« What's the best Midwestern news site? | Main | We're Doomed? »

May 12, 2017

Comments

The Sessions stuff is months old retread information.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-says-sessions-was-instructed-not-to-disclose-meetings-with-foreign-dignitaries/

oh yeah?


The Department of Justice claims Attorney General Jeff Sessions was "instructed" not to disclose meetings with foreign dignitaries.

Sessions, who met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at least twice last year, didn't list those interactions on his security clearance application because he was told he didn't need to, according to the DOJ. The forms require applicants to list any contacts with a foreign government or its representatives.

"As a United States senator, the attorney general met hundreds -- if not thousands -- of foreign dignitaries and their staff," DOJ's Deputy Director of Public Affairs Ian Prior said in a statement. "In filling out the SF-86 form, the attorney general's staff consulted with those familiar with the process, as well as the FBI investigator handling the background check, and was instructed not to list meetings with foreign dignitaries and their staff connected with his Senate activities."

The statement did not say exactly who told Sessions' staff not to list the contacts.

he lied about not meeting with them in testimony. he lied about it on his form. and now we know that he lied about not being able to remember that he met with them.

the Attorney General is demonstrably a serial liar.

Marty, I didn't say the active hatred and physical threats, such as they are (and I admit I think you're majorly exaggerating them, particularly when you consider what Dems, liberals and lefties generally have had to put up with from rightwing pundits et al for the last decade at least) were funny. I said your characterisation of Republicans being persecuted in that way was funny, in view of what had gone before (see parentheses above). Especially because, as russell and the Count note, the Dems, liberals and lefties are so seldom if ever armed.

Whether one agrees with these positions or not the character attacks and threats are completely unnecessary.

This is, and has always been, my point. For those saying Marty is being over-sensitive, I would just note that somewhere upthread sapient accuses him of having "fascist, evil, cruel, hateful views". I reiterate, I disagree with Marty completely, and think his views if acted upon would result (despite his intentions) in large scale suffering, but to characterise them in this way is absurd; apart from anything else, how would you then describe an actual cruel, evil fascist (and there are plenty of them about)?

"... as russell and the Count note, the Dems, liberals and lefties are so seldom if ever armed."

Except with such weapons as "wit", "humor", "facts" and "logic".

It's just SO unfair to use those weapons against the powerless unarmed conservative GOPers, isn't it?

And that is one of the things that we lose when we start tossing accusations and epithets around casually. We deprive ourselves of the tools to address those who truly deserve them.

What the Atlantic said:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/05/man-reacts-to-assault/528120/

Snarki, are you saying that being witless, humorless, fact-free, and illogical aren't weapons? Or just ineffective ones.

Mr Not-At-All-A-Delicate-Snowflake Trump's lawyers are made at... Bloom County.

made,mad,whatevar

For those saying Marty is being over-sensitive, I would just note that somewhere upthread sapient accuses him of having "fascist, evil, cruel, hateful views". I reiterate, I disagree with Marty completely, and think his views if acted upon would result (despite his intentions) in large scale suffering, but to characterise them in this way is absurd..."

Sorry, I forgot (yet again) that people whose views, if acted upon, would result in large scale suffering deserve the presumption of good intentions.

My bad!

Hope this fixes the ital problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtAeVl8Erhg

Marty: So you know what, if the reporter gets in his face and doesnt take no for an answer, im ok with him getting punched.

RedState: There is never an excuse for a politician to assault a reporter for asking questions. There are hundreds of photos to see with politicians talking into a sea of microphones, digital recorders, and smartphones. It comes with the job.

Et tu.....

how would you then describe an actual cruel, evil fascist?

a really, really, really and truly crueler, eviler fascisterist.

Whatever happened to that thug GOP Congressman from Staten Island who threatened to throw a reporter over the rail in the Capitol?

What next? Another Preston Brooks?

So the thug won in Montana. That should please Marty, for otherwise there would have been another Democrat in Congress to trample on his non-fascist views and obstruct his non-cruel policy preferences.

The thug addressed his assault on the reporter and said he was sorry. A woman in the crowd shouted "And you're forgiven!". They grow a presumptuous sort of female "GOP person" out in Trump country, don't they?

The thug then declared that he is going to Washington to "fight for" this, that, and the other thing. All politicians say that, of course, but few of them say it the day after they committed assault and battery.

Oh, well: the Montana jury pool, like the Montana electorate, probably shares Marty's empathy for Republican thugs who physically attack librul reporters, so he'll probably be acquitted.

Well done, Montana.

--TP

Tony, you're totally ignoring that
a) 2/3 of Montana voters cast ballots before the assault occurred. So their votes can't really be said to endorse his behavior. (Especially the folks who called in to ask about changing their vote; not an option, but they cared enough to ask.)
b) the relative votes, compared to November, suggest that, with equal shifts elsewhere, there would be a lot of seats changing hands.

So the thug won in Montana

he's gotta run again in about a year. and now everyone knows what he is.

OK, so here’s the thing.

I get why it’s satisfying to accuse your ideological opponents of cruelty and evil, and annoying to be called on it by the apparently naïve. Times are hard, and getting harder for the people that need help most, and to have people advocating for policies that you believe will make those people’s lot tougher is hard to take.

But (and I use sapient and Marty as examples only because they are the latest occurring case) there is a great danger in giving in to this short-term satisfaction. Marty gave a fairly detailed explanation way upthread of why he thinks lowering taxes will help the country as a whole, to defend himself from accusations of lack of patriotism if I recall correctly. I have said more than once that I know nothing about economics, but I am perfectly prepared to believe my better informed ObWi brethren that this theory doesn’t work/wouldn’t work/has been thoroughly discredited. However, Marty sincerely believes it. He also sincerely believes the Barack Obama was a dictator, and Hillary Clinton an international criminal mastermind. I think we can deduce from this that he has been thoroughly got at by the vast rightwing conspiracy headed by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Koch Brothers and others too numerous to mention. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Marty considers this analysis to be condescending and patronising, but there it is: this is my sincere belief.

When sapient accuses Marty of having “fascist, evil and cruel views” he may be avoiding calling Marty himself fascist, evil and cruel (f/e/c) to get around the posting rules, or he may believe exactly what he said. But there is a difference between the two. Marty’s views are that the policies he espouses would benefit the country and the people in it. The likely outcome might be f/e/c, but the views are not. This is a subtle difference, but we live in a world where it is truly dangerous to forego subtlety and give in to the short-term urge to insult and demonise. You end up with Trumps, or worse.

And Marty has demonstrated, again and again, that he personally is not f/e/c. There are people who are all those things: people who believe jews/blacks/muslims are subhuman filth and should be eliminated, people who believe that women are bitches to be used, people who enthusiastically exploit other vulnerable people etc etc (it is too depressing to go on). Such people’s views are f/e/c, and they are personally f/e/c. I think it is vital that we discriminate, and bestow our opprobrium where it is deserved. Our two countries (and many more) are riven by polarised opinions, where people on either side of an ideological divide can no longer speak to each other, and are consequently only too happy to demonise, make other and objectify their ideological opponents. Please let’s not do that here. There’s a reason why occasional lurkers de-lurk and plead for us to stop.

Good people like Marty should, perhaps, recognize when they support policies that are also supported by people who believe jews/blacks/muslims are subhuman filth and should be eliminated, people who believe that women are bitches to be used, people who enthusiastically exploit other vulnerable people etc etc (it is too depressing to go on).

The number of true sociopaths is pretty small. When they're enabled by "good people" is when the country crashes and burns. "Good people" who enable sociopaths have views that are fascist, evil and cruel. They should, perhaps, be made aware of that.

"Good people" who enable sociopaths have views that are fascist, evil and cruel.

This is absurd as stated, even without going again into the difference between views and their possible repercussions.

sapient, do you perhaps believe that the best way of getting these "good people" to change their views is to notify them that their views are fascist, evil and cruel? Do you perhaps believe that so notifying them will stop them believing what they believe, and consequently in your words, enabling sociopaths? Sounds a bit absurd when put like that, doesn't it? So if telling them that their views are f/e/c doesn't achieve that, what purpose is it serving? Since it is serving a purpose for you, do you have any insight into what that is?

sapient, do you perhaps believe that the best way of getting these "good people" to change their views is to notify them that their views are fascist, evil and cruel?

How successful have you been, with your practice of indulging their belief that their views are within the realm of "goodness"? It's all good.

I am successful for as long as people of opposing views are willing to talk to, and argue with, each other.

Who said anything about Marty's views being "good"?

GFTNC, you are now an enabler of enablers of fascists. I'm a little harder on Marty and McKinney than you are, so I'm not like you in that regard. But, since I openly admire your tolerance, I am an enabler of an enabler of enablers of fascists.

I hope my mother doesn't find out.

I hope my mother doesn't find out.

Since, as I think I mentioned on another thread, my mother worked against apartheid seriously enough in the 50s to be constantly followed by the secret police, and almost not to have been given a passport to leave South Africa in 1959, yet also (albeit many years later) was prepared to dine with my parents' old acquaintance Percy Yutar, the man who prosecuted Nelson Mandela in the Treason Trial, I think I can be said to come by my attitudes honestly.

albeit many years later

Your mother has a fascinating biography. I'm all for reconciliation when the time comes.

Cutting taxes is fascim? Good to know. Does that make raising taxes communism?

When I was young and foolish, I was outraged that she/they were prepared to socialise with such a man. But the point, as I came to understand with maturity, was to hate the sin and not the sinner (a useful concept, even for atheists like me).

But the point, as I came to understand with maturity, was to hate the sin and not the sinner (a useful concept, even for atheists like me).

Forgiveness works better after victory.

In all fairness, McKinney, I don't think it was only the cutting taxes opinion.....

Ok. What fascist policies do Marty or I advocate?

Good people like Marty should, perhaps, recognize when they support policies that are also supported by people who believe

Does the fact that some scum support someone's views make those views bad? If someone who all of us, including you, believe is scum starts supporting your position on some issue (and we can doubtless find a concrete example if we try), does that invalidate your position? I don't think so, and I am pretty sure you don't either. So perhaps you could apply the same to positions that you oppose.

Does that make raising taxes communism?

Yes. And fiercely proud of it!

Does that make raising taxes communism?

I assuming you are asking for the opinion of those here. Because I have definitely heard exactly that from those elsewhere.

More seriously, I don't think we're even necessarily talking about fascism - just policies that are very bad for a lot of people. Not "I won't be quite as well off" bad, but "I might have a hard time staying alive or at least avoiding significant misery" bad.

I'm just trying to figure out what Sapient and others, applying traditional progressive nuance, think are fascist policies supported by people like Marty and me.

The name calling is getting to be a major bore. Particularly from a bunch of people who get pissy when called "lefties" or "leftish". Seriously.

HSH--what life threatening policies do you have in mind?

Does the fact that some scum support someone's views make those views bad?

It may depend on how you define "some." If overt or reasonably detectible racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc. line up en masse on one side of an issue (or, worse yet, a broad set of issues), it might give you pause if you line up with them most of the time.

If I can go Godwin, we're not talking about Hitler enjoying a nice cup of coffee.

More seriously

"I might have a hard time staying alive or at least avoiding significant misery" bad.

This is happening in a lot of ways. Health care, the budget cuts to kill programs for the most needy, enabling ICE agents to deport wonderful citizens in the cruelest of ways, embracing specific, massive, human rights abuses of dictators, returning to a policy of mass incarceration of low level offenders. Possibly not "life-threatening" but Democracy-threatening: violence against the Press, endorsing public lies about everything imaginable. Oh, and let us not forget one of the most important matters: colluding with a foreign hostile power in order to further its interests.

I know - good people, it's all good. Perfectly within the realm of dinner party companionship. But, thanks, I'll wait until we throw them out before I can digest food with people who allow this all to happen in order that they might get a tax cut.

Particularly from a bunch of people who get pissy when called "lefties" or "leftish".

Actually, I don't think anybody here objects to being called "lefties" or "leftish". It's that often in the past you have characterised, not to mention caricatured, a particularly absurd example of, for example, "progressive" theory, or "identity politics", which you then go on to ascribe to all "lefties" including those here. This grates. If I am wrong, I am hoping one of the other lefties will put me right (BTW, I see myself as more of a liberal than a lefty).

WJ, yes I'm asking for opinions from people here.

correction: Not "citizens" - just members of our communities.

HSH--what life threatening policies do you have in mind?

Environmental deregulation, GOP healthcare bills, poorly thought-out military adventures, cuts to food (and heating and housing) assistance. I could probably think of more. I imagine members of the GOP can as well.

I know - good people, it's all good. Perfectly within the realm of dinner party companionship.

sapient, after the paragraph where you correctly list several appalling, ongoing current events, do you not see how idiotic this kind of comment is making you look?

If I am wrong, I am hoping one of the other lefties will put me right (BTW, I see myself as more of a liberal than a lefty).

Not wrong AFAIAC. Spot on.

sapient, after the paragraph where you correctly list several appalling, ongoing current events, do you not see how idiotic this kind of comment is making you look?

The "dinner companions" here support these things, GftNC - or at least vote for people who implement these policies. Not sure what you're getting at, or what you're missing.

It may depend on how you define "some." If overt or reasonably detectible racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc. line up en masse on one side of an issue (or, worse yet, a broad set of issues), it might give you pause if you line up with them most of the time.

On the other hand, lots of libertarians would like to see a smaller, less intrusive Federal government. Are their views invalidated because a bunch of "racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc." want the same thing, in order to exercise their views at the state level?

Or, to put the shoe on the other foot, if you think big banks are a problem and should be reined in, is that invalidated because a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists (or whatever they are) attack those same banks violently?

I don't think so. In either case.

I would guess it's that you had made your point very well and should have stopped before detracting from it with unnecessary snark.

I don't think so. In either case.

Are there no cases where you do think so?

if you think big banks are a problem and should be reined in, is that invalidated because a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists (or whatever they are) attack those same banks violently?

I don't necessarily know whether big banks are a problem, but if I did think that they are a problem, and I voted for bomb-throwing anarchists, I certainly would be culpable.

Environmental deregulation, GOP healthcare bills, poorly thought-out military adventures, cuts to food (and heating and housing) assistance.

My memory may be failing, but I don't recall Marty or McKinney (or anyone else here, at least since Brett left) arguing for any of those. Opposing badly done (in their view) environmental regulations? Sure. Arguing that Obamacare needs serious changes? Sure.** But that's not the same as what you are apparently describing.

** As do those, albeit with different changes, who argue from the left for single payer.

Are there no cases where you do think so?

Yes, there are. Indeed, I would have no problem with taking a second look when a chorus of scum starts arguing (or whatever) for one of my positions. I just don't think that it automatically invalidates the position. Which appeared to be what you were saying.

wj, voting for the chorus of scum might also give you pause.

My memory may be failing, but I don't recall Marty or McKinney (or anyone else here, at least since Brett left) arguing for any of those.

But aren't those among the major policy preferences of today's GOP?

I can't say for sure that Marty or McKinney have directly argued for those or similarly bad policies without looking, and don't care enough to bother. It's not just about them, anyway.

But, if you generally support the party that wants to do those things, what's the difference? We're not determining policy with our blog discussions. The closest we get, unless we're holding office, is through those we support politically, be it by voting or otherwise.

And, a timely post: Making the distinction between honest opponents and toxic enemies.

Yet more fake news from the dishonest MSM, amirite?

Good post, Snarki.

wj, voting for the chorus of scum might also give you pause.

Oh, I have no intention of voting for the scum! (And I don't.) I'm just saying that them adoption a similar policy to my preference doesn't invalidate it.

But, if you generally support the party that wants to do those things, what's the difference?

When you have a party which has gone as far off the rails as today's GOP, you basically have two choices:
- you can decide to start a new party, to fill the necessary position of viable alternative party of government.
- you can remain part of that existing party (even if you frequently don't vote for their nominee come the general election) and try to push it back to sanity.

The former, unfortunately, doesn't appear to be particularly viable. The last time it happened was a couple of centuries back, and it took the single, overriding issue of slavery, and arguably a Civil War, to make it happen. Not seeing that today -- although I suppose it could happen eventually.

Which leaves those who want things to change with registering Republican and voting in their primaries (note: not applicable in states with open primary voting) and otherwise working within the existing party structure. It worked for the nut cases to take over; it can work to push them out. It won't be easy, but it looks like the only alternative which has a chance to work at all.

"Ok. What fascist policies do Marty or I advocate?"

hsh, fascist and evil are mostly the favorite names. Tax cuts aren't fascist. Reducing the growth of Medicaid next year from 6% to 2% isn't fascist, its not even cutting Medicaid. Cutting the growth of the food stamp program is not cutting food stamps. Asking for able bodied people to be employed where possible to qualify for the safety net is not fascist, or evil. These are pretty bog standard American positions that are sometimes in conflict with other American positions all trying to accomplish providing an affordable safety net for people who need a safety net.

The amount of money spent on any one of those safety net programs is limited by many things, but no one believes they can all be provided with an unlimited budget.

We could spend the whole federal budget on healthcare, then all 360M people would have Cadillac insurance, and anything less than that is murdering people, so unless you are for that you are a hateful fascist.

The discussion is ridiculous. Overzealous EPA regulation being pushed back is neither fascist nor evil. If it wasn't for the big banks the economy would have collapsed in 2008. Because thousands more banks would have been exposed to the failed mortgages from Fannie and Freddie without any place to spur liquidity.

The Dems passed a crappy healthcare bill that limits the ability to cover everyone or even the ones it covers very well so every attempt to fix that is evil and hateful, no consideration that another way might cover more people better. The CBO is forced to count crappy ACA insurance and the ever reupped insurance company subsidies in its calculation while not being able to count any upside from the states having flexibility. So the their numbers are meaningless because of the rules. Kaiser estimated that the very worst case, with no benefit from the changes, left 4.7 million more people uninsured over ten years. But they recognized that it could be better. And that's before the Senate even tries to make it better. But those of us who think more people can get better insurance, not because of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh(who I have literally never heard on the radio), by doing those things are called murderers. Because some unlikely calculation gets a headline.

Its an ongoing ploy. It is bullying and intimidation so as not have to address reality or discuss the pros and cons in good faith. You either agree with my assessment of the facts or you're evil.

so every attempt to fix that is evil and hateful

no, not "so".

leave off the "so" and that's where the GOP is these days.

they don't have to replace the ACA with shitty evil nonsense, but it's what they want to do.

they're not just repealing the ACA and taking us back to the state of things in 2007. no, their plan will make things worse than they were in 2007. and they know it. everybody knows it.

but they're trying to do it anyway.

either they're to goddamned stupid to be allowed so much power, or they're evil. or maybe both.

Snarki, Nancy LeTourneau is on my list as a regular read. I appreciate her viewpoint.

The Gopnik article she cites is a bit Broderish for me, though, in that Mike Pence is not a good example of the honest opposition. David Frum, Evan McMullin - there are Republicans with whom I disagree on policy who have spoken out against Trump's fascism.

i love how armchair statisticians who haven't read the existing GOP bill, or are evaluating a GOP bill that doesn't exist, are 100% confident that their numbers are more accurate than the professionals at the CBO.

it's the same bullshit they use to argue against all other kinds of science. they just know.

/bullying!

hsh, fascist and evil are mostly the favorite names.

Why are you addressing me with this? I'm not arguing that people are fascist or evil. Maybe you didn't notice that my comment to GFTNC was tongue-in-cheek, when I called her an enabler of enablers of fascists (and myself an enabler of an enabler of enablers of fascists).

I'm arguing that people bear some responsibility for supporting what are (in my opinion!) bad policies, not that they are, therefore, evil or fascist (or whatever). Wrong (in my opinion!), sure.

Maybe you need to discuss this with sapient, whom I probably agree with on policy almost entirely, but not on rhetoric or argumentation (or tactics?).

Its an ongoing ploy. It is bullying and intimidation so as not have to address reality or discuss the pros and cons in good faith. You either agree with my assessment of the facts or you're evil.

See Marty, I have been expounding at no doubt tedious length on why it's wrong to characterise your views as f/e/c, and pretty much agreeing that it's a cop-out to get personal rather than engage in good faith with the arguments, but for you to claim that this is "bullying and intimidation" after the accusations that were thrown at Dems for 8/9 years is just absurd too. It's unfair, and inaccurate, and stifles debate, but "bullying and intimidation", particularly in this forum, it aint.

I should make clear that I'm not arguing that people here are fascist or evil. Of course, some people in the world are. Another thing some people are is stupid, if they support terrible things without being able to comprehend that those things are terrible, even when it's obvious.

Just FYI, here is someone on the (seriously anti-Trump) right who thinks that I'm wrong. Rather, the GOP can't be saved and needs to be abandon.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/26/a-week-that-reveals-how-rotten-todays-republican-party-is/?utm_term=.ff0994806ddb

wj, if you want to support moderate Republicans for office to change the party, you're not one of the people we're (I speak for many) talking about.

Thanks for the link, wj.

Yes, good piece wj.

"but "bullying and intimidation", particularly in this forum, it aint."

I appreciate your view, but calling the people who disagree with you(not you you) fascists and evil and various other things is certainly bullying. Its purpose is to silence them and make their views seem so radical that you would have to be a bad person to agree with them. There is not a much better definition of bullying.

do you watch Fox News, Marty?

fascist Maryland has just outlawed a common liberal bullying tactic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/05/26/no-more-rolling-coal-on-maryland-roads/

Thanks, cleek. I'm taking a deep breath ...

WJ, yes I'm asking for opinions from people here.

If there's one thing I have in apparently endless supply, it's opinions.

Nobody commenting here is a fascist. Nobody commenting here has fascist tendencies.

Steve Bannon, IMO, is a guy with fascist tendencies. But he doesn't comment here.

As far as actual policies, IMO policies that result in lots of people losing access to health care or food or housing are harmful. Also IMO, the entire (R) program will result in those things happening.

Folks think otherwise, that's fine. That's what I think.

In any case, I'm against those policies, and that's why.

I'm sure you can be a fine, upstanding person and support the (R) program. It's also evident to me that many people that support the (R) program are not only perfectly happy to see other people suffer as a result of the policies they support, but actually take some pleasure in the thought.

I find that... unattractive.

And no, Marty and McK, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the folks for whom what I just said is true. And there are lots of them.

I completely agree that there is little discussion of any of this stuff that is purely focused on the substance, or that puts aside the human tendency to demonize people who disagree with you, or that is even remotely constructive.

We're all pissed off at each other. It is what it is. I'll guess we'll all just have to try harder.

Some asides:

Reducing the growth of a program without reducing the growth of the need for the program effectively reduces the tangible benefit of the program to the folks who participate in it.

If we only give out ten more pizzas this year instead of twenty, but twenty more people need pizza this year than last, everyone gets less pizza.

Right?

As always my solution this crap is pay people more. Take more of the lovely beautiful money our economy generates, and direct it to the folks who do the stuff that makes the money happen.

And when I say "make the money happen", I don't mean through clever shitbird smartass financial sleight of hand party tricks, but through their daily, productive labor.

Pay them.

Then a lot of this crap goes away.

Wouldn't that be great?

When that idea pops up on the (R) radar, I'll be happy to have a chat. Until then, everything I ever hear from (R)'s nets out to "tough shit, you shoulda been a banker".

And I appreciate the general libertarian desire to get annoying intrusive government out of all of our business, and often have the same impulse every time I have to ask the freaking zoning board if I can please pretty please build my wife a garden shed, or every time I try to find some place that will let me throw out an appliance.

But annoying intrusive government gave me water I can drink, and air I can mostly breathe, and made the power plant clean up the coal ash that they dumped in the watershed, and cleaned up the toxic crap from the lead mill a mile from my house, and makes it possible for me to negotiate with my employer in a reasonable way without going to literal war, and lets me buy a piece of meat without worrying if it will poison me, and lets me hire a tradesman without having to figure out if he has any freaking idea what he's doing. And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Hundreds of time each and every day, annoying intrusive government makes my life better.

People should really do some homework on the origins of the regulatory state. The feds had to be dragged kicking and screaming into building most of that apparatus, and most if not all of it was a response to f'ing egregious behavior on the part of private and state actors.

In any case, as far as I'm concerned, advantage annoying intrusive government. Well done, and carry on.

So, long story short, when I vote, I generally but not always vote (D) or (D)-ish. And I'm fine with conservatives per se, but for the record when folks start talking about how fine they are with Congresspeople beating up reporters, my personal ice gets thin.

If some bullet-head Congressperson tries to body-slam me, I'll do my best to break his f'ing legs. Assholes and bullies deserve every bit of shit they catch.

I guess that makes me a lefty, not a liberal. Or maybe I'm some kind of weird Laura Ingraham liberal.

Isn't that a thought!

Those are my opinions. I come by them honestly.

Thanks!

"I appreciate your view, but calling the people who disagree with you(not you you) fascists and evil and various other things is certainly bullying. Its purpose is to silence them and make their views seem so radical that you would have to be a bad person to agree with them."

Well, then it's a good thing that nobody ever published a book titled LIBERAL FASCISM, then isn't it?

for the record when folks start talking about how fine they are with Congresspeople beating up reporters, my personal ice gets thin.

Actually, and FWIW, I have to say I agree with this.

If some bullet-head Congressperson tries to body-slam me, I'll do my best to break his f'ing legs.

FYI, a kick to the side of a knee, especially if weight is on it, will accomplish a lot. It won't actually break the leg. But rebuilding that knee will take a lot of time and rehab work. (No, I have never had occasion to use that technique. But it's part of my general knowledge.)

calling the people who disagree with you(not you you) fascists and evil and various other things is certainly bullying.

You could also just call it "being upset" and let it roll off your back.

Your choice.

BTW, I am (slowly) coming to the conclusion that MASSES of lefty-leaning Dems should (changing registrations, if needed) vote in the GOP primaries.

Because the GOP primary voters seem to be the only thing that GOP politicians are afraid of. Probably get an outsized effect from a moderate percentage of Dem voters crossing over also, too.

And just about anyone winning a Dem primary is probably "mostly okay" to vote for in the general election.

I do not watch the Fox news network cleek. My local Fox channel in FL has a really nice local morning newscast that is a bit amateurish to keep the local flavor and I love that group of people. They don't even cover much national news.

I do like Chris Wallace show because he seems to at least insist that two points of view get represented. Clearly a bit leaning to Republicans, but clearly not a fan of Trump.

I could not tell you without the feedback here on the blog what the Fox News people were saying.

I also do not watch MSNBC and rarely turn on CNN. I only turn on CNN when there is an event that I know will be covered nonstop(riots, bombings, etc.).

I get the great majority of my daily news online from AP, Reuters, WaPo and the NYT.

FYI, a kick to the side of a knee, especially if weight is on it, will accomplish a lot.

Noted.

"You could also just call it "being upset" and let it roll off your back"

Depends on how often it happens and how long it goes on.

We're all pissed off at each other. It is what it is. I'll guess we'll all just have to try harder...

FWIW, I'm just mildly irritated.


Not by all of you, though.

Back to the female "GOP person" who shouted "You're forgiven!" at The Thug.

Don't anybody try to tell me that assault and battery on a reporter is NOT "bullying", but calling a "GOP person" like that cruel, evil, or fascist IS.

--TP

Well, duh.....

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/05/if_everyone_deserves_health_care_single_payer_is_the_only_option.html

"assault and battery on a reporter"

You know that's not a thing right. Assault and battery, is a thing, misdemeanor assault and battery is a crime, it gets a punishment. Assault by a reporter is also a crime. won't get punished.

Things that irritate me? Someone puts on a press badge and immediately gets to be a complete asshat with no repercussions. The reporter was someplace he should not have been, doing something he was specifically told not to do, refused to stop doing it and the candidate lost his temper.

Not a good political move but if I treated you the way the reporter treated the candidate you would have been looking to wreck my ACL, not my glasses. And it seems from the tempers here there are certain rooms that all I would have to do is walk in the room to get body slammed.

And no, it wasn't the same as a gaggle of reporters confronting someone leaving a building, he was in a room, in private, having a meeting and was assaulted by the reporter.

Gianforte was just standing his ground.

Assault by a reporter is also a crime. won't get punished.

Got an example of something which meets the legal definition of assault? Not necessarily including battery, but at least simple assault.

Cleek, does it really count as standing your ground if you don't have a firearm? ;-)

Marty: Assault by a reporter is also a crime. won't get punished.

Tell us again how the reporter committed "assault". You may know more about criminal law than the rest of us.

Marty: The reporter was someplace he should not have been, doing something he was specifically told not to do, refused to stop doing it and the candidate lost his temper.

Had The Thug merely shouted "Get the hell out of here" I'd bee saying he merely "lost his temper". That he had it in him to grab the reporter and slam him against the floor -- that's what makes him a Thug. But let that pass.

Here's the real problem: neither you nor I would ever know anything interesting if reporters never went places where they're not welcome, never asked annoying questions, always meekly deferred to the wishes of lawmakers and would-be lawmakers. To want reporters to be mere transcribers of press releases is to want something other than an informed electorate. There's a name for that attitude, but I will let you figure it out for yourself.

--TP

Thats crap TP, people get interviews all the time, candidates answer uncomfortable questions all the time, the candidate specifically said he would answer those questions later, he was in a private meeting with some other group of people.

assault verb accost, accost bellicosely, adgredi, addriri, affront hostilely, aggress, appetere, assail, assault belligerently, attack, attack physically, attempt violence to, deal a blow, harm, oppugn, set upon, set upon with force, set upon with violence, strike, thrust at

Depends on how often it happens and how long it goes on.

All the time, for 15 years, in my case. I guess my sense of personal persecution has just gotten worn the hell out.

he was in a room, in private, having a meeting and was assaulted by the reporter.

I appreciate the thesaurus dump, but the legal definition of assault requires a threat of bodily harm.

That's not in evidence.

I'm not sure what your upside is in defending this guy, but you're serving some pretty week beer here. Maybe there are more worthwhile causes to champion.

It's really wonderful that Marty was right there in the room with the candidate and that "reporter", and can accurately describe EXACTLY what happened and why.

No secondhand stories needed, no political butt-covering, no MSM clickbait. You betcha.

Marty: ... the candidate specifically said he would answer those questions later ...

Vote first, ask questions later. Great idea.

Oh, and: should I feel bullied by your "crap" assessment? Crap, noun: shit, poopoo, doody, imported French merde. Enough to make a blushing flower wilt.

--TP

yes TP you should.

russell, its really not so important to take up for the guy. He is likely an ass. Some things just rub you the wrong way. Reporters acting out is one of mine. The very first description of what happened I read was what I am paraphrasing. Nothing has been said different.


Nothing has been said different.

huh?

you're echoing PR flack Shane Scanlon's account. but that was instantly debunked by the local Fox News camera crew, who were right there when it happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/greg-gianforte-fox-news-team-witnesses-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html

Maybe Fox News has been reassigned to the "liberal MSM" category...?

Just read about it. Looks like no shit assault. No reasonable provocation, no self defense. I'd press charges.

Hey, now...just one darned minute

If it wasn't for the big banks the economy would have collapsed in 2008. Because thousands more banks would have been exposed to the failed mortgages from Fannie and Freddie without any place to spur liquidity.

It is difficult for me to understand how anybody who was reasonably adult, and somewhat informed of what happened during 2008 to hold this opinion. The big banks were essentially holding hundreds of billions of worthless mortgage paper as "assets". Technically, they were insolvent. The only reason they had liquidity is because the Fed backstopped them by buying up their crap at or near par and waiting it out. And the mortgages held by the F & F duo were government guaranteed.

As for me. I have voted for more than a few really crappy Dems. The reason is, when the legislature/Congress convenes, they majority caucuses and picks the management. The importance of this is, let us say, significant.

Thus endeth my lecture to ticket splitters.

This is the system we have to live with for now.

Here's the real problem: neither you nor I would ever know anything interesting if reporters never went places where they're not welcome, never asked annoying questions, always meekly deferred to the wishes of lawmakers and would-be lawmakers.

heh. indeed. one can only imagine the sheer outrage from Limbaugh and Hannity if every time a reporter got in Hillary's face, she turned, gave them the fish eye and said, "go f*cking pound sand."

here's some small/local government conservatism for ya:

The [GOP sponsored] bill would create new federal crimes for killing, attempting to kill or conspiring to kill a state or local law enforcement officer who works for a police agency that receives federal funding.

....

The legislation would make also it a federal crime to assault any law enforcement officer

huh?

The bill also uses the word kill, not murder, or a phrase like “feloniously kill” or “intentionally kill.” That’s likely the result of sloppy drafting, but at least in theory, it could allow federal prosecutors to bring charges when someone unintentionally causes the death of a police officer, such as in a car accident, or due to some other act of negligence.


but the best (worst) part is that it makes it almost impossible to sue the police!

This means that if the police raid your home with a search warrant for pot and shoot you dead, even if your family can show that the shooting was unlawful, the police would be liable only for something like funeral expenses if they could show that “more likely than not,” you had sold some pot, or at some point possessed a large enough quantity of the drug to merit a felony charge. In some jurisdictions, merely resisting arrest is a felony. In theory, this could mean that under a scenario in which the police falsely arrest you, you resist, and they then severely beat you, if they could show that the beating was the result of your resisting, not the false arrest, you could be barred from suing for anything other than the cost of treating your injuries. If the resisting charge could be filed as an assault, that’s already a felony in most jurisdictions, and even where it isn’t, under this bill it would become a federal felony.

not quite fascism. but "police state" seems pretty apt.

Robert Phillips, one of just a handful of attorneys who take police abuse cases in South Carolina, agrees. “This bill would effectively end all police liability,” Phillips says. “It would end my practice. It would end the practices of the other attorneys who work in this area. It would severely restrict access to the courts. It would basically make it impossible for victims of police abuse to sue anytime, anywhere.”

so much freedom.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad