« Paris burning | Main | Where I'm at »

April 18, 2019

Comments

I think Marty can rest easy.

bobbyp, I think that article is outdated. They've stuffed a sock into Steny.

First, I favor impeachment, as I've stated.

Second, Democrats are worried about quickly impeaching, then handing the narrative to the Republicans in the Senate. The new strategy is that we move towards impeachment with more investigations and fact gathering, so that we keep the ball in our court as long as possible before handing it to Mitch McConnell and his band of Rudy Giulianis. I think that's a fair approach as long as impeachment is the ultimate end game.

Hoyer is always the first to cower.

Yes, the p/republican axis are haters. They are fucking Evil:

https://twitter.com/Zeddary/status/1118977188047609856

They once hated the Russkies too, until Putin decided to confirm their stronger domestic biases in the service of ..... we don't really know what yet, do we?

A comedian was just elected President of the Ukraine. No campaign ... all via social media.

A comedian.

At least the Ukrainian comedian is a professional.

Power isnt the goal, saving the country from Democratic Socialism is.

So, definitions are important here.

First, the people holding national office who refer to themselves as Democratic Socialists can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Second, none of them are Democratic Socialists. They don't want public ownership of the means of production. They don't want a planned economy. What they are, are social democrats.

Basically, they are interested in extending the "welfare state" to include public support for things like health insurance and higher education.

Those are things about which reasonable people can have reasonable discussions. As long as we're clear what exactly it is we're talking about.

The question I have for people who want to "save the country" from things like that is this:

What if "the country", which is to say the people who live here, want those things? By what right do you tell them they can't have them?

The essence of our project as a nation is self-government, in a republican form, under the rule of law. If we want the public sector to be involved in providing health insurance, or higher education, then that is what should happen.

This whole party before country bs is tiresome.

That was my comment, and it wasn't about you. It was about the likes of the (R)'s in the Senate.

I stand by it.

The same is true of the whole voting third party "ensuring" Trump won.

To my knowledge, nobody here has criticized you for voting third party.

See the autocrats are you. Either agree with me or you're evil and hateful.

First, you are describing intolerance, not autocracy.

Second, we are actually at a place where things under public discussion have consequential moral and ethical dimensions. We're also at a place where actual malice is a normal part of the discourse on offer from the office of the POTUS and his supporters.

"Fuck you feelings" is, actually, a hateful thing to say. As are "lock her up", and "Mexico is sending us murderers and rapists".

A lot of people try to finesse that by saying, well I don't like what he says, but I support him because I like the policies.

Leaving aside whether the policies themselves are evil or hateful, there is a limit to the amount of daylight you can put between those things. At a certain point, you have to draw a line and say that certain things are unacceptable, and find other ways to achieve the policies you want.

And, in some cases, the evil and hatefulness of the policies themselves are kind of an open question.

Lines have been crossed. We're not just talking about differences of opinion anymore.

There are some things that inspire intolerance, and correctly so.

Interesting debate on whether to impeach here:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/impeach-trump-mueller-report-maybe-hmm.html

My own view FWIW is that p should go in front of a court, but not one that is packed in his favour by a majority already decided to acquit.

And in the meantime, investigate the crap out of him.

IMO the grounds for impeachment are open and shut. Leaving aside the question of collaboration with the Russians, Trump obviously attempted to interfere with the investigation.

It's also clear that, at this point, the Senate (R)'s will never find him guilty.

So, it's a political calculation for the (D)'s in the House as to whether it's worth doing or not.

Above my pay grade.

But hell yeah, the House leadership should dig into this stuff. They are obliged to do so. The Senate is, too, for that matter, but they will not.

Party before country.

To my knowledge, nobody here has criticized you for voting third party.

I probably did. If not, I'll do it now. People who voted third party decided that risking Donald Trump was worth it. It wasn't worth it, even to save the country from scary Hillary. Trump is Putin's puppet. Although Donald [Johnson the commenter here] doesn't acknowledge the Russia factor, I agree with him that Trump is also beholden to other dictators. He's a fraudster, a liar, and (for those who care) a horrible husband. He has his own personal mafia, and is connected closely to other mafia networks. He's scum. Thanks for making him President of the United States. I have nothing but contempt for people who contributed to that, including those who voted third party.

the grounds for impeachment are open and shut. Leaving aside the question of collaboration with the Russians, Trump obviously attempted to interfere with the investigation.

It's also clear that, at this point, the Senate (R)'s will never find him guilty.

That pretty much sums it up.

"What if "the country", which is to say the people who live here, want those things? By what right do you tell them they can't have them?"

Then "the country" will vote against my preferences and my desire to save the country will have failed. Their desire to save the country will have succeeded.

My right is to adamantly proselytize and vote for my solutions, just like their rights, without being called names, told what I believe or that the people I vote for just want power while the people they vote for just want what's best for the country.

I and, I believe, we are fighting for what's best for the country and having to make a much harder choice than any Democrat. We have to stand our ground in spite of his constant embarrassing actions. Nothing would be easier than jumping on the impeachment/get rid of him at all costs bandwagon.

I think the cost is too high. I believe your estimate of the changes the left will make is too conservative. I have a right to fight for that opinion.

We have to stand our ground in spite of his constant embarrassing actions.

What a joke. Or a failure.

You have an entire Republican party. You can't come up with something better than this? You have to appeal to racism and hate and foreign dictatorship support to get your "policies"? What are your policies, Marty? What kind of country do you want? Guns and hating immigrants and hating poor people? What a nightmare.

Donald Trump is scum. And you're good with that.

By the way, you try to paint yourself as a hero, turning America into Scum, because you're willing to support s**tbag to get your extra money.

I can't even.

Marty: My right is to adamantly proselytize and vote for my solutions, just like their rights, ...

My Right Honorable Friend Marty is absolutely correct about that. Not only do I agree he has the right to "proselytize", but I heartily support his doing so. It makes him feel good, and it amuses me, and that's all that matters to yours truly, the world's most selfish communist.

... without being called names, told what I believe or that the people I vote for just want power while the people they vote for just want what's best for the country.

There, however, my Right Honorable Friend goes off the rails. Persons who "proselytize" on the World Wide Web and then protest about being told they're nuts, think way too highly of themselves. I do not suggest that their high self-regard arises out of some peculiar sense of entitlement, but I wouldn't bet against it either.

If I might venture to advise the Right Honorable Marty, let me suggest this: if your sincere desire is to "save" a "country" which includes ME, then consider framing your proselytizing in terms of why your preferred "(Republican) policies" will make MY life, and not just your own, better in some way. Let me warn you, however, that YOUR notion of what MY definition of "better" is may be misguided. I cannot promise to coddle your tender feelings in that case. Not on the World Wide Web, and not in what we laughably call "real life".

--TP

Good on you, Tony P. Thank goodness for good people.

Then "the country" will vote against my preferences and my desire to save the country will have failed. Their desire to save the country will have succeeded.

Yes, that's about right. And "people like me" will be working for that in the face of profoundly anti-democratic institutions baked into the Constitution, a generation of gerrymandering, and numerous legal efforts on the part of the (R)'s to suppress (D) votes.

We all have our burden to bear. The (R)'s chose theirs.

I believe your estimate of the changes the left will make is too conservative.

You're entitled to your beliefs, but it's not in evidence.

The Green New Deal is the outer limit if what the D's are asking for. Excluding the guaranteed job thing, it's infrastructure, public support for higher education and health care, and a change in existing industrial policy toward renewable energy.

That is as crazy as it gets. And it has way less than universal support among (D)'s.

You have an entire Republican party. You can't come up with something better than this?

It's worse than that, actually. Other folks *were* on offer, and Trump was chosen from among them.

Trump may end up destroying the (R) party. If so, it'll be an own goal.

Trump may end up destroying the (R) party. If so, it'll be an own goal.

I hope that's what he destroys. I think he's going to destroy the country. Obviously (with respect to you, russell, who believes in the fortitude of people and their communities, and thank you for that optimism), he won't destroy all of us. But he's destroying the government, and we'll have a lot to rebuild if we manage to take it back. And the government is majestic.

We have to stand our ground in spite of his constant embarrassing actions.

Yeah, sure. You "have to" stand your ground" to defend somebody who combines many of the ugly attributes of Joe Stalin, Bernie Madoff, Ben Tillman, Jay Gould, and Harvey Weinstein.

Now there is something to be proud of.

As much as I may criticize the current manifestation going by the name of "The Democratic Party" (of which I am a member), they would never in a thousand years nominate somebody like Donald Trump...He is not just embarrassing, he is a fucking fraud, a crook, congenital liar, an authoritarian, and a narcissistic asshole.

But you defend this guy to "save the country"?

Really?

Really?

If you ever, and I mean ever, come on to this board and indict lefties because they "believe the ends justify the means" (a favorite McKinney trope) I will simply reply, "Go fuck yourself".

Here's what Marty apparently want to "save the country from":

A reasonable national health care policy that is easily accessible and available to all regardless of income.

A woman's right to chose to carry a pregnancy to term or not.

A more liberal and rational immigration policy coupled with a path to citizenship for those who entered our country without Marty's approval.

Public policies that would not only encourage, but actually reduce vast disparities of wealth and income, as opposed to policies explicitly designed to favor the wealthy and powerful.

Public policies that would severely punish verifiable acts of racism.

Now me, I am an extremist outlier. I opine that private property is essentially a form of theft. But the policies that Marty opposes, listed above, are pretty mild beer if you ask me.

Then "the country" will vote against my preferences and my desire to save the country will have failed. Their desire to save the country will have succeeded.

Would it be rude to point this out?

"The country" did vote against. By some 3 million votes in 2016. And by something over 8.5 million votes in 2018. Unfortunately, their desire to save the country doesn't appear to have succeeded. Yet.

"The country" did vote against. By some 3 million votes in 2016.

Similarly in 2000 "the country" voted for Al Gore over George W. Bush. It is important to not let this fact go down the memory hole.

GWB was elected 5-4 by a partisan Supreme Court.

It was them snooty city folks not down-to-earth country that voted for them elitist fops. Going by the acre there is no question who the o'erwhemlming favorite always was.
Old Trump Donald may not have a farm but real estate comes close enough for him to be esteemed proper country folk. An lookin at how he swings his golf club, ye see that he is far more familiar with a hoe. Didn't ye hear that he spend hundreds of thousands of $$$ on hoes? An them media puffs try to make that look dirty. Tilling the land is dirty ye ignorant townies but in a honest way ye'll never grasp.
Hm, where did I put them hayseeds again? Did one of ye popinjays palm them?

By some 3 million votes in 2016.

3 million is the difference between votes for Clinton and votes for Trump.

The difference between votes for Trump and votes for not-Trump was more like 10 million.

Votes for Hillary versus votes for not Hillary was 4 million. It's always losers that complain about the rules.

please, defend the Electoral College.

Wether 3 million (Trump) or 500.000 (Bush), I would be careful with these type of arguments.

Elevating a razor thin majority to something like "the country" is inherently dangerous, whoever does it. It excludes a large part of the voters from the political process and doing this while proclaiming the winners to represent "the will of the people" is a key populist tactic. Another danger is that it can lead to the dismantling of the representative elements of democracy. Finally, just because the majority wants something, doesn't mean it's right.

Granted, I have a UK perspective and having been excluded from "the people" for the past 3 years makes me particularly critical of such views. (not that I'm a fan of FPTP or the electoral college for that matter).

It’s not all bad news - a significant majority of Republican voters believe that climate change should be taught in schools:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/439962-poll-two-thirds-of-republicans-believe-climate-change-should-be
(Though only half of them say its effects should be discussed...)

And following the credible roadmap to zero carbon emissions published recently, there’s another rational proposal towards a global approach for the rest of the environment:
https://phys.org/news/2019-04-life-earth-billion-a-year-solution.html

As far as protecting our future is concerned, it remains imperative to kick Trump out of office in 2020.
Marty’s inchoate fears of social democracy don’t even register on the scale.

the party of Conspicuous Patriotism and Traditional Family Values is surprisingly quick to find ways to excuse the traitorous Russia-coddling, porn-star-fucking, daughter-lusting, serial-bankrupting, vote-losing, serial-divorcee.

that's the best part of Trumpism - the mad dash by "conservatives" to abandon everything the GOP previously claimed to stand for just so they can support this pathetic compromised ignoramus. it's all gone. all those years of Bible-thumping and flag-waving and Constitution-fetishism to build the reputation of being the party of God and country and rule of law: they just flushed it down Trump's golden toilet.

and in reality, they'd get their precious justices and their xenophobia and myriad small-minded bigotries from literally any other Republican - without Trump's "constant embarrassing actions", too. there's nothing special about Trump. none of his successes in office are due to him - they're just the what the office provides for. any Republican would have the same outcomes. but no. they're so committed to not ever admitting that a liberal was right about anything that they're going to let the crass criminal clown Trump continue to embarrass them and the country, while destroying their own party's carefully-constructed brand, rather than drop him and let Pence deliver the goodies.

"hard choices"? no, the choice is trivially simple. impeach Trump, then let Pence run things. you lose nothing. you even get to go back to pretending to care about the rule of law! let the moralizer absolve you of your association with the adulterer.

"Trump may end up destroying the (R) party. If so, it'll be an own goal."

We'll have the photos of those who proudly stood, and fell, with him:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2393419/selfie-deaths

Power isn't the goal, saving the country from Democratic Socialism is.

Marty, would you have voted for Mussolini in 1924 against the Unitary Socialist Party and its allies? If not why not?

Votes for Hillary versus votes for not Hillary was 4 million. It's always losers that complain about the rules.

Which still doesn't come close to the 2018 difference now, does it?

Sometimes it is, indeed, losers who complain about the rules. But then, it wasn't a Democrat who characterized increasing voter registration as "a power grab." By which Mitch meant that he knew he'd lose if the rules were followed as written.

GFTNC's Carole Cadwalladr's crusade gains some traction on this side of the Atlantic.

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/04/a-viral-warning-by-bloggersrus.html

Seemingly off-topic, but not if consider the corrupt, cheating, election-stealing worldwide "p/conservative" movement a monolithic, coordinated thing.

Seemingly off-topic, but not if consider the corrupt, cheating, election-stealing worldwide "p/conservative" movement a monolithic, coordinated thing.

Not really seeing monolithic. And while there is some mutual cheering, not seeing much coordination either.

Except that the Russians are wading in to help wherever they can and however they can. But that's support, not really coordination. Yet.

Sapient,

I have nothing but contempt for people who contributed to [electing Trump], including those who voted third party.

Me too.

Voting is not self-expression. It's about choosing political leaders. Voters have an obligation to everyone else to act rationally.

If you hate Trump, vote for Clinton, and vice versa.

wj, it's the kind of meddling the US used to love when done by the US to others, so in a sense it's just desserts. The problem is a double one. Far too many USians can't drop the notion that it's OK if the US do it and still too many see no problem when the meddling at home is in one own's perceived favor.

Votes for Hillary versus votes for not Hillary was 4 million.

4 is less than 10.

It's always losers that complain about the rules.

A thoughtful reply. I guess you showed me!

Finally, just because the majority wants something, doesn't mean it's right.

There are a significant number of barriers to mob rule baked into the US Constitution and our legal institutions in general.

Separation of powers, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights. A bicameral legislature, one house of which is explicitly non-democratic.

The Electoral College has devolved from the body of elite, informed arbiters of the popular will, to a regime where all of the electors in any given state except two dutifully cast all of their votes for whichever candidate had the most votes in their state. Electors are not chosen for their maturity and wisdom, they are chosen for their loyalty to whatever party they belong to.

Basically, the Electoral College is a scheme for electing a POTUS by rounding up the popular vote at the state level. Which is not really what was intended, nor does it serve any useful purpose other than making hotel rooms and media buy rates really expensive in "swing states" every four years.

The POTUS and VPOTUS are the only two national elected positions that are intended to represent all of the people. They should be elected by the people. Not the states, not the electors. The electoral college should go away. It no longer fulfills whatever purpose it was originally created for, and that original purpose is questionable to begin with.

Welp, wj is a wait-until-we-see-the whites-of-their-eyes kind of guy. %-!

I don't know, American paleo-conservatives were all over the old Soviet monolith secretly running the U.S. and Brit government shows from 1920 on, but now 100 years later KGB Putin, p, and the Brexiteers hold hands, cut ribbons, and announce "solidarity" across national borders in clear daylight and it's "nothing to see here" and, in fact, if you read the spectrum of writers at The American Conservative, from Pat Buchanan on down, with the exception of Larison in most cases, the global right-wing is interlinking arms with Putin and doing vodka shots.

Who will follow Pompeo, that cuck, as Secretary of State? Alger Hiss Junior?

I've never seen anything like like this switch-o-change-o as a historical spectacle across "the swamp of time", as Bob Dylan put it.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-extremists-are-training-right-wing-terrorists-from-western-europe

So which is it, I'm asking the Putin/Buchanan /p/republican Axis, is George Soros a commie plant, meddling Jew, as right-wing vermin held him to be not so awfully long ago, or a Nazi-sympathizing, meddling Jew as right wing vermin also held to be not too long ago or a liberal, capitalist, globalist, meddling Jew, as he is now held in low esteem by the usual vermin right wing suspects, and I include Netanyahu among those latter suspects, across the globe?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2018/03/01/why-populists-hate-george-soros-and-how-it-started/#1793659e13d0

Well, it's the usual populist, right-wing, bottom line murderous crap throughout the eons: Soros is a Jew .. period.

The other adjectives are mere convenient descriptive plug-ins to further the right-wing, populist conservative conquest of the Other.


The monolith:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=parody+of+the+monolith+in+2001

That last link should be:

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

The monolith is whatever the right-wing wants it to be so they can rest in its shade after destroying the Other.

Welp, wj is a wait-until-we-see-the whites-of-their-eyes kind of guy.

More like I see a distinction between being soul-mates and actually working in coordination. Soul mates I will grant you. It's the rest that I don't see evidence for.

The penis as monolith:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-fed-pick-stephen-moore-wrote-columns-criticizing-female-involvement-in-sports-2019-04-22?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

Minor quibble, JDT, the Brexiteers are not the British government, but merely a large subset thereof.

Otherwise we’d already have left.

Voting is not self-expression. It's about choosing political leaders. Voters have an obligation to everyone else to act rationally.

What if both candidates / parties violate one or more of your core principles? Forcing someone to betray these is hard for obvious reasons and a utilitarian calculus only goes so far. Furthermore the actual outcomes is more often than not a drift to the right, so you're getting screwed in the long run as well.

This problem only comes up because of the 2-party system in the US and (for the most part) the UK - coalition governments are actually the norm in many successful democracies making the issue less relevant there.

What if both candidates / parties violate one or more of your core principles? Forcing someone to betray these is hard for obvious reasons and a utilitarian calculus only goes so far.

I would say that, at that point, the question becomes: Is one of the two substantially worse than the other? If not, then a third party may be a rational choice. But if one is substantially worse, then the rational choice is to vote for the less bad candidate. It certainly is not a happy choice, but sometimes "the alternatives are worse" is something that must be recognized.

"Voting is not self-expression. It's about choosing political leaders. Voters have an obligation to everyone else to act rationally.

If you hate Trump, vote for Clinton, and vice versa."

I accept this for myself--I vote lesser evil. But I don't accept it as a reason to browbeat others. Democrats have been using this argument online for many years now and I think it has a problem--it puts all the moral responsibility on the voter and none on the two political parties or the politicians. All the politician or the party has to do is be less bad than the other side and then it becomes everyone's absolute moral duty to vote for them.

And then the argument gets extended a little further--you can't criticize them very much either. Or at all. Or run against them in primaries. Etc...

So getting back to myself--I have zero interest in third parties and will vote lesser evil, but if I am going to be self-righteous on some subject, and of course I am, it's going to be about something other than a theory of how one is supposed to vote for politicians while politicians have zero responsibility to take positions that make voting for them attractive (as opposed to a chore you do to oppose the other person who is even worse.)

Donald: a model of sense, as is often the case.

GFTNC's Carole Cadwalladr's crusade gains some traction on this side of the Atlantic.

When I posted it here, I just posted a 3 minute snippet. But actually, the whole 15 minutes is well worth a watch:

https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy?language=en

novakant,

What if both candidates / parties violate one or more of your core principles? Forcing someone to betray these is hard for obvious reasons and a utilitarian calculus only goes so far.

Well, that depends on the core principles involved, I'd say. I can imagine some that would convince me the third-party vote was fine, but I have a hard time seeing any such at play in recent elections. What core principle caused Nader voters to prefer Nader to Gore, or Bush for that matter? Why Jill Stein?

Donald,

Criticizing self-righteousness is all well and good, but may I suggest you turn your attention to third-party voters. You'll find plenty there.

Remember kids, an armed society is a polite society:

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-city-county-meetings-expletive-curse-racial-slur-language-20190419-story.html

The LA Supervisors need to keep visible loaded AR-15's on the table next to them and maybe fire off a few short bursts over the heads of their mostly right-wing, bigoted, racist constituents.

Let's test conservative NRA libertarian dogma and see where it goes.

Byomtov—

The self righteousness part wasn’t the point—on that my view is that almost everyone ( definitely including me ) who is caught up in arguing about politics becomes self righteous. We just manifest it in different ways on different issues.

My point was that the argument that we have to vote for one of the two main parties places all the responsibility on the voters and none on the candidate, except not to be as bad as the other side. We owe the candidate our vote. They owe us nothing, except to be less bad than the other side. I think it is in reality an ideological argument in favor of the status quo disguised as a civic virtue argument, even though I happen to agree that third party voting in our system doesn’t seem to accomplish anything useful.

Gftnc— thanks.

Donald,

That makes sense.

an armed society is a polite society

But ONLY if there are no consequences for shooting someone who is rude. Most places, rudeness is not considered an appropriate capital offense. YMMV

They are rude and they have the guns.

Funny how they work that.

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/04/22/after-caller-suggests-there-would-have-been-revolution-if-mueller-accused-trump-crimes-rush-limbaugh/223533

They are rude and they have the guns.

Thus, I note, disproving the earlier thesis.

This
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/muellers-findings-too-stupid-to-conspire-too-incompetent-to-obstruct/2019/04/22/61279d12-653b-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html
The headline pretty well says it all.

One thing to be said in favour of impeachment is that it would force the compulsive liar to testify under oath.

Nigel: Really? I don't recall Nixon ever testifying during his impeachment trial. I'm not sure Congress could compel him to. But, of course, IANAL.

You're probably right, dr ngo, that any compulsion probably would be political rather than legal - but on the other hand, one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon was for ignoring Congressional subpoenas.

Opinion is not entirely clear on the point...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/congressional-subpoena-power-and-executive-privilege-coming-showdown-between-branches

And a pretty good case for impeaching the Attorney General:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/some-questions-attorney-general-barr

a theory of how one is supposed to vote for politicians while politicians have zero responsibility to take positions that make voting for them attractive

even the worst politicians try to make voting for them attractive.

the problem is that we all have our own definition of "attractive", and no politician can satisfy everyone's definition.

a theory of how one is supposed to vote for politicians while politicians have zero responsibility to take positions that make voting for them attractive

I think that if Democratic Party candidates ask Republican-leaning voters to support them, in order to save democracy in the USA, the candidates should in return eschew policies which those voters hate. I agree with Marty that he cannot be expected to vote for socialism.

I suggest the "Angela Merkel test". If Ms Merkel would be comfortable with a policy position, then it should be unobjectionable to reasonable Republicans. Or we could make it the "Merkel-May test" - Theresa May has to be comfortable with it too.

That's not very restrictive: it allows for universal healthcare, a 45% top income tax rate, early abortion effectively on demand, and some restrictions on gun ownership.

If Marty thinks that Merkel and May are socialists, then he is not a reasonable Republican. Are there any?

You underestimate how much Angie has become a symbol for what is wrong with Europe on the US Right (and parts of the Euopean Right by now too). Utterly pragmatic and not a proponent of a total refugee and Muslim ban, both a no-no. And like Obama she gets painted as a tyrant. There are whole books of editorial cartoons with her as Frederick the Great, Bismarck or Hitler (a favorite of British tabloids afaik).
Until now she successfully took the lessons of her mentor and predecessor to heart and thus avoided numerous stabs in the back (most from her nominal Bavarian allies) but she knows that her time is up and is willing to leave on her own terms (after the next election). I fear she is a dying breed among the European conservatives.

The federal workforce needs pay raises to stimulate the hiring of low-caliber, ignorant, conservative grifters to ruin governance once and for all:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/cain-says-dropped-out-fed-consideration-pay

The Deep Clickbait

What Hartmut points out re Merkel's portrayal by the enemies to her right is the highly effective and malign and poisonous conservative puke funnel, now a worldwide coordinated always on-script scourge.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/obama-smears-shouldve-taught-democrats-to-defend-ilhan-omar.html?utm_medium=s1&utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=di

At some point, the antidote will be discovered.

I mean, it has been discovered but decent folk won't use it.

At some point, the antidote will be discovered.

I mean, it has been discovered but decent folk won't use it.

Anti-vaxers we will have always with us. ;-)

Some shots inebriate.

Others inoculate.

Then there are still others to contemplate.

Looking over today's news, now that the information in the (redacted) Mueller report has been reviewed, it appears that Democrats are settling into two groups on the question of impeachment.

On one hand, we have those who want to move on impeachment RIGHT NOW!

On the other hand, we have those who want to hold investigative hearings first, and get all their ducks in a row, before starting formal impeachment proceedings.

My sense is that it's going to happen. The only questions are when, and how solidly the case will be built before acting. Not because anyone expects that the Senate will vote based on the facts. But because there are differing views about the damage Republicans in Congress will suffer at the polls under the different scenarios.

Different topic. John Thullen implied that most of the writers at American Conservative are sort of nasty, Larison excluded. I partly disagree. Some are pretty bad (Buchanan). Some are a mixed bag, good on some days and/or topics, bad on others (from my pov). But some are great.

Which is a lead up to this article. No, it's not anything deep and I'm not making a point with it that anyone here would find disagreeable. Just pointing to a good piece--

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-other-side-of-allahu-akbar/

My judgement on the TAC stable of writers was general.

They do run interesting stuff besides strictly political subjects that I enjoy, including the article, Donald, you link to, which I read this morning.

I may even comment my congratulations to that writer on his thread.

I read Rod Dreher, but he drives me crazy above and beyond my bedrock disagreements with him, similar to how financial "guru" Jim Cramer drives me around the bend.

Talk about nattering nabobs.

Some interesting news:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/mckean-defects-to-democratic-party

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/hogan-renews-primary-buzz-wake-mueller-report

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-transition-staffer-makes-case-for-impeachment-based-on-mueller-findings

Now this:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/23/netanyahu-golan-settlement-trump-1287655

After a thorough evacuation of all human life in that settlement, along with such animals the inhabitants may possess, that settlement should be razed before p's feces brand can be affixed to it.

Otherwise, I will start an online cash drive to recruit money from right wing, Alt-right America to build a monument to Vlad Putin on the Washington Mall, which depicts him as the architect of the p tax cuts to draw in money from mainstream republicans as well. I'll make up a claim that we'll scrap the MLK monument and put Putin in its place to secure racist, bigoted millions for the project, because the more shit that you make up in America, the more successful a guy can be.

Also:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-and-massive-resistance

I hold to my prediction that this catastrophe will end in the penthouse of Mar-a-Lago as p and his wingmen and wingwomen are taken into custody and ousted from our government by force and in shackles, with significant violence required by the arresting authorities to gain access to and secure the building and its perimeter from the filth who will kill to save him.

Perjured spokesperson for the team of liars:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-to-do-about-sarah-sanders-white-house-reporters-have-a-few-ideas/2019/04/22/6b2c095e-651a-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html

A member of Trump’s transition team comes out in favour of impeachment:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/gop-staffer-advocates-trumps-impeachment/587785/

Pro Bono, I have to ask, you are in the UK, right? When was the last time you were in the US?

Just pointing to a good piece

It's remarkable how your view of people changes when you actually meet them.

There was no impeachment trial of Nixon, he resigned before any impeachment votes came up before the full House.

Regarding Pro Bono’s 10:01, I’d also note that Sanders is sufficiently attached to property rights to assert his copyright on a book which made him a millionaire.

That he’d have been willing to pay significantly more tax on his earnings hardly makes him a communist...

Instead of the Jasons, we now have JASON in charge with his finger on everything nuclear holocaust-related.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/04/23/trump-had-a-very-smart-uncle/

Not Charles-in-Charge, JASON-in-Charge.

All those not incinerated before November 2020 get a big tax cut to stimulate a buy-in on global megadeath from the usual fucking vermin American suspects.

This move was demanded by Putin. His man in Washington spent 90 minutes learning all there is know about nuclear weapons technology, remember. He conducted war games between his peas and mashed potatoes from his high chair perch and made explosion noises with his filthy republican mouth.

As always, the damned peas won.

Also this, which is directly related to the American Christian Right's hunger for the End Days ... see the very sneaky creep toward nuclear proliferation and annihilation above.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48031045

That Golan Heights settlement, after all of the human inhabitants are evacuated, along with their pets, and livestock, must be razed BEFORE p gets his feces brand all over it.

I'm sticking by my prediction that this catastrophe will end with p and his wingmen, wingwomen, and wingchildren hold up in the penthouse of Mar-a-Lago, where they have been attempting to dictate U.S. gummint for months after refusing to leave the Office of the Presidency as U.S. Special Forces (the pro-p members of whom will be dismissed or executed) fight their way thru the armed p dingbats along the perimeter of that overpriced hospitality monstrosity, scale the walls, belay from the roof, and take floor after floor and take our country back.

The assorted corpses of all of the various militia groups we've heard from these many vermin conservative years, some of whom will later be identified as highly-trained Soviet and Saudi agents smuggled into the country to keep p in power will lay dead three-deep in the hallways.

Sebastian Gorka will be found in a fetal position in the freight elevator with a diaper-full, whimpering for Daddy.

The other personalities we have grown to love will require lengthy forensics to identify, given the carnage.

Hannity, maybe Pence, will go missing, natch.

Those types never fully drink the poison, their eyes being on the next vermin right-wing grift after granted new identities and radical plastic surgery by the deep deep conservative state.

If you guys met me in person, and a few have, you'd think, gee, he SEEMS perfectly normal.

You should write a bestselling trash fiction novel about such a thing, John!

Why, when writing reality is so much more accurate?

A long read, and have a barf bag close by, as you learn what it is to be an American:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48031045

OK, that last link was bug juice sickening enough, but here's the intended real deal:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/22/guantanamos-darkest-secret

I fail to see why Cuba does not storm and destroy Guantanamo. It is not our property, and being cheap-ass Americans we pay a pittance for the lease.

Such a deal, one might say.

https://twitter.com/SamanthaJPower?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1120819771602292736&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F2019%2F04%2F23%2Ftrump-had-a-very-smart-uncle%2F

p gets off on gang rapes, especially those in uniform.

These monsters will be butchered.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/04/our-neoconfederate-court

There will an additional question on the Census forms when I have my way.

With armed followup depending on the answers.

I worked for the Census Bureau during the 2010 Census.

I now advise the Erick Erickson, that filth, gambit for all true Americans.

The census taker can talk to the business end of my wife's shotgun.

Fuck you, Republicans. Shove yer gummint up yer fundaments.

you are in the UK, right? When was the last time you were in the US?

Yes. 20 months ago.

I ask because of this:

I think that if Democratic Party candidates ask Republican-leaning voters to support them, in order to save democracy in the USA, the candidates should in return eschew policies which those voters hate. I agree with Marty that he cannot be expected to vote for socialism.

First, I should say that IMO people should vote for whoever they like. I have absolutely no issue with Marty's - or anyone's - decision to vote for neither Clinton nor Trump. Or, anyone, if there is nobody on the ballot they would care to vote for.

If Clinton had won, we would be thanking Marty for voting third party and denying Trump his otherwise reliable (R) vote.

That said, the "socialism" Marty would hate to vote for would, in the UK, be sensible, right of center, plain old everyday governance. It would be considered a rudimentary program for keeping the lights on.

The (D)'s should present their position and people should vote for it if they like. I don't see that pandering to folks like Marty - no disrespect intended - by watering down their positions is going to lead anywhere useful.

We already have people running for national and other offices who represent Marty's (as an example, not trying to single him out) point of view. We don't need more.

Did you miss the mild irony in Pro Bono's post, russell ?

In any event, here's another Republican who realises he can't stay in the party of Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/24/if-this-is-new-normal-i-want-no-part-it-citing-trump-iowas-longest-serving-republican-leaves-party/

Did you miss the mild irony in Pro Bono's post, russell ?

Apparently, yes.

Apologies Pro Bono. The last few years have deranged my satire-o-meter.

The last few years have deranged my satire-o-meter.

It's a challenge for everyone. What would have been over-the-top satire a few years ago now constitutes official White House announcements.

Whatever happened to "Drop Dead, Yank!" and "We'll have fighter jets escort Air Force One out of our airspace!" in answer to sub-American louts?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-suggests-uk-spied-on-him-for-obamawith-absolutely-no-evidence

And conservative Brit chest-pounders talk about their nationalist pride. Sheesh!

Whatever happened to "Hey, STFU, Dummy!" in answer to sub-American louts demanding the undemandable?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-gets-gentle-reassurance-from-twitter-chief-jack-dorsey-over-follower-count-in-white-house-meeting?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning

Gentle reassurance? And victimized conservatives whine about emasculated men over at TAC? What a cuck! What does the latter think is going to happen, Twitter might lose a little market share?

Grow a pair, Dorsey!

Did I get pretty close to how a*shole conservatives express themselves?

Or should I do it with a sort of low-echelon Jersey Mafia lilt in the accent, or maybe go full-Confederate good-ol-boy drawl demanding my slaves not have access to birth control? How bout a rootin-tootin Montana tough hombre, narrow-eyed militia threat low in the throat, while flicking the safety off on my sidearm?

Or maybe just a flat-of-the-hand stifling a yawn a la Tacitus/Trevino to express the utter tiresomeness of even lowering oneself to entertain for a single second the ravings of this republican lout.

"With Absolutely No Evidence, Trump Suggests U.K. Spied on Him For Obama."

You gotta admit, it's a . . . unique . . . way to respond to an invitation from the Queen for a state visit.

Serve him right if the invitation got withdrawn.

From a comment thread at TAC (yes, I like very little of their act, but I read all of it, mainly for the book suggestions; the article Donald linked to the other day was pretty good), including a quote from Nigel's link above citing the p campaign functionary making the case in the op ed for impeachment:

"This is an op-ed piece, decidedly so because the author, J.W. Verret, writes in first-person. With that, in the best tradition of journalistic due diligence, he builds his case from the beginning, and offers an eyes-wide-open perspective on both his conclusions and the consequences he will face for publicly airing them.

He is a lawyer, and has extensive experience, so if after reading the entire piece readers decide to not trust him, I can have no response to that other than his words:

'I wanted to share my experience transitioning from Trump team member to pragmatist about Trump to advocate for his impeachment, because I think many other Republicans are starting a similar transition. Politics is a team sport, and if you actively work within a political party, there is some expectation that you will follow orders and rally behind the leader, even when you disagree. There is a point, though, at which that expectation turns from a mix of loyalty and pragmatism into something more sinister, a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct.

The Mueller report was that tipping point for me, and it should be for Republican and independent voters, and for Republicans in Congress. In the face of a Department of Justice policy that prohibited him from indicting a sitting president, Mueller drafted what any reasonable reader would see as a referral to Congress to commence impeachment hearings.'"

You gotta admit, it's a . . . unique . . . way to respond to an invitation from the Queen for a state visit.

Serve him right if the invitation got withdrawn.

Oh, I'm sure the invitation is still "on", but it should be to a special room in the Tower.

The Queen has welcomed worse in the past - a Ceausescu stayed visit, for example.
Some will protest, and the rest of us will politely ignore the whole thing.

State visit.
Damn you, autocorrect.

The Queen is very stoical, and will do her duty. She may, however, send subliminal messages. The last time she met Trump she wore a pretty but insignificant green brooch - given to her by the Obamas. And the Queen is not short of impressive jewelry.

So much for originalism...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/census-case-roberts-court-legacy.html

The Conservative Justices on the SC are just a bunch of political hacks.

The Conservative Justices on the SC are just a bunch of political hacks.

Some of them are, certainly.

But before getting too worked up, it might be well to wait and see what decision the Court actually hands down. (It wouldn't be the first time that reading the tea leaves of the oral arguments and questions gave a wrong prediction.) If they decide to ignore the consistent findings of the lower courts, then yes, "political hacks" will be about the kindest thing one can say about them regarding this case.

A Tale of Two Crucifixions:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/4/24/1852821/-Jared-Kushner-s-friend-Mohammed-bin-Salman-celebrates-Easter-Week-with-a-real-crucifixion?utm_campaign=trending

https://juanitajean.com/just-like-jesus-exactly-like-jesus/

Only one full justified.

Happy Easter.

If they decide to ignore the consistent findings of the lower courts...

It’s more if they decide to ignore the actual text of the constitution.

And agreed, it’s still up in the air, but the signs aren’t good.

the signs aren’t good

I agree, but reading the transcript I concluded that Roberts, at least, is not prepared to just roll over for Trump.

If he does, and he well might, then we can safely say that SCOTUS lacks any legitimacy as a court of law, and has become just one more participant in a right-wing coup.

I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.

By the time we get to 2021, disagreeing about what color the Capital should be painted will delegitimize the Congress.

I'm pretty sure whatever they decide they will retain their legitimacy.

I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.

Obviously it doesn't anticipate "illegal" since no such condition existed at the time.

As for "refusing to answer", the methodology has evolved over the years. There has always been an undercount of some kind, because inevitably some people fail to be asked and some fail to answer.

A problem arises when a change is made to deliberately discourage some groups from answering. There are processes and procedures in place to test proposed changes, precisely to assure that doesn't happen. In this case, those procedures were not followed. And the reasons for not following them were, demonstrably, falsified.

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoons

Under cartoons from this issue.

Key word: Snowflake

Marty: By the time we get to 2021, disagreeing about what color the Capital should be painted will delegitimize the Congress.

I admit it: I do not understand the meaning of the above sentence. Can anybody help me? Anybody? Marty?

--TP

The comments to this entry are closed.