« Weekend Open Thread | Main | Focus on Nothing »

April 08, 2019

Comments

Francis Bacon admitted that he accepted gifts, but protested that he hadn't allowed them to influence his decisions.

However, he'd omitted to appoint a panel of partisan judges to hear his case, so he was convicted anyway.

Ingenu that I am, I'm shocked by Marty's indifference to this one. This sort of thing doesn't happen in a proper country. Or in any country with a proper president. Whether or not lawyers can be found to defend it.

cleek has been mysteriously silent during this most recent outbreak of MartyTrumpism.

Too busy pulling on the puppet strings? Or is that too old-school?

Perhaps a direct brain-interface wire to impose Cleek's Law. It would be irresponsible not to speculate.

Hey cleek, try turning up the voltage to 10kV; let's see what happens.

cleek is in Scotland.

He has fine photos over at his place.

No, in proper countries people who own real estate business dont get elected I guess.

hotel rooms are not emoluments, by any definition. IP for your name, yes.

"No, in proper countries people who own real estate business don't get elected I guess."

Right up there with Tony P's Thomas Massie in the category of willfully missing the point.

Massie, in any other venue with a mouth on him like that would be on the losing end of a vicious, savage fist fight.

The firing squads will be busy when the time arrives.

I don't see how Kentucky is going to survive as a functioning polity when there are more vermin lining the roads with their heads on pikes than providing support for rube hairdos.

Well, it's true that no properly functioning democracy would have elected a man like Trump in the first place.

But if a businessman is elected, his duty is to ensure that there can be no conflict between his business and his elected office. Which may well mean divesting himself of all interest in the business.

hotel rooms are not emoluments, by any definition

By an 18th century definition, they were. The older meaning is any sort of material gain. I wonder how the soi-disant originalist Trump judges will get out of that.

And if hotel rooms are not covered by "emoluments", using his hotel as a favour to Trump, as foreign governments are openly doing, is a "present" to him. The clause forbids "any present, emolument,..., of any kind whatever".

Only a Trump shill could profess to read the clause as allowing this.

If you owned a packie in downtown DC and people stopped to buy booze there, would you have to sell it to be President? Or if your sister-in-law ran it would that be good enough?

I didnt miss the point, I just dont agree with it.

If lobbyists started patronising it as a favour to me, then yes, of course I should sell it.

If lobbyists started patronising it as a favour to me, then yes, of course I should sell it.

And this has always been understood, by all respectable politicians. Which is why they have divested before taking office. This is precisely the kind of thing which is avoided in all respectable administrations and countries, and is ridiculed and criticised in administrations and countries which flout these norms and are therefore considered gangster entities. We can only hope (but with considerable trepidation) that this is a temporary blip in what is considered acceptable in America.

Let's not forget that Rump leases the building from the federal government. Yet another wrinkle.

So there were three references in the article that agreed with my position, but Blackstone seems to disagree. Only by interpretation of what he wrote previously, which is not actually very on point.

But, I understand your interpretation, and I can see how and why you would come to that conclusion.

I simply disagree that purchssing something in a commonplace transaction from his business is doing him a favor. And, I dont care about him, I care that, by that definition, that no one outside the political class in this country could be President.

Which russell has indicated is an acceptable limitation to him.

I'd say if once you become President, and suddenly traffic picks up directly following your election in the form of long lines of limousines from foreign embassies, the mob, and every corporate entity in the land filling their trunks with the top shelf stuff, not to mention enjoying whatever freebie happy endings can be had from the kidnapped Central American kids imprisoned in cages in the basement, that the liquor store should be firebombed more times than southern black churches are burned to the ground by nutcases on eternal retainer by the racist conservative movement.

Or, and I prefer this avenue, the liquor store can be sold, placed in a hands-off trust, to wit, don't break the fucking law in the first place.

Why not move the liquor store into the Lincoln bedroom and be done with it in stinking corrupt America.

And, I dont care about him, I care that, by that definition, that no one outside the political class in this country could be President.

Why? Because everyone outside the political class owns businesses that could reasonably be assumed to be patronized by foreign dignitaries, lobbyists, or whoever might do so to influence the president? You do see the difference between a luxury hotel on Pennsylvania f**king Avenue and a business in the middle of, say, Pennsylvania(!) that sells car parts or whatever, right?

That hotel (leased from the government of which the president is the highest official, no less) is practically designed for influence by enrichment. It's hard to imagine a more egregious case for this sort of thing. We're not talking about a guy with a tire store in Arkansas.

This reminds me of Scalia's specious argument that torture to obtain information, in advance, does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment", so is not prohibited by US law, on the grounds that you are not "punishing" someone after they have been convicted of a crime.

It is crystal clear, in every civilised country on earth (including the US) that a situation which allows foreign governments to enrich your sitting head of state, in the hopes (no matter whether justified or not) that this will obtain for them preferential treatment, is unacceptable and illegal. To some of the countries doing this (China for example), the quid pro quo expectation is so culturally obvious that it goes without saying, which of course makes it very convenient when a court considering this may be compromised because appointed by the relevant head of state, or when partisans argue from a wilfully naive position of innocence which they certainly would not do if the action in question related to a politician/head of state of the opposing party.

The obvious reading of "presents [or] emoluments ... of any kind whatever" is that it covers all financial advantage. Which is just as one would expect in an anti-bribery clause.

by that definition, that no one outside the political class in this country could be President.

Utter nonsense. By that definition, no one can be President if he owns businesses which can be used to accept gifts in the guise of purchases, and is unwilling to sell them. The only person we know to be excluded by that is Trump.

It's nothing. Really.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-saudi-lobbyist-trump-hotel-election-20181205-story.html

No, in proper countries people who own real estate business dont get elected I guess.

Proper, not proper, whatever.

In *this* country, for decades, Presidents have placed their assets outside of their control. To avoid this exact issue.

Which russell has indicated is an acceptable limitation to him.

And I'm calling you a liar. Don't twist my words to make your case, dude. Make your own case.

Go find it, and show it here. Or stand down from this statement.

Marty does have the current incarnation of the justice department on his side. Down we go!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/09/dojs-new-stance-on-foreign-payments-or-gifts-to-trump-blurs-lines-experts

Murderous Saudi princes need tires too and a good stiff drink afterwards, regardless of the Koran.

"I simply disagree that purchasing something in a commonplace transaction from his business is doing him a favor."

Then stay at the Marriott with the free breakfast.

"commonplace transaction"

See Tony Soprano's so-called legitimate sanitation money-laundering service. With anodyne phraseology like that, you could be a decent mob attorney.

If anything, the taxpayers of the foreign countries, the shareholders and rank and file employees of the corporations, the benefactors of the lobbying firms, and Tony Soprano's kids shouldn't be reimbursing the exorbitant daily per diem these malefactors are handing over to enrich p and his crime family.

Try an eyeglass prescription change to correct the myopia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI8AMRbqY6w

Cribbed from Hullabaloo on the same subject. So sue me.


accepting bribes is completely unacceptable. But it's not a bribe if they pay for a hotel room and stay in it. It may be sucking up to the President but there is nothing new about that.

Depends. If the room rate has been the same for years, you might have a point. If it abruptly went up, it's a different story. Just like, from a different story in the current news, if you sell a college coach a million dollar house for $300K, that's a bribe.

A non-ethically challenged person would divest from the hotel to avoid the mere appearance of being influenced and would do so to preserve public faith in our institutions. Rump ain't that guy.

Oh, I should acknowledge that Marty did distinguish between Obama and Trump from an ethical standpoint. My comment on that was unclear. The Trump-Obama conversation was just what let to the Trump-Clinton conversation. The latter was the source of my frustration.

If you owned a packie in downtown DC and people stopped to buy booze there, would you have to sell it to be President?

If the terms of the lease (he doesn't own the building) specifically says the lease cannot be an employee of the Federal government, as it does, then yeah you have to let it go. Because otherwise you are in violation of your contract.

The membership fee for Mar e Lago went from $100K to $200K. On January 1, 2019.

And, just for the record, russell got the year wrong: the membership fee for Mar-a-lago doubled in January 2017 - the month after Trump was elected.

If you owned a packie in downtown DC, and immediately after your election every embassy in DC began sourcing their hooch from your packie, that would be a reasonable basis for saying you should get the packie at arms length. More than arms length, you should isolate yourself from knowing who is shopping at your packie.

That is the norm, to avoid questions of undue influence.

And, as I and others have pointed out in this thread, that leaves aside the fact that Trump et al are violating the terms of the lease simply by holding it.

This is so freaking obvious that it pains me to have to lay it out. I feel like I'm being trolled, and that pisses me the hell off.

The disparity between what counts as an Obvious Abuse Of Office for (D)s and (R)s, likewise. A tiny bit of self-awareness and candor would go a long way.

Time to go eat lunch, then I have work to do. Enjoy your day.

And, just for the record, russell got the year wrong

Yes, my bad. The increase - the *doubling* - of the membership fee occurred on Jan 1 2017.

But Obama wrote a book, and Al Gore flies in planes. So,

: shruggie :

This is why I say it's a waste of time to try to engage with Trumpies. Making everybody else in the world jump through hoops to discuss simple matters of fact appears to be some kind of parlor game for them.

Trump could, in fact, shoot somebody on Fifth Ave., and his supporters would get his back. They wouldn't even blink.

This is why I say it's a waste of time to try to engage with Trumpies. Making everybody else in the world jump through hoops to discuss simple matters of fact appears to be some kind of parlor game for them.

More than understandable.

Trump could, in fact, shoot somebody on Fifth Ave., and his supporters would get his back. They wouldn't even blink

This is probably true too. And given the re-election (practically speaking) of Netanyahu, the downward momentum of the world going to hell in a handbasket is probably unstoppable too. It's all unutterably depressing, and any course of action that makes it temporarily more bearable, and preserves one's personal sanity (and what energy one has for the fight) makes plenty of sense.

Eheu.

At this point, p shooting of the person on Fifth Avenue would swiftly be masticated and digested by the vermin American political/media alimentary canal as a "commonplace occurrence" and shat out in the form of a gaudy costume jewelry diamond and displayed with rube pride on the wedding ring finger of every p dupe around the globe.

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/i-know-nothing-about-wikileaks-its-not.html

"I know nothing about Wikileaks"

It's in the link, but Marty has no intention of reading it, just as p has not read the Mueller report or Barr's corrupt lying "summary", so here ya go:

Trump to Bill O’Reilly: “Wikileaks is amazing”

The problem is, Bill, I would hammer it, but the press doesn’t pick it up. The press is hardly even talking about Wikileaks. You now that. Wikileaks is amazing. The stuff that’s coming out, it shows she’s a real liar. She said, well, you have to say to the public and you have to say to your donors different things. Okay? The press doesn’t even pick this stuff up. You look at, where are you seeing it? [10/11/16]

Trump: “Wikileaks, some new stuff, some brutal stuff”

We have all of these new charges, did you see it just came down today? Wikileaks, some new stuff, some brutal stuff. I mean I’d read it to you but to hell with it trust me it’s real bad stuff. The speech transcripts contain scandalous revelations about Hillary Clinton that disqualify her from seeking public office. And she is. [10/10/16]

Trump says Wikileaks proves Clinton should not “be able to run for president”

No one who supports open borders should be able to run for president because we won’t have a country. And buy the way weeks ago I called out Hillary Clinton for supporting open borders and the media said I was wrong. Now I’ve been proven right. Where is the media rushing to correct these false stories? Because in the Wikileaks it was all about open borders. [10/10/16]

Trump: “Wikileaks. I love Wikileaks”

Wikileaks, I love Wikileaks. And I said write a couple of them down. Let’s see. During a speech crooked Hillary Clinton, oh she’s crooked folks. She’s crooked as a three-dollar bill. Okay here’s one. Just came out. ‘Lock her up’ is right. [10/10/16]

Trump: “You see so much from these Wikileaks. You see so much. There’s so much.”

It’s just the latest evidence of the hatred that the Clinton campaign really has for everyday Americans and you see, and you see so much from these Wikileaks. You see so much. There’s so much. [10/11/16]

Trump: “I’ll tell you this Wikileaks stuff is unbelievable…you gotta read it.”

I’ll tell you this Wikileaks stuff is unbelievable. It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read it and you gotta maybe get it because they’re not putting it out. They want to put it out but they can’t do that because without the media and without the press Hillary Clinton would be nothing. She’d be nothing. Zero. [10/12/16]

Trump: “One of the big advantages of me having a rather large microphone… is that I can talk about Wikileaks”

And one of the big advantages of me having a rather large microphone, and meaning a lot of people are listening, is that I can talk about Wikileaks and we are live, it’s amazing. Boom boom boom. I think they are just turning them all off. Watch, you go home, they’ll say, ‘why did it end so abruptly?’ [10/12/16]

Trump: “You hear this? Wikileaks. Big stuff but the press does not report it”

You hear this? Wikileaks. Big stuff but the press does not report it because honestly without the press, without the media, Hillary Clinton is nothing. She’s nothing okay? She’s nothing. [10/12/16]
Trump: Wikileaks reveals Clinton would be “the most corrupt person ever elected to high office”


She would be the most dishonest and the most corrupt person ever elected to high office. The Wikileaks emails show the Department of Justice fed information to Clinton, now think of this. She is under investigation. [10/12/16]

Trump: Wikileaks reveals “the massive international corruption of the Clinton machine”

And so now we address the slander and libels that was just last night thrown at me by the Clinton machine and New York Times and other media outlets as part of a concerted, coordinated, and vicious attack. It’s not coincidence that these attacks come at the exact same moment and altogether at the same time as Wikileaks releases documents exposing the massive international corruption of the Clinton machine, including 2,000 more emails just this morning. [10/13/16]

Trump: “The sad part is we don’t talk about Wikileaks because it’s incredible.”

The sad part is we don’t talk about Wikileaks because it’s incredible. But Wikileaks just came out with a lot of new ones. And it would be wonderful if these very dishonest people back there would talk about it. It would be wonderful. It would be wonderful. [10/13/16]

Trump: “Wikileaks unveils horrible, horrible things about Hillary Clinton”

It’s a total setup. Now suddenly after many, many years, phony accusers come out less than a month before one of the most important elections in the history of our country. It also comes at a time as Wikileaks unveils horrible, horrible things about Hillary Clinton but they’d rather talk about this. [10/14/16]

Trump on Wikileaks: “There’s bad, bad stuff [the media is] not covering”

The Hillary Clinton documents released by Wikileaks make more clear than ever, and they don’t cover them the way they’re supposed to be covering. There’s bad, bad stuff they’re not covering. [10/15/16]
Trump: “Wikileaks came out with lots of really unbelievable things”

And by the way, Wikileaks came out with lots of really unbelievable things. Just minutes ago. In fact, I almost delayed this speech by about two hours, it’s so interesting. But I decided you’re more important than anybody, okay? It’s all a big, beautiful fraud. [10/15/16]

Trump: The media “will not talk about Wikileaks”

The media is an extension of the Clinton campaign as Wikileaks has proven, and they will not talk about Wikileaks. [10/17/16]

Trump: “Boy, that Wikileaks has done a job on her, hasn’t it?”

I said open border, and she, open border, I don’t want open border but she, turned out she wanted open borders. Boy, that Wikileaks has done a job on her, hasn’t it? [10/20/16]

Trump: “We’ve learned so much from Wikileaks”

“We’ve learned so much from Wikileaks. For example, Hillary believes it’s vital to deceive the people by having one public policy — [ booing ] — And a totally different policy in private. That’s okay. [10/20/16]

Trump: “We love Wikileaks. Wikileaks.”

We love Wikileaks. Wikileaks. They have revealed a lot. They’ve revealed that there is a great hostility toward Catholics. They reveal a great hostility toward Evangelicals. [10/21/16]

Trump: “A terrible Wikileaks was released just moments ago… you’ll be sickened by it”

A terrible Wikileaks was just released moments ago, which you’ll go home, you’ll see it, and you’ll be sickened by it and that she can get away with what she’s getting away with. [10/25/16]

Trump: “Wikileaks revelations have exposed criminal corruption at the highest levels of our government”

The Wikileaks revelations have exposed criminal corruption at the highest levels of our government. [10/29/16]

Trump: Wikileaks show “a rigged system with more collusion, probably illegal”

Out today, Wikileaks just came out with a new one just a little while ago it’s just been shown that a rigged system with more collusion, probably illegal, between the Department of Justice the Clinton campaign and the State Department, you saw that. The emails show that the assistant attorney general who’s involved in the investigation has been feeding information directly to John Podesta and the Clinton campaign, can you believe that. She shouldn’t be allowed to run. [11/02/16]

Trump: Wikileaks revealed Clinton was “completely jeopardizing the national security of the United States”

Just today we learned Hillary Clinton was sending highly-classified information through her maid. Did you see? Just came out a little while ago. Who, therefore, had total access to this information, completely jeopardizing the national security of the United States. This just came out, Wikileaks. We need a government that can go to work on day one for the American people. That will be impossible with Hillary Clinton, the prime suspect in a far-reaching criminal investigation. [11/05/16]

Liberal and moderate Israelis of all backgrounds should immediately begin massive demonstrations and strikes to shut down the country demanding conservative Netanyahu and his fascist murderous corrupt "coalition" leave the government and when the conservative, nationalist and orthodox Israeli begin murdering their own people in the streets, which they will because that's what conservatives do, explode into savage violence and chaos and the burn the country to the ground.

Rinse and repeat across the globe.

Golly, what convenient timing:

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/ecuador-finally-gets-tired-of-julian-assange/

The intermeshing of subhuman conservative movements across the globe to corrupt every fucking thing is an astounding feat.

Meanwhile, everyone left of center should cheer this guy's execution if only to earn political street credit for the coming executions of the entire right wing in America.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/04/11/so-about-that-avenatti-2020-thing/

John Thullen, you'll be pleased to know that Channel 4 News has just run, as their first item, a series of those clips showing Trump talking about and praising Wikileaks, followed by the latest one (presumably today?) saying "Wikileaks? I don't know Wikileaks, it's not my thing."

During his impeachment trial for violating the Emoluments Clause alone, p will plead: "I know nothing about real estate or the hotel hospitality industry, it's not my thing. I knew a guy who rented a Motel 6 room in Bayonne while he was burying bodies in Jersey, but he was loser."

Then he'll being excused from the Court room because he's too infirm to undergo the stress of justice and his "attorneys" will hand him his sippy cup, and wheel him out with a blanket over his knees while they try to disentangle his oxygen feed from his saline drip tube.

Once in the limo, he'll straighten up, toss away the gangster-on-trial accoutrements, light a cigar (filthy habit, he'll say out of one corner of his crooked mouth as he stokes the flame) and tell his people "Piece of cake, these rubes would buy ice cream out of a dog's asshole if the price was right, meaning extortionary. Now, get me over to Stone's place and make it snappy. He promised to suck me off if I managed to throw them off the scent regarding this little ... "difficulty", heh heh.

Hell, if Hillary had ten percent of my deal chops, I'd hire the c#nt to run one of my side hustles. Send that loser some flowers in her cell at the penitentiary.

But Obama wrote a book, and Al Gore flies in planes. So,

The m.o.appears to be this:

"Trump just shot someone."

"Well, it wasn't on 5th Ave, and besides, Obama once got a parking ticket, so why is it an issue?"

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/04/11/fox-keeps-pushing-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-motivated-tree-life-shooter/223423

So, Trump has a proposal that I can support.

It's a long bus ride to here from the Mexico border, but we'll keep the lights on for them.

A five conservative assholes for one Central American detainee exchange would seem fair, plus we can test the efficacy of the concertina razor wire festooning the wall at the border by coaxing ... gently, with dogs, cattle prods and tear gas .... the conservatives over this side of it into Mexico as a preview of the cultural apocalypse they wax hysterical over.

It would cleanse the voting rolls as well in the sanctuary areas of the country.

Go directly to jail.

Throw them in with the Central American detainees. You may think I want the detainees to tear them to pieces, but I suspect the detainees, most being stellar human beings down on their luck, will make room for them, share their cots and whatever swill p's been feeding them, which doesn't include the milk of human kindness:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-the-law-that-requires-steven-mnuchin-to-turn-over-trumps-taxes-or-lose-his-office-and-go-to-prison?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning

I need the blue dress again in all of its glory. Except this permanent stain is on America the Beautiful:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/barr-must-share-muellers-investigative-work-not-just-his-reportas-doj-did-after-its-clinton-probe?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning

Besides the issue at hand, first, why do conservatives have to be personally threatened, by guns, by measles, by climatic catastrophes, by threats to their gay children, to behave sanely, but also, why do people christened stupidly by their parents inevitably grow up to fulfill their very names?:

The McNutts have it. Dickens couldn't have names this conservative any more accurately.

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/no-permit-gun-carry-bill-dead-after.html

Of course, not one conservative lifts an eyebrow when their fellow conservatives threaten the lives of moderates and liberals.

Gummint? What gummit?

So, Trump has a proposal that I can support.

To the extent that there's a southern-border crisis, this would probably be a reasonably good solution, perhaps a very good solution. Also, to the extent that there's a crisis, it is a humanitarian crisis, not one of violent gangs, drugs, terrorists, or whatever other kind of criminal threat. (That's not to say none of those things exist at all among the people trying to cross the border, but that those things are not at a crisis level.)

Joel Hanes to Marty:

Frankly, I had thought better of you.

Why, Joel? Whatever led you to believe that?

Once a partisan hack, always a partisan hack.

It's the stupid, cruelty.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/04/13/the-assassination-of-congresswoman-omar-has-already-been-planned-many-times-over-and-one-of-the-white-christian-men-who-have-planned-her-assassination-will-carry-it-out/

Lat's have at it. Bring it on, scum.

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-nunes-and-barr-tag-team.html

Let's go all the way to Fort Sumter with this.

Those "real people" called corporations and their votes ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) will be protected with military-grade force from global climate change, but we fucking actual living, breathing humans around the globe will have no government working in the interest of OUR protection, because those very corporations and the vermin republican party have made it so.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/climate-chaos-is-coming-%E2%80%93-and-the-pinkertons-are-ready/ar-BBVQID3

Actual, living humans must become savagely violent in self-defense when the Pinkertons start doing to us what they did to working people who defended their rights 100 years ago.

"why do conservatives have to be personally threatened, by guns, by measles, by climatic catastrophes, by threats to their gay children, to behave sanely"

Not all conservatives (lookin at you wj), but it seems to be a psychological flaw having to do with lack of imagination and empathy.

It is up to us to help those poor, emotionally stunted conservatives grow to their full potential, but inflicting upon them all manner of calamity.

When Devin Nunes is lying in a filthy gutter, broke and cheated out of all of his property, hungry, unemployed, unjustly convicted of heinous crimes, slowly and painfully dying of curable yet uncured diseases, THEN we may say "our work here is done".

Let it be so.

why do conservatives have to be personally threatened, by guns, by measles, by climatic catastrophes, by threats to their gay children, to behave sanely

I'd say that most people find empathy easier when they are actually personally acquainted with the others. (As a group, not individually.) There are, certainly, some people who manage empathy even with those for whom they have no connection at all. (At least none that are apparent to the rest of us.) But they are the exception.

I suspect (on, admittedly, minimal evidence immediately to hand) that the reason that so many conservatives appear to lack empathy is that they don't actually have any connection to lots of people outside their relatively small circle. So they don't relate to problems which afflict others until those problems start to afflict the people that they do have connections with.

In support, note that concern over immigrants is strongest in places where there are the fewest immigrants. There is a correlation between those places and places where there are lots of conservatives. But that correlation isn't where the causation arises. Quite conservative (not to mention relatively rural) areas where there are significant numbers of immigrants are far less worked up over immigration.

I must say wj I'm with Snarki on this. I have seen it dramatically illustrated again and again: liberals and lefties as a group seem to be able to imaginatively enter into the experiences of people they don't know, even if circumstanced very differently from themselves. Conservatives seem to find this much harder, problems have to bite them personally in the arse before they get it. (Which is, presumably, the underlying significance behind Fuck your Feelings.) It always made me laugh when McKinney used Social Justice Warrior as an insult: social justice to anybody with an ounce of empathy is so self-evidently worthwhile and to be striven for that it takes a very odd mindset indeed to twist it into a negative. And that's another funny thing about the hypocrisy of the Christian right:,they seem to have forgotten what Jesus said in the sermon on the mount: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them.

GftNC: And this has always been understood, by all respectable politicians.

Oxymoron: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. respectable politicians).

:)

GftNC. Jesus said a lot of things, the concept that conservatives or Christian's lack empathy is a liberal attempt to paint everyone that disagrees with them as bad or evil.

That's baseless bs.

GftNC: ... they seem to have forgotten what Jesus said in the sermon on the mount: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them.

Jesus plagiarized the sentiment; a committee supplied the translation into 17th-century English. But never mind.

And never mind whether Jesus was divine , or an itinerant Social Justice Warrior , or completely fictitious like the Angel Moroni or Sherlock Holmes. That's for historians and archaeologists to sort out.

The thing to keep in mind is the theological illiteracy of most American Christians. "God helps those who help themselves" is believed by supermajorities of the devout to be a quote from their Holy Book, for instance. Ask the average American bible-thumper how many books the New Testament contains, or even what language this paean to their eponymous deity was written in. Go ahead, ask them.

Al Franken created Supply-Side Jesus in one of his books. Any day now, that chapter of Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them will become the 28th book of the New Standard Revised (Conservative) American edition of the New Testament, though it probably will NOT be titled "The Gospel according to Saint Alan" because why start naming the Gospels after their actual authors now?

Devotees of both He, Trump and Jesus Christ are prone to take their idols figuratively, not literally -- which means, of course, creating their own private mythologies of both their Dear Leader and their Lord and Savior. Beats reading. And makes humorlessness easier to pass off as morality. And to define "morality" or "greatness" as whatever conforms to their own prejudices.

--TP

Ask the average American bible-thumper how many books the New Testament contains, or even what language this paean to their eponymous deity was written in. Go ahead, ask them.

I admit I'm not certain what language the New Testament was written it. (Not least because it was written at so many different times.) For example, I would expect that Paul used either Latin or Greek.

But I am clear that the language that Jesus himself (and the 12 apostles) spoke was Aramaic. (As a rabbi, I expect he spoke Hebrew at services. But in daily life.)

Jesus said a lot of things, the concept that conservatives or Christian's lack empathy is a liberal attempt to paint everyone that disagrees with them as bad or evil.

This is actually not true.

First, many liberals are Christian. And many Christians are liberal.

Second, when you claim an association with Jesus, you make yourself accountable to the bar he set for himself and his followers. Which is actually a pretty high bar, and not one that should be taken on lightly.

Lastly, many people who call Christians - liberal or conservative - to account are not "liberals" trying to "paint everyone who disagrees with them as evil". Quite often they are simply calling out what appears to them to be obvious hypocrisy. Which seems, to me, to be appropriate.

Jesus did "say a lot of things", and many of the things he said were quite challenging. Hard, even, sometimes baffling.

But a lot of what he said was quite clear.

My own personal favorite is the "Sermon at the Shooting Range", where Jesus calls out the Libtards for not knowing the difference between a 'magazine' and a 'clip'.

Tony P: Yes, I am familiar with the origins of the Golden Rule. Despite the jews claiming it as their own I see from Wikipedia that the earliest known example is ancient Egyptian. I quoted Jesus as the source to emphasise the hypocrisy of those people (whatever their political leanings) who claim to be Christians, but neglect this most vital tenet of their faith. And as for the "committee who supplied the translation into 17th-century English", I always use the wording of the Authorised Version of the King James bible when quoting Judeo-Christian scriptures, because whatever the virtues or credibility of the actual content, it is one of the great glories of English literature.

Marty: I am going by personal observation. Wealthy conservatives of my acquaintance who had been perfectly happy with the American healthcare insurance system suddenly saw its flaws when they adopted a child who turned out to have an incurable but long-term-treatable disease.

And as for us SJWs, and rightwingers' (including your and Mckinney's) dismissal of the concept of White Male Privilege, it takes dramatic events to people they know for some people (but generally not liberals) to understand what is happening to people different from themselves:

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/kyle-korver-utah-jazz-nba

State of the Union 2019:

https://youtu.be/uSsUoxlSADk

If only the AG would let us read Chicolini's report...

Love flies out the door when money goes innuendo.

https://25iq.com/2016/01/29/a-dozen-things-i-have-learned-about-investing-and-money-from-groucho-marx/

My unsystematic observation is that leftists are more empathetic, but rightists give more to charity (genuine as well as fake).

Rightists feel more entitled to be rich: leftists feel more entitled to have other people pay for what they want.

Humans, don'tcha just love 'em.

We've been around this maypole before, many times, but I nonetheless am obliged to object.

"Charitable contributions" basically includes anything tax deductible. Some of those things fit the traditional description of charity, others less so.

"Leftists" often consider it reasonable to address social problems through public means. That may or may not, and often does not, result in a net upside to their personal bottom line. Quite often the result is not "other people" paying for what they want, but them paying for things that benefit others.

And all of that seems, to me, to fit into an argument about which side are "better people". Which seems, to me, to be an argument that will never have a useful or satisfactory outcome.

Different people want different things. They have different understandings of what "good" even means. So any argument about what, or who, is "good" is destined to result in impasse.

It is pointless to argue about who is going to "win a race" if there is no common understanding of what the goal line is.

The only discussion to which I can imagine a useful outcome is one where all parties put what they want on the table, and then all parties negotiate to try to get enough of what they feel they need so that they can move the hell on.

A skill we seem to have lost.

We don't all want the same things. Recognize that, and proceed from there.

The only discussion to which I can imagine a useful outcome is one where all parties put what they want on the table, and then all parties negotiate to try to get enough of what they feel they need so that they can move the hell on.

A skill we seem to have lost.

When all compromise is betrayal, and "purity tests" are all the rage, the problem isn't that the skill has been lost. More that the inclination to even try has been lost.

Sounds very much like Brexit - two sides talking past each other.
Angrily.

Remember the good old days and the Great Compromise of 1859? No, you missed that one?

Some compromises, like modified hangout slavery, cannot be attained. Sometimes one side has to win.

The skill to negotiate to compromise is not something that is to be lost, the problem arises out of the intractability of the issue(s) at hand, and the power relationship as between the factions.

Let's start there before we grieve the loss of the ability to compromise.

We do, however, appear at the moment to have rather more issues where compromise is rejected than can be reasonably attributed to the inherent intractability of the issue.

Consider, just for a moment, that we have several issues, from immigration reform to gun control, where there appears to be a substantial majority ("substantial" meaning more than 2/3) of the population in agreement on roughly what should be done. But no sign that the politicians are willing to pass the legislation.

Blaming "the politicians" is passing the buck to some extent. For instance, campaign money from the NRA would not be enough to bribe "the politicians" into voting against any and every gun control proposal without the concomitant threat that the NRA can mobilize the gun-fetishist faction of The People on election day.

--TP

It's kind of like blaming the media for prioritizing sensational content that attracts readers/viewers/listeners. Who are the readers, viewers, and listeners?

It's perfectly legitimate to put something on the table and make it clear that it is not negotiable.

We do, however, appear at the moment to have rather more issues where compromise is rejected than can be reasonably attributed to the inherent intractability of the issue.

Then something else is going on, and getting to the heart of that matter is much more important than wasting time crying tears over the "loss" of the "ability to compromise".

We do, however, appear at the moment to have rather more issues where compromise is rejected than can be reasonably attributed to the inherent intractability of the issue.

It is very hard to strike compromises when the negotiators' incentive is to satisfy their more extreme principals.

I remember reading that those charged with negotiating complex agreements, like union contracts for example, often felt that they, the actual negotiators, were somewhat allied in opposition to their respective principals. One result was they sounded much more hostile to their counterpart in public than in private sessions, where it was understood to be a sham. Another was that they collaborated in making the deals palatable to the other side.

Why doesn't Congress work that way? Maybe because the negotiators - members - don't care as much about making a sensible deal as they do about catering to the extremists.

(I cannot, however, stop myself from saying that this seems to be much more true of R's, of whom it seems almost unanimously true, than D's)

Why doesn't Congress work that way? Maybe because the negotiators - members - don't care as much about making a sensible deal as they do about catering to the extremists.

I understand the hazard of confusing correlation and causation. But I observe that the ability of members of Congress to work together, regardless of party, took a nosedive when members started leaving their families home in their district, and going home every weekend.

As opposed to when they spent their evenings and weekends socializing with each other at things like PTA meetings. Then, they were actually social friends, not just media opponents.

wj, afaik there was a deliberate push by the ideological GOP leadership to stop that fraternizing with the enemy (with iirc Gingrich a driving force behind that). Private comity could bleed into political and that's a no-no for a leadership that has made 'no compromise' an 'do not take yes for an answer' its strategic core.

afaik there was a deliberate push by the ideological GOP leadership to stop that fraternizing with the enemy (with iirc Gingrich a driving force behind that).

I recall something like that as well. But what made Gingrich's push actually work was members losing the informal opportunities that accrued from being neighbors. Whether he was responsible for the change to only being in session 3 days a week, which enables the commute model, I don't recall.

It wasn't something "like that", it WAS THAT.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/

Long read, but obviously at this late date, we need to review in detail the deliberate fucking up the ass these villains planned and succeeded in imposing on the United States of America and its government and political culture.

And, yes, Gingrich, and Luntz, now working for the vermin in the White House, instituted the 3-day sessions per week.

Not only would conservative radicals not fraternize with the enemy, they would sleep in their offices and bunk like cadres together in their man caves shielded from the "corrupting" influence of Washington D. C. across the aisle, read now, chasm.

Their wives and children stayed at home in their districts rather than move to Washington D.C. so as to avoid the "herpes" of rubbing shoulders with liberal "democrat" wives and children.

Gingrich and his smooth-talking Rasputin .. Luntz along with the rest of the leaders of the malign conservative movement, now metastasizing around the globe, see Brazil, see Israel, see Russia, see Hungary all adopting Gingrich's and now p's turnkey methods..... are the architects of today's utterly dysfunctional, uncivil, crippled government catastrophe, except of course for its martial, fascist, repressive functions.

p, of course, being the apotheosis, but these filth have even worse in the hopper for us.

Gingrich models his machinations on the viciousness of the animal kingdom, read the link, that's out of his own rancid mouth. And the "religious" cocksuckers are full in with the republicans and p and their ruthless, messianic, animalistic red in tooth and claw power struggles.

You know what happens in the animal kingdom, where dominance dominates.

They fucking kill each other.

Just so.

Let's get to it.

How many sequels of this morphing catastrophe do we need:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L5kzBNFAFs

Wonder what would happen if the Speaker of the House were to simply reinstitute sessions 5 days a week....

Just a thought.

Nothing.

It'd just be rouge on the corpse of yet another American institution.

Well maybe. On the other hand, it might drag members back to living, with their families, in the area. (At least for those outside the east coast.) Could be worth a try.

Might also make Congress more productive. A mixed blessing, perhaps, but....

IIRC, in Pelosi's previous turn as Speaker, a "5 day workweek" WAS instituted.

And there was much GOP whining. Eventually stifled because "shut up, you overpaid lazy slackers" eventually had an effect.

Does anyone happen to know if the previous change resulted in some of the members going back to moving their families to DC? Or had the new "normal" settled in.

I think they called Pelosi a Stalinist for the additional forced workload.

Paul Ryan flew home every weekend on my ticket.

Good riddance.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/tennessees-gop-house-passes-bill-targeting-voter-registration-drives

This sort of thing from the usual suspects trying to stifle the voting franchise is why this might be disturbing news:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/nra-sues-nratv-oliver-north-grift-lawsuit

I don't want the NRA to go broke and out of business just yet, though in good savage time, my pretties, while we still need the military-grade weaponry they make it possible for us to own to defend ourselves against Tennesseee republicans, not to mention the rest of this monstrosity.

But, meanwhile, popcorn. Hold the butter.

https://www.justsecurity.org/63660/is-trump-a-russian-agent-explaining-terms-of-art-and-examining-the-facts/

via Cheryl Rofer at BJ

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/16/the-tax-day-outrage-you-dont-know-about/

It's the first cent of tax, not the high marginal dollar, I pay to ANY Republican government that makes me want to relieve myself on the tree of liberty.

Don't govern me, or else!

The campaign theme song will be "All the Girls I've Molested Before", a knock-off of the old Iglesias/Nelson gagger.

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/alabama-republicans-still-love-judge.html

About "tax reform":

Just filed my tax returns for 2018. All-new Form 1040 is a hoot. "Your tax return on a postcard" my aunt Fanny. They reduced the 1040 to about half the page on each side of a normal sheet of paper (a 2-sided postcard, I guess) by moving a bunch of items onto separate "schedules".

I had to calculate my sole-prop income on "Schedule C" as usual, but then I had to transcribe it into the new "Schedule 1" before entering it into the "postcard". I had to calculate my self-employment tax on "Schedule SE" as usual, but then I had to transcribe it into the new "Schedule 4" before entering it into the "postcard". I had to file the new "Schedule 5" just to report a single number: the amount of my 2017 refund that I left in care of the IRS to be applied to my 2018 taxes; that used to be a single line on the old 1040 but I guess they had no room for it on the new, improved "postcard" version.

Such is the comedy resulting from long-standing GOP talking points. Actually, what's even funnier is how many Americans who can tie their own shoes fall for this kind of joke.

--TP

The prospect of running against Moore again might be just about the best news Senator Jones could hope for. There's a temptation to say "They couldn't possibly be dumb enough to nominate Moore again!" But the evidence is pretty clear that they could.

wj, cynic that I am I fear it might even work. Outrage fatigue ('old news') on one side and extra mobilisation on the other in order not to lose the senate. Plus some investment in a finely targeted 'Jones too conservative' campaign to deter just enough young Democrats from voting.
A different GOPster would mean new risks (and thus interesting ones to the media unlike the boring old ones about Moore).

I'm considering changing my voter registration to the R side, forgive me, so I can vote for Bill Weld in the primary in 2020 and then of course go full ticket D in the general.

If Mussolini runs too against p in the primary, maybe I'll vote for the former instead, since he's already in the qualifying state that I prefer republican politicians: Dead.

Tony P. new, improved "postcard" version.

The demographic that actually knows what a "postcard" is declines inexorably.

Soon you'd have to say "it's like a tweet, but on a dead tree". Later you'd have to explain what a 'tree' is.

So, this is happening in my hometown as we breath:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/04/the-armed-citizen

Did he or did he not cut down the cherry tree?

He did, he did:

https://juanitajean.com/uh-oh-they-told-the-truth/

Cue the death threats from the conservative George Washington cultists.

The timbers in the structure of American democracy have become dry flammable tinder a la Notre Dame and p is soaking them in gasoline so when it goes, it will be gone in one catastrophic sun-hot catastrophe.

Anyone got a match?

Someone on twitter had the rather splendid idea of having Barr redact the opening of A Tale of Two Cities....

"It was the best of times,(redacted...) it was the age of wisdom, (redacted...) it was the epoch of belief, (redacted...), it was the season of Light, (redacted...), it was the spring of hope, (redacted...), we had everything before us, (redacted...) we were all going direct to Heaven, (redacted...) – in short, the period was (redacted....) superlative ..."

Kudlowian, that!

"Oh, say, can you (redacted)?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-and-co-are-crossing-big-bright-red-linesand-theyre-getting-away-with-it?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-report-is-pure-mischief-trumps-former-lawyer-john-dowd-says?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning

My suggestion is to fly in airborne tankers full of flammable liquids and dump them on the White House and Capitol Hill to extinguish the smoldering dumpster fire rot of the corrupt, malign conservative movement.

Alternatively, we could scrap the faulty software, install new code and algorithms, and rebrand and rename the country before it plunges nose first to its death, killing everyone on board.

The dupes, the grifters won't know, or care, if packaged properly. It's all presentation, is all, right?

America sucks its own d888!

Oh my effing God:

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/04/17/fox-guest-ken-starr-questions-whether-full-mueller-report-can-be-fair-and-balanced-because-muellers/223479

Starr co-conspirator Kavanaugh is quickly gathering every blue dress worn by his female classmates and assault victims and putting them thru an industrial spin cycle.

Out, damned spot!

Here, try some club soda.

If that doesn't work, drop a nuclear warhead on the conservative movement.

Clean it up.

Subhumans.

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/fox-news-obama-bizarroworld.html

There will be blood.

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/fox-news-obama-bizarroworld.html

There will be blood

Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs have got to feel .... superceded:

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/trump-has-sympathy-for-russian.html

All my life, fucking conservatives have accused everyone to the left of Barry Goldwater and Joe McCarthy of doing the work of the commie Russkies.

There was always some fat right wing vermin and his pals at school board meetings, city council meetings, in the letters to the editors sections of the daily paper accusing perfectly innocent citizens of doing the work of the worldwide commie movement by advocating for revising school textbooks, fluoridating water, raising mill levees by .001 cent to finance public libraries, putting in crosswalks at busy intersections, pick yer poison.

But now, and for the next 65 years all conservatives and republicans in this country will be suspects, hiding under every bed, subverting western civilization, taxing me even one fucking cent, you will be harassed, surveilled, phonetapped, blackballed, your FBI gummint files thickening every year with incriminating data regarding your aiding and abetting of the most flagrant example of treason in U.S. history, your sympathy with the Russian devil duly noted in your curriculum vitaes, your reading material tracked, your internet activity red-flagged, you are going to live the life.

It'll be great, just like the fun you dumb lot have had over the past 65 years fucking your fellow citizens over.

Start looking over your shoulders now. Keep low profiles. Watch what you say and write.

We're on to you. We are watching you.

We will turn your children and grandchildren against you, traitors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF4zuNzEaxU

A segment of a powerful TED talk by Carole Cadwalladr, calling Zuckerberg, Sandberg, Brin, Page, Dorsey et al (by name) to account for the subversion of democracy which they have enabled, and asking them if this is how they want to be remembered, on the wrong side of history and as the "handmaidens of authoritarianism".

https://twitter.com/TEDTalks/status/1118280949991714817

All my life, fucking conservatives have accused everyone to the left of Barry Goldwater and Joe McCarthy of doing the work of the commie Russkies.

Ah, but the accused back then were mostly Baby Boomers. AKA hippy wierdos. Who are now the elderly backbone of the conservative movement. Same people. Same support for Russia.

See, nothing really changes. It just seems like it did. ;-)

Ah, but the accused back then were mostly Baby Boomers.

Silent generation. Trump was conceived prior to the end of WWII. Doesn't count as a baby boomer, and neither does anyone his age or older.

Plenty of Baby Boomers are Republican jerks, but don't confuse the issue.

Trump was conceived prior to the end of WWII.

Must have been a long pregnancy. He was born about nine and one-half months after the end of WWII.

Must have been a long pregnancy. He was born about nine and one-half months after the end of WWII.

Normal pregnancy in other words.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)