted for Hillary, but it was clear that purple Florida was going for Trump in the lead up to the election.

If Dems want to learn any lessons from that, I suggest an avoidance of hacks like Debbie Wasserman Schultz being the public face of the party would be a good start.

It seems more logical using this view of things that Democrats should nominate someone more like Donald Trump. After all, he won, right?

That's especially true in Florida where Dems have not produced an exciting politician in a long time.

Five years ago does seem long ago, doesn't it?

If "more like Donald Trump" implies an ability to excite crowds, then I suppose so.

Again, it was the HRC/DWS combo that was so bad. If just one of them came across as authentic, then the result in Florida may have been different.

"Five years ago does seem long ago, doesn't it?"

Check out the current roster of Dems:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/FL

who excites you out of that group?

This is exciting to the American voter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUbvc5U-H-I

mp is exciting as Hell, the reality show.

A mushroom cloud shaped Hell, coming soon.

I agree regarding Wasserman Schultz.

who excites you out of that group?

Not sure what I'm supposed to take from your question. I don't know them intimately, but there are some attractive faces, and interesting backgrounds. Stephanie Murphy comes to mind, although she wouldn't be eligible for the presidency. Why do they bore you?

This guy just got a tax break:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xMKBV3idL4

This guy's church was always emitting tax free conservative political speech from the pulpit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me2H7Ja93Wg

I suggest an avoidance of hacks like Debbie Wasserman Schultz being the public face of the party would be a good start.

i agree.

but, honestly, how many people know or care who DWS is? and how many of them weren't already committed to one candidate or the other?

the first number is pretty small: political junkies and cable news addicts. the second number is probably minuscule: if you know and care enough to be familiar with her, how can you not have made up your mind already?

All republican vermin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUP7r5S6rRw

What the F? ...Enough House Democrats (55) vote with Republicans to get drastic surveillance powers reauthorized for, ya know, Hitler II the crazed authoritarian racist Russian spy Trump.

"the power of the intelligence agencies to engage in domestic surveillance, and much more.

On Thursday, as Glenn Greenwald reports, liberals and Democrats were given a similar opportunity to reign in a presidency they’ve deemed the most authoritarian in American history. What’s more, they had nearly 60 Republicans willing to join them. 125 Democrats went for it. But 55 of them—including the top two Democrats in the House, the former head of the DNC, and one of the most visible faces of “The Resistance”—did not. Thereby sinking the bill."

An argument against incrementalism as an approach to climate change.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/01/trumps-gift-climate-movement.html

“I didn't elect vermin mp by voting for Gary WhatsAllepo ”

I have a soft spot for Gary Johnson. He is an idiot, but he defended his remark by saying at least he wouldn’t be bombing places he never heard of. Bet he wouldn’t be helping the Saudis bomb Sanaa.

On our own bombing, apart from what the Saudis do with our assistance, it is pretty hard to see much of a difference between the Russian bombing in Syria and our bombing in Iraq, but we heard much more about Aleppo. Our bombing became worse under Trump, but just as with Yemen, you don’t hear much about that here even as criticism of Trump, because I suppose people realize it isn’t just Trump responsible. Our military doesn’t seem to have any idea how many civilians it is killing, or prefers to believe in massive undercounting.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/16/magazine/uncounted-civilian-casualties-iraq-airstrikes.html

"I have a soft spot for Gary Johnson. He is an idiot, but he defended his remark by saying at least he wouldn’t be bombing places he never heard of."

We don't know that. He might sit with the Joint Chiefs and say "So when do we start bombing whatchamacallit?"

"Norway's got those F-52s we can use."

Plus the countries and cities he HAD heard of would change their names to avoid his bombing missions and then where would we be?

liberals and Democrats were given a similar opportunity to reign in a presidency

politicians are well aware that voting against stronger "anti-terrorism" measures is a sure-fire way to get blamed for the next successful terrorist attack.

the incentives don't point them in the direction of less surveillance.

Pro Bono: The Democratic Party candidate lost an election to Donald Trump.

The Republican Party nominated Donald Trump, but let that pass.

As I have pointed out before, the American electorate habitually:
1) Re-elects incumbent Presidents; and then
2) Switches party in the White House.

If the GOP had the decency to nominate a "normal" Republican, any Democrat would have started out at a disadvantage in 2016. The fact that the plutocratic GOP threw in its lot with the deplorable "base" and nominated a carnival barker might have erased that disadvantage except for:
1) Comey's holier-than-thou posturing; and
2) Putin's under-the-table help.
Not to mention the acres-count-more-than-people structure of the Electoral College.

Suppose Democrats had accommodated the GOP's overt and Putin's covert Hillary-hatred by nominating somebody else. What do you think the popular vote margin might have been?

Suppose Bernie had got the nomination. (I wrote here in January 2016 that I longed for a Sanders vs Trump race.) Would Putin -- a kleptocrat, not a communist -- have refrained from ratfucking the "socialist"?

--TP

No, Putin and his kleptocrats would have feared Bernie's nationalization of FOX News and Breitbart and the many mp enterprises and republican PACS through which they launder their ill-gotten cash, so the ratfucking would have been even more virulent.

Such a disaster ought to prompt consideration of what went wrong.

not quite half the folks who showed up to vote, voted for a guy who started his campaign by descending a golden escalator to declare that Mexicans are a bunch of rapists.

I agree, that is worthy of consideration. there is something profoundly wrong going on, but I'm not sure Clinton is to blame.

it's also worth reminding us all that 10 million more people voted against Trump than for him. so, apparently all is not lost.

a lot, but not all.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad