« Choose Your Poison | Main | There hasn't been nearly enough freaking out, apparently »

September 16, 2016

Comments

Thanks, cleek. Bad on me for conflating the very specific remark with an earlier discussion of Vance's "hillbilly" demographic.

HRC included "half of" He, Trump's supporters in the Basket of Deplorables. None of the pearl-clutching, salt-smelling, couch-diving pundits bothered to ask which half. So of course it's possible she meant the ones inclined to volunteer for the military, and not the ones clinging to racism, homophobia, and Medicare all at the same time.

Incidentally, Snarki need not have reached for the 2nd Law. You'd think some god, sometime, might have clued his chosen people into the existence of microbes, electricity, or Antarctica.

--TP

we have the pitch-perfect caricature image of liberals looking down on "backwards provincials" who they none-the-less expect to offer up their children's lives and limbs in order to achieve their assorted foreign policy preferences, while the liberals' own children almost universally wouldn't dream of serving - and even less so in the enlisted ranks and/or an infantry branch

Of course, the same caricature applies to "chicken hawk" conservatives. Who likewise wouldn't dream of having their children among those who fight and die in the wars they love.

"Of course, the same caricature applies to "chicken hawk" conservatives. Who likewise wouldn't dream of having their children among those who fight and die in the wars they love. "

But would not look down on those who serve? Which is an almost universal Democratic view.

Wait for it..... in my experience.

Chicken hawks don't speak derisively about those who serve. But they definitely do look down on those who didn't manage to avoid serving....in my experience. Trump's comments about McCain were anomalous only because he said it in public.

But would not look down on those who serve? Which is an almost universal Democratic view.

Wait for it..... in my experience.

Not my experience at all.

Roger Angell writes eloquently about his prospective vote for Hillary, but also Trump's cluelessness about military service.

Wow, thanks Marty, for clearing that up. I guess I'm not a Democrat after all, what with all the service members that I somehow keep forgetting to look down on.

You do know, Marty, that Joe Biden's son was in the military before he died, and that Tim Kaine's son is serving. Also Mike Pence's son, so Democratic politicians aren't alone, but please.

Not drunk anymore.

1. I think "chicken hawk" may mean something different in Europe, at any rate in my youth it was used to describe a paedophile (which was not a word often used as far as I recall), particularly a predatory homosexual male paedophile. However, I can see the point of using it this way, in fact it's rather good.

2. Marty, if you look at the top of this blog, you will see a special section about Andy Olmsted, who served, fought and died. Last time I looked, there were hundreds or thousands of comments, presumably many from Democrats, none of whom looked down on him for serving. What are you talking about?

Not drunk anymore.

Hope you remedy that for the debate. Thanks for caring.

Sapient, as we say in England, fine words butter no parsnips. My caring doesn't help, your canvassing, and donating and arguing does. I've said it before: more power to you.

And now, to quote Pepys, "And so to bed."

know what else is unseemly? reflexive Democrat bashing is unseemly.

Reflexive deference to Democrats is also unseemly. It's the reflexive part that makes it unseemly, not the action itself.

As to your and sapient's fine parsing of what Clinton's "is" was, I don't think that degree of nuance is really going to matter to Schrödinger's deplorables. It's still feeding into well-rehearsed stereotypes of condescending liberal elites looking down on "the real Americans" or however that demographic identifies itself in cliches. You can rationalize this 'til your teeth fall out, but it's not for nothing that Clinton took a lot of flak for that soundbite. It was meant to be red meat for her supporters and insulting to her opponents, and even if you carefully stipulate that it only meant half of the opposition... among the non-basket-dwellers (who really, honestly can't be sure they're not viewed as a deplorable), how many of their friends, neighbors, and relatives are breezily and vaguely being dismissed as beyond the pale? Do you really honestly think that goes over well with anyone, especially when it's ambiguous (which it is, because there are a wide range of understandings about what each side means by those specific deplorable categories) whether they mean you too?

It was viewed as a sweeping condemnation meant to tar very broad swathes of Trump's constituency... and rightly so, as it's pretty damned obvious it was never meant as the narrow, limited, very precise statement it's being spun as. Whether or not it made an accurate condemnation is, alas, beside the point if we're talking about the impact of the phrase... which I daresay we were. And isn't one of your preferred criticisms of me that I put too much stock into what I want statements to say rather than considering the actual impact that making the statements has?

--

I've encountered chicken hawks who look down on servicemembers, but they do so in their own unique way (in my experience): military service is a grand and noble calling, but my family can do more good for the country in other roles. I.e., it's an admirable vocation for the lowborn.

GftNC, in current American use, "chicken hawk" is someone who is enthused about using military force early and often -- i.e. a hawk. But who never was willing to serve, and go in harms way, himself. And doesn't have family doing so either.

In short, he doesn't mind risk and loss, as long as he and his aren't the ones at risk.

your and sapient's fine parsing of what Clinton's "is" was

Still waiting for your apparent refusal to acknowledge that Bill Clinton was in a basket of some sort.

I.e., it's an admirable vocation for the lowborn.

A lowborn, like Bill?

My father was a many, many, many decorated war hero, who was absent fighting one of his wars when I was a pre-teen. So please go f ....

sapient, if you think after all the times you've picked one single marginal sentence out of my comments, you have any credibility when dictating that one or another of your marginal red herrings (which is a generous description of this'un) simply must be addressed... how did you put it? "What are you smoking?"

And as to your decision to take deep personal insult at an orthogonally-relevant description of a sentiment I've encountered in others... well, that description of what you're doing pretty much says everything needing said about that.

*sentence out of my comments to respond to...

Yet, again, NV, not sure what you're trying to say because, honestly, you really aren't very coherent.

My point, which you refuse to (can't?) refute, is that you carry on and on about the white disenfranchised, but you can't actually engage on the possibility that Democratic presidents (including one of their own, Bill Clinton) have brought huge economic benefits to the demographic you claim to champion.

Also, in new news, millions are climbing out of poverty under Obama. Must be Reflexive deference to Democrats.

Reflexive deference to Democrats who, time after time, if we had a reality-based conversation, prove to be able to deliver a better world.

NV: ... well-rehearsed stereotypes of condescending liberal elites ...

Please try to remember that people who are NOT racist, homophobic, poorly-educated, or impoverished are also God's creatures, with feelings which can be hurt by the contempt that Real Murkins hold them in.

"Stereotypes of condescending liberal elites" are "well-rehearsed" all right, but who do you suppose has been doing all that stereotyping and rehearsing?

Some of He, Trump's supporters ARE deplorable. If ALL of them think the basket fits THEM, then maybe Hillary was being conservative (if you'll pardon the expression) about the "half" part.

--TP

I am trying to not be the tone police here, and I love quick back and forth when everyone is playing off each other. One of my dreams is to be in the same time zone as Unfogged (as well as having the requisite quick wit that would let me participate) But when folks are angry with each other, it really helps to slow the pace down. And yes, an edit button would be nice, but I'm behind on everything else and everytime I try to do something like that, I break something and spend a week trying to fix what I broke and then give up and re-do everything so that it works but a lot shittier than before.

To try and have a bit more of a discussion rather than random insults, I'll try to lay out my positions in the probably futile hope that we can discuss issues rather than snipe.

I think this started off with Libya. IMO Obama was a very reluctant participant, and my impression was that the US was dragged into this by Sarkozy and France. I'm not sure if Obama's comments were reported much in the US
http://www.france24.com/en/20160311-obama-cameron-sarkozy-libya-mess-gaddafi-france-uk
and this was pretty bizarre
https://news.vice.com/article/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-the-strange-email-sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011

If you feel Obama has a lot of room to act, you may condemn him, but I tend to think that he actually has a lot less room to manoeuvre than people give him credit.

As far as Saudi Arabia, I mentioned SA as the main point of leverage in regard to Syria, as well as the deep ties SA has with the US. From the previous link, I pull this graf

In December 1992, Cowboys coach Jimmy Johnson was unimpressed that Bandar was a Saudi royal and a friend of President George H.W. Bush. During the team's season finale game at Texas Stadium, Jones brought Bandar to the sidelines during the game and had him come to the locker room afterward.

Johnson was about to take the Cowboys to their first Super Bowl appearance in 15 years and was irate that Jones brought an outsider to the inner sanctum.

Unmoved, Jones later commented, "The Cowboys cannot have a Super Bowl season without Prince Bandar."

We then went to Syria (I think). If anything, you see the same dynamic, with the added fillup of having to deal with Russia. Precisely how one deals with Russia when they seem to have inserted themselves into our domestic political process, I don't know. One could argue that the US has inserted itself plenty of times into other countries (That's been John Pilger's point) and I wouldn't deny it, but generally, the status quo wants to keep the status quo.

This all gets tied up into Hillary. I view both Obama and Clinton as having a lot more strictures on their action than folks acknowledge. I don't want to get into a battle of which is worse, racism or sexism, but it is hard to imagine a woman doing what Obama did, coming on as an unknown keynote speaker in 2004 and winning the presidency 4 years later. I kind of feel that the only way a woman was going to be nominated is if she had the kind of experience and background that Hillary has. That kind of long experience comes with a price.

I feel like it is similar to the recent picture with Bush and Michelle Obama is 'burning up the internet' as they say, and I see there are some who are upset that people like the picture. I'm a bit baffled by it. First of all, it is pretty clear that Bush was in over his head as president (if the huggee was Cheney, I'd understand the reaction) and the speech he delivered at the National Museum of African American History and Culture was great.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/09/24/read-george-w-bushs-speech-at-the-african-american-museum-13-years-after-signing-the-bill-to-build-it/

People are free to draw whatever lesson they would like from that.

I imagine that this comment is going to sink as the debate is coming up soon, but I did want to try and explain my take and suggest that taking a bit longer might be a bit better.

But would not look down on those who serve? Which is an almost universal Democratic view.

troll smarter.

It was viewed as a sweeping condemnation meant to tar very broad swathes of Trump's constituency... and rightly so,

and polling backs it up.

when your zeal to bash Clinton has put you on the side of racists and xenophobes, you might want to rethink some things.

"when your zeal to bash Clinton has put you on the side of racists and xenophobes, you might want to rethink some things."

IOW: "where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?"

A wonderful quote that ties together all kinds of deplorable stuff.

The current odds are rather concerning...
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Marty says it ain't so.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/millions-in-us-climb-out-of-poverty-at-long-last/ar-BBwDtuU

And yet it is Hillary who lies every time her lips move.

LJ, I think that summed things up rather well.

It is a bit amusing how omnipotent some people feel a President is. Sometimes his own people, when he is failing to do all of the things they are sure he could do if only he would. And sometimes by the other side, when he is failing to do something that they think he should -- even if he was elected on a platform of not doing that.

The fact is that the President is both imensely powerful and severely constrained. At least, if he cares at all about the nation he is leading. I can't think of a President in the past century (I'm less knowledgeable before that) who didn't care about his country. And kinda bummed out at the possibility that we might get one soon.

Count, from the report:

Real median household income in 2015 was 1.6 percent lower than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession, and 2.4 percent lower than the median household income peak that occurred in 1999. The difference between the 1.6 percent change and the 2.4 percent change was not statistically significant.

Although it is nice to see real compensation going up a little after 6 flat years, which follow 50 years of steadily increasing real compensation:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB

Lies, damn lies. and statistics

LJ, excellent comment, pretty much all of which seems to me right on the money.

WJ, thanks. I had sort of worked the new meaning out by context, and actually thought it pretty good.

Nigel, re FiveThirtyEight prediction/odds: Jesus F*cking Christ! (I am trying to abide by ObWi's non-swearing convention, but it is hard, particularly in this response). This has pushed my anxiety levels up so high I am considering acting on your previous comment, and recording the debate rather than watching it live, a) so I can fast forward and b) so that Tuesday is more bearable.

Bloody hell! (As we say here when horrified and completely at a loss).

when your zeal to bash Clinton has put you on the side of racists and xenophobes, you might want to rethink some things.

cleek, it's depressing to see how quick you are to recognize and decry dog whistles that aren't directed at you for what they are.

Clinton is horrible for reasons that have nothing to do with this. This is mostly about how and why her supporters are degrading public discourse. Notably, they didn't reserve their condescension for "deplorables". They couldn't wait to roll it out against the DFHs during the Democratic primary. You throw it at me over and over and over. Etc. It's used as a first recourse against all political opponents. And all it does is stroke egos and foster resentment. I find "anti-elitist" snobbery and condescension in the age-old American anti-intellectual tradition to be tiresome and toxic, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to inflame stereotypes out of petty spite.

You derided my comments as "reflexively bashing Democrats", but it seems to be lost on you that the DLC is not the Democratic Party. It seems to pass right over your head that criticizing Clinton for her horrid policy preferences does not mean I'm anti-Democrat. I full well understand the appeal of that conclusion, but I've been a Democrat since I first registered as an adult. Disagreeing with you does not "put me on the side of racists and xenophobes". This isn't binary, and it's really unproductive when you try over and over again to simplify it to that so you can score easy points.

TP:
"Stereotypes of condescending liberal elites" are "well-rehearsed" all right, but who do you suppose has been doing all that stereotyping and rehearsing?

I'm keenly aware of this. I grew up in the rural Midwest. I did a term as enlisted personnel in the Army. I'm verbose and articulate even when I don't have to be. I am painfully aware of this. I've also seen how much civic discourse is set back by balkanizing and the oh-so-satisfying demonization and ridiculing of your opponents. It's all well and good for the likes of cleek to state that when she declared a plurality of those supporting Trump (who, since some people need the obvious spoonfed to them constantly, is in fact thoroughly deplorable) are beyond the pale, she was being narrow and specific. That sounds about as credible Trump's post hoc explanations about how he wasn't mocking Kovaleski. It was a tribal dog whistle, and a pretty damned low-pitch one at that. It was meant to remind Clinton's supporters that "the other side" are the devil, while still leaving the weaselly loophole of "oh, I wasn't talking about YOU, just, you know, the deplorables". Liberals have their own clear (but sometimes mutually unintelligible) of what it means to be "racist", or "homophobic", or "sexist", or "xenophobic", or "Islamaphobic" (as an aside, lemme note that cleek's assertion that Clinton wasn't calling out potential enlistees rings very false when you look at how common some of those preceding deplorabilities are among servicemembers - there definitely is an appearance of her suggesting that they cannot be allowed to have a seat at the political table, but dying for her foreign policy is A-okay). However, they don't always communicate them well. And conservatives certainly don't repeat the meanings ascribed to them clearly or even cleanly; a lot of distortion is introduced, some certainly willfully, and you often end up with people who without malice assume the liberal POV declares that merely being politically opposed to a liberal taints you with one deplorability or another. And then we have those lovely, lovely liberals who view this all as a team sport, and do use language as a bludgeon. And the end result? Clinton's much-defended basket remark is nothing more than tribal name-calling, even if she used a lot of words instead of a few. And the public discourse deteriorates apace...

...criticizing Clinton for her horrid policy preferences does not mean I'm anti-Democrat.

right. doing it once wouldn't mean that.

I don't know. Our on-line conversations in some remote corner of South Blogistan aren't likely to sway the election. Bash away here if anywhere, I say.

which follow 50 years of steadily increasing real compensation

say, when did that trend break?

"If you feel Obama has a lot of room to act, you may condemn him, but I tend to think that he actually has a lot less room to manoeuvre than people give him credit."

I actually agree with much of this. When I read the interview Jeffrey Goldberg did with him in the Atlantic last spring, I got the distinct impression he felt constrained to do more intervening than he really wanted to do. But the constraints on our foreign policy are often domestic. If he is a secret noninterventionist and actually, by American standards, he sort of is, he gets crucified for it. The complaints about Syria are that he didn't intervene, when in reality Syria is suffering from massive intervention by both Assad's allies and his enemies. Why anyone would think more intervention by us would help escapes me, when our allies the FSA fight literally side by side with Al Qaeda. Why Americans think after decades of intervention that we could intervene against Assad and calibrate it so that Al Qaeda or some other group of jihadis doesn't triumph--well, it escapes me. If I went around saying that we should solve the I-P conflict by arming Hamas while making sure that none of the weapons got to Islamic Jihad because those guys are extremists, most Americans would think this insane, but it's probably less insane than what our serious folk think makes sense. Still insane, I hasten to agree.

I've ranted more about Yemen lately because that's where we are doing the most damage in the most shameful way, but the Israel-Palestine issue is another one where domestic constraints determine the policy more than the big bad world outside. We couldn't solve the problem, but we make it worse because both of our political parties feel it necessary to suck up to Israel, to satisfy different constituents. Israel is a special case, but there are always going to be people at home whose opinions or interests are going to have a huge effect on what Presidents do, because most Americans are not going to be single issue voters.

Clinton is more hawkish than Obama. That comes through in every article I've ever read. So personalities also make a difference. There is a growing, relatively quiet revolt in Congress over our support for the Saudis--presumably they too know about whatever arguments there may be for helping them commit war crimes and they find them unconvincing. One way we can change the constraints on our Presidents is by protesting their actions and getting enough people to agree with us so that the pressures on them change.

On the level of personalities, I get heated because of the constant Orwellian BS that permeates political discussion in the US. Britain is also full of liars in government, it seems, but they also put out a report on Iraq and another on Libya that was far more honest than what we get here and the BBC apparently did a major story on starvation in Yemen. You can talk about constraints on action, which again I think are at least 50 percent domestic, and that still doesn't excuse the way our country has refused to look squarely in the face at what we are helping the Saudis do. That's changing, slowly, but why should it be slow at all? Is that big bad world outside forcing us to ignore our own actions? If we are supplying the Saudis so they can kill children in Yemen to keep the Iran deal going, then spell it out for everyone to hear. And explain exactly how that works and why it can't be changed. And why this is different from when other countries support terrorists or war criminals.

LJ--on the Libya Blumenthal email thing, that's often mentioned by Clinton critics on this subject.
I didn't mention it because I figured the mere mention of the word "email" anywhere near the word "Clinton" would inflame the thread more. But no, I don't think that humanitarian considerations were the main reason for the intervention. They rarely are at any time. This is a reason for criticizing more. It's all very well to say that Obama or other Presidents are under various constraints. Exactly the sort of thing most lefties would say and this is why one should criticize the actions and question the official pleasing storylines. Living in a democracy, we are supposed to be able to change some of the constraints they operate under, which again I don't think lie solely outside the borders of the US.

right. doing it once wouldn't mean that.

...because L and N are indistinguishable, interchangeable, and yet miraculously also indivisible. The DLC tragically left us in 2011, yet the DLC will on forever as the DNC! I gotcha...

I gotcha...

clearly not.

for example: up until the following phrase, i haven't mentioned the DLC or the DNC here.

Clinton is horrible for reasons that have nothing to do with this. This is mostly about how and why her supporters are degrading public discourse. Notably, they didn't reserve their condescension for "deplorables".

NV, you can make a case for her and her supporters failing to elevate public discourse. But given what Trump and his supporters have been saying for the last year plus, it seems a stretch to say that Clinton is the one degrading public discourse.

it seems a stretch to say that Clinton is the one degrading public discourse.

calling a racist a racist is a deplorable act.

Sapient, when you say this--

"My father was a many, many, many decorated war hero, who was absent fighting one of his wars when I was a pre-teen. So please go f ...."

You are misunderstanding what NV said, which was clear enough. He said "low born" in reference to how some liberals regard lower class whites who end up in the military. (Clinton, btw, is a poor counterexample here, as someone born poor who did not end up in the military.)

Vance has an anecdote about this that he experienced in Yale. From my POV, we in America seem to go to extremes--we either act like we reverence everyone in the military as a hero or we have snide lefties who think of them as babykillers, though generally not in public, I don't think. I see it occasionally online. My own father who was in WWII and saw some combat, seemed to find the reverential attitude idiotic, but he also would have thought the opposite attitude idiotic. He had me read "The Rising Sun" when I was a child, to get the Japanese viewpoint of WWII. Since we are trading "father as war vet" stories, something I started way upthread.

NV was in the military too, if I recall correctly.

As for siding with racists and so forth, uh, no. The point being made by people like Vance is that we need to try to pull the country back together to some degree and it can't be done if we all sink to the same level together. You can criticize bigotry without labeling people as baskets of deplorables. But if we want to go that way, then there are some deplorables in the liberal basket.

calling a racist a racist is a deplorable act.

Of course not. It's calling a group racist when any, even one, of its members are not that is deplorable. ;-)

cleek, cleek, cleek. You didn't HAVE to mention that opposing your preferred faction w/in the Democratic Party has implications about relations and conflicts between the party's right and left wings. The fact that you suggest that criticizing Clinton more than once is attacking the party as a whole gets it across quite clearly.

--

wj:
I have ZERO influence among the toxic alt-right standard-bearers rallying to press ever deeper into the gutter on the right. I have ever-so-infinitesimally-more-than-zero influence among those on the left. Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.

You can criticize bigotry without labeling people as baskets of deplorables.

and Clinton's phrasing of that was ... ok, deplorable. but the sentiment (half of Trump's supporters are one or more of the follow: racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc.) is supported by polling data. Trump supporters themselves provided the data! they are, by their own admission, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc.. and they're closing in on making him the President. the most deplorable man ever to get a major party nomination is very close to being able to start putting the Executive Branch into the service of his bigotry.

so, to spend more than five seconds thinking about Clinton's phrasing seems absurd. unless, of course, bashing Clinton is the point.

You didn't HAVE to mention that opposing your preferred faction w/in the Democratic Party has implications about relations and conflicts between the party's right and left wings.

my 'preferred faction' is the one that doesn't spend its time doing the GOP's work for it - because implications.

The Atlantic has a piece on Yemen. Here is the paragraph summarizing some unnamed official's view of the American policy--

"A U.S. official who briefs the White House on regional national security matters summed up the Obama administration’s prevailing attitude. Yemen was already a “complete shit show” before the war, he argued, echoing Obama’s use of a phrase he is said to use privately to describe Libya. The Houthis are a nasty militia who deserve no favors and Yemen would be a “shit show” whatever the United States does. So why further degrade a sometimes-unpleasant, but necessary relationship with the Saudis to produce the same end result?"


Speaking of deplorables, why not sell billions of dollars to a murderous regime? That was a point made by some racist to Will Campbell in the book "Brother to a Dragonfly". Who were the deplorables here, the rednecks in the South or the liberals in Vietnam? It's a great big basket with room for everyone.

wj, it's not deplorable. It's counterproductive for anything but raising morale and inspiring a nasty tribal esprit de corps on your own side, and even that comes at a price.

Although I'd note that it's not "if even one is not a racist" - it's making ambiguous statements that you haughtily proclaim clearly are calling out only the bad people while managing to leave the matter of who the bad people are very much open to each listener's interpretation.

--

DJ, yes, that was clearly stated. Although I actually had right-wingers in mind when I wrote the particular comment you refer to (although in retrospect, I have seen that attitude on the left more than once). IIRC, it was drawn from an exchange on some defense forum I wandered onto from FB, where a patriotic right-wing 1%er was arguing with a middle-class leftist on the necessity of intervention, scoffed at their perspective, cited military service as the highest calling of a citizen, and dismissed them as unpatriotic and irrelevant as someone who had never served nor had family serve. Their response to the obvious counter-question? A statement that they'd grown up in a period when there was no call to serve... and their children hadn't because they could obviously contribute more to the nation in the private sector. It was somewhat glorious in its sheer unwavering and unselfconscious deplorability...

and Clinton's phrasing of that was ... ok, deplorable.

In fact, one could argue that by giving such a sweeping, derisive, condescending soundbite to the press... she was doing the GOP's work for it. Hmm.

More pandering to deplorables--

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/hillary_clinton_s_aipac_speech_was_a_symphony_of_craven_delusional_pandering.html

Should we be calling out some members of the Clinton coalition as deplorable? Seriously, I could go either way. If we don't limit ourselves to condemning bigotry, but want to label whole swathes of people as bigots, then let's not just do it when convenient, or the whole thing starts to look fake.

said "low born" in reference to how some liberals regard lower class whites who end up in the military.

I'm sure "some liberals" have all kinds of prejudices and wrong headed attitudes. I don't think that, in any way, is the attitude of most people, and I've certainly never heard it from someone representing themselves as a Democrat, either a policy maker or a government official.

From my POV, we in America seem to go to extremes--we either act like we reverence everyone in the military as a hero or we have snide lefties who think of them as babykillers, though generally not in public, I don't think.

The only example of the "snide lefties" that I can think of in my experience is that during the Vietnam war, there was a certain number of people who were hoping that there would be a massive movement to resist the draft, and that people who weren't part of that were enabling the war. Since Vietnam, I have not heard of anyone who derides people in the service. Maybe there are a few.

We have an all-volunteer military. I was looking for demographics about who serves, and came across a Heritage Foundation study (and I'm not a fan of the Heritage Foundation, which is why I'm linking to an article discussing it). Although there may be some flaws in the study, I doubt that it's all wrong - it's just not true that only low income people bear the brunt of our fighting forces.

You want me to put this another way, cleek? Since I know the system is going to spit up either Clinton or Trump on 4 November, I want Clinton to beat Trump by a single vote, and I want her to do it knowing that most votes she got were cast with fingers firmly clenched over their noses. Not gonna happen, but it's what I want. What I absolutely, positively don't want is Clinton rallying the GOP base and helping them with their GOTV efforts for down-ballot elections.

can we deplore this?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nazi-flag-trump-pennsylvania-bloomsburg-fair

I want Clinton to beat Trump by a single vote

if we're going to keep you from having to suffer under a Trump Presidency which you won't help prevent, then the rest of us would appreciate it if you would make our job easier not harder.

kthxbye.

Oh, but cleek... are you saying what it looks like you're saying? I'm going to contribute just as much for or against Trump on 3 November as you are, unless you're out there getting one or more Trumpers to vote-swap with you while planning on voting Clinton anyway. So that only leaves my Internet rhetoric. And yours. Which, I will say again, is doing the GOP's work for it.

kthxbye.

can we deplore this?

No problem. Not so sure about "confiscating" his stuff though.

The only example of the "snide lefties" that I can think of in my experience is that during the Vietnam war, there was a certain number of people who were hoping that there would be a massive movement to resist the draft, and that people who weren't part of that were enabling the war.

Raises hand. Yep, I recall that saying, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

Logically, it seems to have the same structure as "if you are criticizing Hillary, you are aiding the GOP."

Well, now I feel better about my misspent youth. :)

I'm going to contribute just as much for or against Trump on 3 November as you are

are you saying you're going to vote for Clinton? because, the last i remember this question coming up, you said that you might not be up to it.

if you've hopped off that fence, i hereby happily retract my last comment.

The soldiers are heroes in the abstract and when individuals can be used as positive examples by politicians (truthfulness is not a prerequisite there). Once they lose their usefulness they get treated as dirt (penny-pinching about care for veterans, banning images of coffins brought back home etc.). And should they violate the official narrative, dirt gets far more favourable treatment.
In my experience it tends to be the Right that considers soldiers primarily as "Menschenmaterial" (which btw won the competion for un-word of the century in Germany). There is also the quite different traditional treatment of officers* compared to the common soldier. Not to see the grunts as scum is a comparatively new development and, in the US, seems not to have been replaced by hero worship before WW2.

*by tradition lieutenant and above

NV,

An election is NOT about "bringing together" two or more "tribes". It is a way to decide which "tribe" will prevail, without resorting to gun play.

There is a "tribe" in this country that wants the Eisenhower era back except with much lower taxes on the rich and Johnson's Medicare thrown in.

There is another "tribe" that approves of Brown v Board, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Loving v Virginia, Row v Wade, etc., and recognizes that a habitable planet requires Detroit to evolve past the V-8 engine and coal miners (the few that are left now that picks and shovels are not the main implements of coal mining) to be redeployed to less gruesome work even if they pride themselves on being as manly as their grandfathers.

The latter tribe is, I grant you, better-educated and less-despairing than the former. And therefore you can insist, if you like, that this latter tribe has the greater obligation to be mature and conciliatory.

Which it IS, goddamit, but that means squat if the former tribe prevails in the election.

Maturity and conciliation are for governing. Mobilizing your own tribe is one of the things you have to do in order to GET to govern.

--TP

if only trump were speaking for people who want ike + a lower top marginal rate, plus medicare.

are you saying you're going to vote for Clinton? because, the last i remember this question coming up, you said that you might not be up to it.

I mentioned my current plans in this very thread last night, but you must have wandered in after that. I have a despairing relative who isn't happy with either of the choices, but whose politics make them happier with the idea of GOP high court nominees than Democratic ones, opening the opportunity for us to vote swap. We both refrain from holding our noses; they don't vote for Trump, and I don't vote for Clinton. So no, my decision hasn't changed, but none-the-less the impact of my choices on the poll tallies for the two leading candidates will be just as large (and just as small) as yours shall be, even if it means, horror of horrors, third-party voting will likely also ensue.

TP -

That's all well and good so long as it doesn't have short-term effects like mobilizing the other tribe... and that particular brand of rhetoric has shown time and again that it's perfect for doing so.

NV,

That's always a strategic risk: does this or that tactic mobilize the opposite tribe more than your own?

But note please: it's a risk that BOTH tribal leaders face.

--TP

Whelp, saw my first "I'm a Deplorable!" yardsign today. In retrospect, I'm kinda surprised it took this long.

In retrospect, I'm kinda surprised it took this long.

Well, it must be in the wind for deplorable people to own up to their true values as, in other news, Duterte embraces Hitler as his role model.

Must be Hillary's fault.

sapient, the current "Humans never migrated out of Africa" thread is a lot more germane to this conversation than is comfortable...

I'd say we're a couple of weeks away from those hopeless romantics among us who decry political correctness, otherwise known as simple common courtesy taken sometimes to silly lengths, placing signs in their yard for Trump that say "Gas the Jews! Vote for Trump!" or "Zyclon B! WHAT is the antidote to Obamacare? Vote Trump/Pence for your Jeopardy win"

There will be followup ads featuring corrupt Republican Trump-lover Sheldon Adelson fat shaming liberal American Jews and their silly, neurotic obsessions about a little poison gas wafting through the casino ventilation systems. I mean, he'll vent, if you want real difficulties, like I have to put up with, try getting a permit from unelected bureaucrats to place slot machines in and around the Lincoln Monument and replace Lincoln's eyeballs with cherries. Talk about your Nazis!"

"Vote Donald Trump, I tell you, and let freedom ring. Low wages AND jackpots for America!"

One thing else. Why is it so hard for Trump to tolerate a Miss Universe who weighs more than a Miss America? The universe is a whole lot bigger than America and certainly the former's total mass weighs more than America (unless you count Newt Gingrich's fat ass; have you taken a gander at that filth from the back lately? Maybe America thinks IT weighs more than the universe, I don't know. I've heard it claimed by C-Span callers on the right-wing line) so why shouldn't the former's beauty queen be a fuller-sized lady than these hollow-cheeked, skeletal wraithes who vie for Miss America?


I'd say we're a couple of weeks away from those hopeless romantics among us who decry political correctness, otherwise known as simple common courtesy taken sometimes to silly lengths, placing signs in their yard for Trump that say "Gas the Jews! Vote for Trump!" or "Zyclon B! WHAT is the antidote to Obamacare? Vote Trump/Pence for your Jeopardy win"

There will be followup ads featuring corrupt Republican Trump-lover Sheldon Adelson fat shaming liberal American Jews and their silly, neurotic obsessions about a little poison gas wafting through the casino ventilation systems. I mean, he'll vent, if you want real difficulties, like I have to put up with, try getting a permit from unelected bureaucrats to place slot machines in and around the Lincoln Monument and replace Lincoln's eyeballs with cherries. Talk about your Nazis!"

"Vote Donald Trump, I tell you, and let freedom ring. Low wages AND jackpots for America!"

One thing else. Why is it so hard for Trump to tolerate a Miss Universe who weighs more than a Miss America? The universe is a whole lot bigger than America and certainly the former's total mass weighs more than America (unless you count Newt Gingrich's fat ass; have you taken a gander at that filth from the back lately? Maybe America thinks IT weighs more than the universe, I don't know. I've heard it claimed by C-Span callers on the right-wing line) so why shouldn't the former's beauty queen be a fuller-sized lady than these hollow-cheeked, skeletal wraithes who vie for Miss America?


I kind of enjoyed writing that comment, but not enough to read it twice.

I like it when I get a four-second jump on whatever shit is going to come out of Gingrich's mouth next:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gingrich-alicia-machado-is-the-new-benghazi

A novel turn on vote-swapping:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-no-one-vote

Jeb, the time to stay home and not vote was during the Republican primary. Too late now.

Besides, if YOU were running citizen Jeb, you'd be exhorting the Republican vote willy-nilly while simultaneously conniving with your Republican surrogate hit men in Texas to prevent liberal minorities from exercising their voting franchise.

Only a Bush would conclude that the absence of the name Bush on a Presidential ballot is reason to stay home.

Asshole.


For my Friday finale, this is, I don't know what:

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/288546-poll-libertarian-johnson-beating-trump-clinton-among-active-duty-troops

General Spitshine: Mr. President, excuse me, Gary, man, Russian troops have landed on Chappaquiddick. What are your orders?

Gary, man: When they reach American shores, wake me.

General Upchuck: But, shit, man, Mr President, NORAD confirms Putin, in league with ISIS, has launched intercontinental nuclear missiles from a city in Syria ....

Gary: Chuck, first off, I am the Dude, so call me the Dude, O.K? Now, what is a, did you call it ... a Syria?

Upchuck: Dude, if we don't act now, we're going to have mushroom ...

The Dude: Mushrooms? What is the downside exactly?

Spitshine: Aleppo is the city. Shall we send our troops in, who voted for you, by the way .... Dude.

The Dude: That name sounds vaguely familiar, though Chappaquiddick sounds like the more sinister place. Send them, you say, to someplace I couldn't find even if it was growing on my stoned ass? Those troops you refer to voted for me so I wouldn't send them anyplace because it's too expensive and we'd have to get rid of Medicare to balance the expense ...

General Buttkisser: ... and remember, the sun is expanding so what's the difference, right Dude? It's bound to get us anyhoo.

The Dude: This is exactly the kind of righteous advice I decided to cut your pay in half for. Let's do a bong.

Interesting, though, that so much of the military doesn't seem to buy the liberal conception of Clinton as a military adventuress willing to project American force, for good or ill.

The Republican Party runs one hell of an illegal hacking operation. The killing is going to have run deep and bloody to cleanse this country of its internal enemies.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dos-hack-newsweek-trump-cuba-embargo-story

See ya Monday.

Except that we know that Trump routinely outsources stuff for his businesses overseas. And, as far as can be told, he doesn't see any distinction between himself, his businesses, and his campaign.

So why assume the Republican Party is behind the hack? Why not assume that it drew on the great pool of talent at the fingertips of his buddy Putin? DoS attacks -- something of a Russian specialty. Just ask the Baltics.

The Republican majorities in Congress refuse to investigate the hacks which are the most serious attempt by foreign powers in history to throw an American election, if that's who is doing it, for fear of damaging their preferred candidate.

That makes them guilty of aiding, abetting, covering up, and and co-conspiring with foreign powers' treasonous acts to subvert an American election.

All my life, we liberals have been termed the traitors and the unpatriotic ones by every goddamned fucking Republican White House and Congress and their alt-media enablers and paramilitary fucks in this country.

Every poverty program, every healthcare program, every tax, every piece of civil rights legislation, every anti-war demonstration, every refugee effort, every fucking treaty negotiated by Democrats has been termed Commie-inspired (or some such bullshit) traitorous action by red-baiting Republican filth.

It's really quite something to behold, the silence of Ryan/McConnell/Gingrich on this.

Besides, the Republican Party and its media attendants have proved, and way before Trump came on the scene and perfected the brand, that if you say something, any sort of horseshit, enough times, repeat it over and over, it will become the hard truth in the minds of 45% of the voters.

So I say it's the Republican party doing the hacking.

I'll say it again tomorrow. Fuck them.

Yeah, Clinton lies, so never the fuck mind.

Gingrich's newly proposed resurrection of McCarthy's House Committee on Unamerican Activities is going to have a hell of a show in its hands, as they hang each other in public.

Unless we kill them first.


The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad