« It's August 2019, do you know where your POTUS is? | Main | Names Once More »

August 03, 2019

Comments

How amusing would it be if El Paso simply declined to take any action for Trump's visit. No police escort. No roads cleared. No nothing. That seems like the normal way to treat someone who doesn't pay his bills: don't provide future services until he pays up.

I am all for the right of citizens to concealed carry of boar spears. That'll show those hogs!

BUT ONE THING YOU DO NOT HAVE IS FREEDOM or MORALITY YOU CLOSE MINDED WHINY ANTI-CHRISTIAN, anti-AMERICAN, HYPOCRITICAL GENGHIS KHAN WORSHIPPING NANNY STATE LIBRUL*.

Rats! Owned!

I think you have to give at least some "credit" to simple massive ignorance of the rest of the world

But wj, my comment was in reply to McKinney, who despite his very partial (as opposed to impartial) view of world history is definitely not massively ignorant of the rest of the world, and I believe travels regularly. No, the comparison was absurd, and either consciously or unconsciously meant to confuse the issue.

via BJ, I give you a thoughtful dialogue about gun ownership. Featuring your Twitter pal, "Boats & Hoes".

I don't know how to say this any more strongly. I don't give a shit if you want a gun. Keeping telling people you're going to kill them if they try to "take your guns away" and you have made me your enemy.

All of you folks who are gun owners and / or enthusiasts - you probably know one or more major assholes like our pal "Boats & Hoes". You might mention to them that they should tone it down, or as we like to say, here in the people's republic, STFU.

Want a dialogue? Let's have a dialogue. Threats of murder and mayhem are not a dialogue, they are by definition acts of terror.

"How amusing would it be if El Paso simply declined to take any action for Trump's visit. No police escort. No roads cleared. No nothing"

How quickly could an airport runway be painted with a "Hate has no home here" logo?

Just asking.

"Hate has no home here"

Too long. Try "SUMP TRUCKS". Bright orange letters.

--TP

A reminder that even the finest legal mind is susceptible to absurd conspiracy type theories...
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/an-unexpected-letter-from-john-paul-stevens-shakespeare-skeptic

Or an indication that experts have an exaggerated sense of their abilities outside of their field.

Shakespeare was a woman.

From Nigel's link: I hope that it may be of value to others interested in how one of the finest legal minds of the past century interpreted evidence, read the past through the present, and comfortably embraced a conspiracy theory.

The passages Shapiro quotes from Stevens's letters sound like a lawyer pleading a case, not like a judge pondering evidence impartially. In this matter, at least, Stevens seems to have been a lawyer first, a judge a distant second, and a scientist not at all.

(Not that scientists don't sometimes cook the books, or get over-attached to their favorite theories, or try to discredit or destroy rivals and upstarts....)

Warning! The following link includes disturbing video of ... Kellyanne Conway ... speaking.

https://news.yahoo.com/kellyanne-conway-mad-dayton-shooter-leftist-warren-172616634.html

Another blatantly stupid tack that will be lapped up by the faithful. One shooter writes a manifesto about Mexicans invading Texas, parroting language the president used, drives 9 hours to a border town, and shoots Mexicans and Mexican-Americans.

The other shooter randomly shoots people in his hometown, but happens to mention on twitter that he's a "leftist" who supports Warren and Sanders. He doesn't go out of his way to shoot people he knows to be Republicans. He has a long history of an apparently apolitical fascination with violence and mass shootings.

But they're still pretty much the same thing. Both sides.

Disturbing indeed.

I can't watch or listen to Kellyanne Conway any more than I can watch or listen to Clickbait. And though I don't like commenting on people's looks, she looks like just what she is: a person whose soul has been eaten away until it's a tiny glob of rotting shreds.

A thought on the "self defense" argument. It occurs to me that we see politicians with "A" ratings from the NRA come out in favor of gun control when gun violence suddenly hits close to home. (Most recently, Rep Mike Turner of Ohio, after his wife and daughter were right across the street from the Dayton shootings.) Not all do, but some.

On the other hand, I can't think of a single instance of a politician who opposed gun control becoming pro-gun after someone close to him was close to a shooting. Can anyone think of a gun control advocate announcing: "I now understand the need for individuals to have a gun, even a high capacity gun, for self defense."? Even one?

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-compares-list-trump-donors-to-kill-list-2019-8

Disturbing?

They willfully ratchet up the road to horrific, savage nationwide war and our brows are stuck in the mild furrows of disturbance.

General McClellan sat in his tent for months, logistically paralyzed and his brow furrowed over the traitorous Confederate Army's machinations as they took the high positions in the meadows and forests.

Time to follow Lincoln's precedent and borrow that army, provided it could be made to do something, in Lincoln's words, which was to butcher and slaughter the confederate enemies of America, who now ride high once again.

The Civil War has already been declared by the Republican Party.

Sorry, Janie, I know you are angry enough to spit, but the old vocabulary is woefully insufficient.

and, of course, Trump just both-sided this

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1159100140835299328?s=20

the party of Personal Responsibility is really pretty quick to deflect

Can anyone think of a gun control advocate announcing: "I now understand the need for individuals to have a gun, even a high capacity gun, for self defense."? Even one?

Of course not.
Should such a beast exist, it would be a regular on Fox News.

It's pretty clear which way the electorate leans, which is why Trump is temporising (while simultaneiously nominating Second Amendment extremists to the beach).
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/guns-parkland-polling-quiz/

Bench.

The beach would be a great alternative.

So if the guy across the counter holds up a hefty haunch of Beyond Meat vegetable product for my inspection and asks me how I would like that cut, do I still call him a butcher?

This self-defense argument is a good example of the fallacy of composition. It's good for any given member of the populace to be the one with a gun. It's not good for the populace as a whole if too many of its members have guns.

More or less what Tony P. wrote earlier - you need a gun even more because too many people have guns. Neat trick, NRA.

you [can be induced to think you] need a gun even more because too many people have guns

FTFY.

A friend of mine who was at the time married to a cop who loved guns once argued to me that guns are needed by, for example, shopkeepers, in case crooks try to rob their stores. It boggles my mind that people really believe this makes any sense. If someone comes into your store and points a gun at you and says "Give me the cash," what good is the gun in your drawer going to be? You will be shot yourself before you can take your hand away from the cash register. Contrariwise, are you going to get your gun out and shoot some teenager who's trying to steal a pack of Twinkies or a bottle of gin? I suppose in a stand your ground sort of state you might get away with it, but it's a barbaric way to run a society.

I know about myself that I don't think well in a crisis. I suppose I could get some kind of training that would make me learn to think more effectively in a crisis (although given my age I'm dubious...), but as it is I'm reasonably certain that my having a gun would just increase the chances of someone getting killed. For once I can say: "What Marty said":

As far as old people defending themselves, I have a two-part strategy:

1. Don't own anything I'd kill anybody over
2. #1 includes my life

I'm quite sure I dont need a gun, I'm not killing anyone. I might wish I had one if my kids were threatened.


FTFY.

Well, not for me. ;^)

While the number of guns owned is very high in the good ol' US of A, they are concentrated in the hands of a minority of the population (though still too many people, IMO). The majority of us get by just fine without them somehow, despite all the criminals darkening our doors.

Shakespeare was a woman.

He'd perhaps take that as a compliment.

“Spend more time on your knees than on the internet.”
-- Mike Pence

Well, Pence would have to say that, since he's spending so much time on his knees genuflecting to Trump.

"Genuflecting"?? Bollocks!

--TP

"taking a knee as a sign of worship"

Sounds right to me. But I'm open to better suggestions.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/08/the-conservative-campaign-finance-two-step

OBWI alum Lindsay Beyerstein gets a word in.

The Republican Party will be transparently wiped off the face of the Earth.

There are two ways to take a knee.

The Colin Kaipernick right way.

And the Pence/Stormy Daniels way.

My rhetoric brings people together, don't you think?

I hope p doesn't accidentally crash land in Toledo and misses the shows in El Paso and Dayton.

It's a matinee:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx-rrBv2lyc

OBWI alum Lindsay Beyerstein gets a word in.

You realize the disclosure issue related to corporate donors, not individual donors? There is a difference and it's actually spelled out if Lindsay took the time to read her own article: corporate democracy--a bit of a reach--*does* allow for shareholders to say their piece of a company they've bought takes a position they don't like. That's not what Castro did. He didn't out a company publicly traded company for taking a political position. He outed Trump donors. Maybe this is just good, clean fun these day, but it strikes me as specie of voter and donor intimidation. Legal, but that seems like the intent. Coming from folks who routinely decry voter suppression, it seems a bit inconsistent. This strikes me as being of a piece as accosting political opponents at meals and sending demonstrators to opponent's homes. The intent here is to do personal or reputational harm to people for their views. There was a time when, if the shoe was on the other foot, this would not have been at well received. This leaves me to wonder what's next--photographing and doxxing who has what signs in their yard and on their bumper stickers (all of this is public record if you take the time to do the research)? Do we boycott their employers unless they are fired? Take their politics into consideration on college and employment applications. Just how far are we going to go in attacking people who see things differently from you?

I have to say, I'm pessimistic. Given the tone and tenor here since Trump got elected, quite frankly, it seems like anything short of armed attack is fair game if it's directed at Trump supporters. What I fully expect is a series of replies to the effect that their politics are so horrible, the usual rules don't apply and they deserve what they get. So much for "norms".

He outed Trump donors.

ehh... this information is trivially easy to find:

https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/

type in your ZIP code. it'll tell you all the contributions your neighbors have made (which have been reported so far).

amusingly, it has me down for a few dozen donations of $1.00 each, because i donated to ActBlue which splits donations among a pool of candidates.

What you are decrying here has been SOP for the Bannon wing of the right since at least Gamergate. Last I saw, their champion was still the de-facto GOP candidate for the 2020 presidential election and everyone in the party is tucking tail and keeping their heads down rather than raise a stink about these tactics. Romney? Sasse? Calling any vertibrates...

We'd all love a return to decency, but that's not something that can be done unilaterally. You can't stop a dog fight with only one dog on a leash.

Yep, about what I expected so far. Just good clean fun, they started it, blah, blah, blah. And who said just the other day they wanted a "decent" candidate? What definition of decent holds sway these days on the Progressive side?

McTx's screaming silence on the fact that the leader of his party routinely calls out individuals (both public and private) by name is clear proof of his enormous hypocrisy. totally expected, of course.

We've got a few to choose from. Castro is not likely to be the one that makes the cut.

Meanwhile, on the right...

Where's your alternative?

And who said just the other day they wanted a "decent" candidate?

why, that was me!

and until you start supporting someone who has a chance in hell of beating Trump essentially every criticism of any Dem you make is hypocrisy of the highest order. because it's going to be very hard to find any criticism of any Dem that isn't manifest tenfold in The Leader Of Your Party.

No. I have the right to deeply dislike both sides. I don't have to denounce Trump to have standing to call out the kind of confrontational chickenshit that is now a part of Progressive tool kit. Read Castro's tweet: he wasn't just passing along neutral information. Quit thinking you have the moral high ground if this is the kind of shit you're going to support.

I'm sure Democrats should maintain the moral high ground particularly when it disadvantages them politically/electorally.

Naming maxed-out Trump donors? Snore...

I don't have to denounce Trump...

omg. lol.

He refuses to do anything about that Trump mote in his own eye until we deal with that Castro beam.

He refuses to deal with the fascist and white supremacist violence mote in his own eye until we deal with that antifa beam.

He hates both motes AND beams.

I have the right to deeply dislike both sides. I don't have to denounce Trump to have standing to call out the kind of confrontational chickenshit that is now a part of Progressive tool kit.

You have to loathe Trump to have any sort of claim to having a voice worth hearing.

Meanwhile, encouraging action against small donors is not something I think well of. So that's one D candidate who is maybe 100th as bad as Trump and his enablers.

encouraging action against small donors is not something I think well of.

Granted there are those who contrive to donate (indirectly, at least nominally) far more than the Federal maximum. But do those who have donate that maximum really qualify as "small donors"? (Now if Castro was tweeting out the entire donor list, including those who merely kicked in $10 or $20, that would be a different story.)

i would have advised Castro to not re-tweet that, if he had asked me. it's hardly beyond the pale, but it's not how i'd do things.

nobody asks me for campaign advice.

the kind of confrontational chickenshit that is now a part of Progressive tool kit

"confrontational" ?

for the sake of Mrs Fuck...
Trump has called for journalists to be beaten. he's suggested the "2nd amendment people" could take care of HRC. he has been threatening for years to "lock her up" - not to try her, just to lock her up. he has attacked athletes, actors and private citizens by name. he has insulted, demeaned, threatened, dehumanized countless people, cities, states, countries. accused them of treason. he has explicitly accused all Democrats of hating America. he grins while his deplorable crowds chant a racist slogan that went out of style a century ago. CricketsFromTx.

McConnell's 'graveyard'. the endless parade of GOP functionaries busted for forwarding racist emails and tweets. GOP Senator talking about the "cosmopolitan elite". CricketsFromTx.

but it's not how i'd do things

... not the least of which is that the list gives "conservatives" an excuse to equate him with the Dayton killer. all lists are equivalent, after all.

for the sake of Mrs Fuck...
Trump has called for journalists to be beaten. he's suggested the "2nd amendment people" could take care of HRC. he has been threatening for years to "lock her up" - not to try her, just to lock her up. he has attacked athletes, actors and private citizens by name. he has insulted, demeaned, threatened, dehumanized countless people, cities, states, countries. accused them of treason. he has explicitly accused all Democrats of hating America. he grins while his deplorable crowds chant a racist slogan that went out of style a century ago. CricketsFromTx.

Actually, from time to time, I've been very explicit about Trump, about Ted Cruz, about Roy Moore and about Steve whatever from Indiana. I don't have to go on and on about them in an echo chamber that already goes on and on about them. I never defend Trump or even the rare policy I agree with.

But, the idea that Trump is such an outlier douche that everyone else is excused whenever and wherever a fig leaf can be found from previously understood rules of the road is bullshit.

Read Castro's tweet: he wasn't just passing along neutral information.

He said: "Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump — the owner of ⁦@BillMillerBarBQ⁩, owner of the ⁦@HistoricPearl, realtor Phyllis Browning, etc⁩.

Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’"

In other words, what Castro said was true. Their donations are public information (just as mine are). They aren't "small donors" as Pro Bono suggested; they are maxed out. If you donate the maximum you can legally donate to a candidate, and you're not proud of doing it, what does that say about you? Good on Castro. I'm glad to know who is responsible for Trump so I can boycott their businesses.

And, except for advising against what Castro did, what cleek said.

previously understood rules of the road

The rules of the road (in other words, the law) are that contributions to election campaigns are public information.

What definition of decent holds sway these days on the Progressive side?

I don't have to denounce Trump to have standing to call out the kind of confrontational chickenshit that is now a part of Progressive tool kit.

I asked you the other day, and you ignored it, which rightwing (or RWNJ) sites you frequent to call out and insult those people, and presumably their enthusiastic supporters, you claim to despise. My exact words were:

McKinney, do you visit the sites frequented by, as you colourfully phrase it, the likes of Trump and the current Republican party which kisses his ass and excoriate them for their actions and sympathies? Don't misinterpret me: I am on record as saying I like your visits here and think you add to our rich tapestry and often stimulate excellent stuff, but I'm just curious about where we fit in to your other conversations.

I rather think the answer to this is important, if you are implicitly claiming even a smidgen of above sea-level ground at all, let alone any moral high ground, and let's face it, by putting us down you are.

the idea that Trump is such an outlier douche . . . is bullshit.

Not really. Among politicians and office holders, GOP politicians and office holders, he is definitely an outlier. Unless you count excusing his misbehavior as the equivalent to engaging in that behavior. Not to excuse what they have done, but very few of them are anywhere near on his (low!) level.

McKinney, do you visit the sites frequented by, as you colourfully phrase it, the likes of Trump and the current Republican party which kisses his ass and excoriate them for their actions and sympathies? Don't misinterpret me: I am on record as saying I like your visits here and think you add to our rich tapestry and often stimulate excellent stuff, but I'm just curious about where we fit in to your other conversations.
I rather think the answer to this is important, if you are implicitly claiming even a smidgen of above sea-level ground at all, let alone any moral high ground, and let's face it, by putting us down you are.

I do remember the question and giving it some thought. Here is my daily read: ObWi, National Review, Slate, Salon, Atlantic, WSJ occassionally, WaPo occassionally and Real Clear Politics which comes closest to providing some insight to the pro-Trump camp. At RCP, I usually just scan the titles of the pieces because 95% of it is partisan cheer-leading and I find that intensely boring. I watch zero, zip, nada news on TV and have not for years.

I don't even know of any pro-Trump sites and have no interest in visiting them. I come here because I've been coming here for over 10 years. I don't feel like I have to go somewhere else and raise hell to retain my standing at ObWi to occasionally drop by and discuss discrete topics, particularly when I think there are grounds for moving the needle a small bit.

So, Sapient, while I take your point in a way, I'm just not organized or interested in going toe-to-toe with people I haven't been talking to for 11 or more years, people I don't know and don't care about (other than I wish no one ill will). FWIW, most of the people I socialize with who are political--an important distinction--are all or mostly in for Trump. We don't agree and rarely have conversations on the subject. I engage when asked, but I don't go looking for discussion since they aren't commenting publicly. I think that people's views are almost always very, very complex and so I don't get into meta discussions uninvited. Even here, I prefer discrete topics. Always have, for the most part.

You asked a fair question and I hope this gives you a reasonably responsive answer. Also, I'm not claiming any kind of moral high ground other than occasionally trying to identify when I think something is out of bounds.

Finally, since I really do appreciate your approach in making the inquiry, I often find myself in agreement with you and with Cleek and many others here, particularly when y'all are having intra-progressive discussions. Where I find myself getting put-off is when I address an issue and I get some form of "you're just a Trump lover" response. I find that irritating. Argument by categorization--particularly false categorization--is off-putting.

FWIW, my opinion is that Castro's tweet was ill-advised. Feelings are so heated that is just seems unnecessarily provocative. Especially for the campaign manager for a candidate for POTUS who also happens to be a Congressman.

Yes, the information is on the public record. No, it's probably not a good idea to fan the flames, toward those particular people, at this particular time.

Everything is lawful, but all things are not expedient.

But, like cleek, I'm not on anybody's Rolodex when these kinds of questions come up.

Also FWIW, asking Huckabee to leave a restaurant, or for that matter heckling Nielsen such that she felt obliged to flee a restaurant, don't really bother me at all. Those people are not private citizens, they are spokespersons for, and in Nielsen's case a principal implementor of, policies that are shameful and noxious. I have no problem with calling out public persons, in public, for their public actions.

I'm not sure where all of that lands me on the McK high ground meter, but so be it.

Both McK and Marty have repeatedly expressed how nutty we all seem to have been driven by Trump. Somehow we are all acting like he is some kind of "outlier douche".

He is miles, many many miles, beyond an outlier douche.

Hmmm, McKinney, was your answer supposed to be addressed to sapient, or to me? And if in fact to me, did you mean what you said about often agreeing with me - I'm surprised if so.

"Actually, from time to time, I've been very explicit about Trump, about Ted Cruz, about Roy Moore and about Steve whatever from Indiana. I don't have to go on and on about them in an echo chamber that already goes on and on about them. I never defend Trump or even the rare policy I agree with."

Yes, you have, and you never defend that douche, and thank you.

Meanwhile, I give tit for tat on this forum ... I retract nothing ... to p and the republican party .... you are neither despite plenty of other issues we may disagree vehemently over... in the voice they taught me, in close observation of their unswerving and now ruthlessly applied certainties, shouting over everyone's heads into the ether, as that political entity is, in my opinion, the most dangerous movement in the world in league with its nationalist orthodox fellow travelers in numerous other countries, including Russia.

You are also an apostate and a heretic to the conservative movement, which is not Christian in any normative sense of the word as a political force, perhaps as a cult, solely for your support of gay marriage and your membership in the socially progressive Episcopal Church (correct me if I'm wrong) which has adjusted its dogma admirably among the established American Christian sects to the world as it is.

Thank you for being so.

You are not Orthodox. We now live in a world in which Orthodox religious and political majorities are attempting to crush non-Orthodox religious and political minorities into a permanent supine posture.

I'm an agnostic. Doubt is my middle name. I am faith-curious in a way. You made a leap of faith somewhere along the pilgrimage to your beliefs ..... I've read my Kierkegaard, my Pascal, my Flannery O'Conner, my Walker Percy, etc and I respect their faith and the leaps over the mysterious abysses therein described.

I keep my recently purchased translation of the Hebrew Bible snug up against the collected works of Holocaust survivor Primo Levi imagining the conversation leaking back and forth between the two of them, when I'm not dipping in for a look see.

That I would like to punch cult leader Jerry Falwell's face in is not an anti-Christian sentiment.

Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton, both frail human Christians, would punch him in the face too, were they still with us, though Day might have been too much of a socialist to get violent.

The misguided true believers in p, especially those among the black, Hispanic, gay, feminist, and working class minorities remind me of the Association of German National Jews in the early going of the Third Reich.

All of their faith will go up in smoke.

They can sew their tax cuts into their suit linings when the going gets tough, which it will.

Of course, I'm agnostic even about my own opinions and dire predictions.

Stick around McKinney.


McKinney, the quotation you responded to was from GftNC, not me (although I'm certainly not insulted to have been confused with her, but she might have been with me!).

Castro did nothing wrong. People shouldn't send money to campaigns if they're ashamed of being discovered, since the information is public. If they're in business, and their goods or services are worthwhile, some people will ignore their political leanings. At the moment, I want to know who I'm dealing with. I don't want to patronize people who, in 2019 after over 2 1/2 years of seeing him, support his hate, treason and division.

I'm proud of the candidates I support. It's public information to whose campaigns I contribute, and I also (often) put bumper stickers on my car promoting whatever candidate I support. If I were ashamed of supporting someone's candidacy, I wouldn't give that candidate money, particularly not the maximum amount. I hope that I wouldn't vote for a candidate if I were ashamed to be supporting her, although the vote itself is private for a lot of different reasons.

I am for outing p's and the republican party's political donors, individual, corporate, anonymous mail drop, every chance we get, just as I am in favor of naming the names of organized crime donors to waste management companies.

That goes for Democratic party donors as well, natch.

Provocation is absolutely necessary.

It moves the thugocracy in the Republican Party to advance to its worst measures, which are coming, they can't wait, and the sooner the better to see the ruthless nationalist, authoritarian whites of their eyes.

Huckabee, McConnell and company entered private establishments and requested the equivalent of right wing wedding cakes.

The answer was no.

Don't let the door hit them in their lying asses.

When they rescind Brown versus Board of Education ,their children will be asked to leave their schools as well.

This game will be played until there only one total winner, like everything in America.

I'll be a lot more forgiving of people's wishes to be private when they are not directly supporting and amplifying the voice that is spreading fear and paranoia about people whose skin and cultural habits are public markers they should not have to hide.

Hmmm, McKinney, was your answer supposed to be addressed to sapient, or to me? And if in fact to me, did you mean what you said about often agreeing with me - I'm surprised if so.

Yes, dammit. Late afternoon dyslexia. It was a fair question and I hope I answered it to your satisfaction. I often agree with your substantive views and I particularly like your mode of engagement (most of the time!). Even when I don't agree, I understand your position.

Sapient, lot's of stuff is public if you know where to look. Aggregating a certain class of information on a certain class of people and dumping into the public debate, particularly at a time like this, is chickenshit, bad faith, below the belt, what-have-you. The other side will respond in kind or escalate. This will escalate, again and again. It's hard enough getting through to people who aren't already on board these days. This just makes it harder. It's not a substantive position. It's a low blow and intended as such.

Thanks John. As always.

What nous said.

Both McK and Marty have repeatedly expressed how nutty we all seem to have been driven by Trump. Somehow we are all acting like he is some kind of "outlier douche".

Ok, I don't think I make an issue of it routinely, but it is fair to say that since the election, things have not been the same around here--at least as I see it. To repeat myself somewhat, there was a time when we had extended exchanges--not agreements--just back-and-forth's over differences, asking questions, making points, and having a dialogue. Long exchanges, over days sometimes, and not without humor and fun. Jesurlaic--who I miss greatly--and I went round and round and remained friendly throughout. That all changed with the election. Someday, Trump will not only be history, he'll be dead. A lot of the rest of us will still be around. Whether we will still be talking or looking at each other over open sights is what keeps me up at night. Not kidding about this. I really cringe at what people are finding acceptable these days. And, yes, let me repeat, Trump is beyond the pale, your preferred adjectives go here:____________________________.

I'll be a lot more forgiving of people's wishes to be private when they are not directly supporting and amplifying the voice that is spreading fear and paranoia about people whose skin and cultural habits are public markers they should not have to hide.

So, the right to privacy is determined by how those who disagree with someone characterize the disagreement? That is no right at all. Here's another point: even if each of the individual donors practices cannibalism and bestiality, when that person is outed, so is that person's family. If that person is a political minority in his/her location, then you're invoking majority oppression not only on that person but on his/her family as well. In effect, you are saying: because of how I assess your beliefs, I have the right to pillory you in the public square--and drag your family and your business (including your employees) into it. Castro's outing, regardless of the blowback on innocent bystanders, says a lot for his ego and his lack of concern for others. He's a prick, at best.

This tactic is a very sharp knife that cuts both ways.

Trump is beyond the pale

McConnell is beyond the pale, Pence is beyond the Pale, McCarthy is beyond the pale, King is beyond the pale, Stephen Miller is beyond the pale, Brett Kavanaugh is beyond the pale, William Barr is beyond the pale, Wilbur Ross is beyond the pale, etc.

These people have something in common, and those who support them do too. I'm glad you plan to live through this McKinney. Maybe your fortress will get you to the other side. We have a whole thread called "Names Once More". They're not going to see your happy day, and neither will many of us.

The "the right to privacy" does not exist in public information.

In effect, you are saying: because of how I assess your beliefs, I have the right to pillory you in the public square--and drag your family and your business (including your employees) into it.

This is a bit dramatic, no? If this mob who drags people's families and employees around is so determined, they won't wait for a public statement of public information. They'll go look up some people themselves. I doubt that in Texas it's hard to find Trump supporters who are out and proud. I can sure find people around here who are when I'm in the mood to drag and pillory.

No, McKinney, this is not about how I disagree with anyone, it's about the effects of public discourse.

The WP types have a saying that once the Racial Holy War starts, everybody's skin will be their uniform. A uniform that cannot be taken off allows for no privacy.

Talking about Mexican invasions and shooting invaders is, in point of fact, advocating violence against people who, given their skin, cannot be anything but public figures. The president's remarks land quite predictably in the ears of the WP community. Anyone should be able to see this and to predict what the outcome of such language will be.

But he's "a straight shooter" and "rough around the edges" and "calls it like he sees it," so it's fine to support him in private, but there should be no *public* marking of a person who was not born with the uniform of the wrong team.

Anyone should be able to see this and to predict what the outcome of such language will be.

Speaking of dragging. Yeah, again, not the angry liberal mobs being mean to Republicans.

Castro should have tweeted: "Here is a list of proud Trump donors."

Leave it at that. Wait for the maxed-out donors to complain that it's nobody's business who they're proud of, and they're not proud anyway, and they wish libruls wouldn't bring Politics into Real Life.

--TP

Jesurlaic--who I miss greatly--and I went round and round and remained friendly throughout.

Just to say, you got her name wrong, and I know this because it was a pain in the ass to respect her, and go back to cut and paste her name so many times, but still she bullied me.

Also, she was very witty and lovely, but she bullied me, and I hated her. She's probably responsible for the fact that I became hostile to a lot of people here. I hope she's okay because who cares what happened that many years ago, but if she was "friendly" to you, it was because you didn't challenge her.

Again, I wish her well. That was a long time ago.

it is fair to say that since the election, things have not been the same around here

Yes, I think that's true. And not just here.

Trump is a line, drawn in the sand. He is a giant bird, flipped by his supporters, to the rest of the country.

Leaving aside his personal shortcomings - his bullying, his cowardice, his fraudulent underhanded and likely criminal business practices, his gross and vulgar ignorance about any topic that fails to offer him some advantage - he is, politically, an authoritarian thug.

He is the end of dialogue. There is no conversation to be had with the man. There is no compromise, no negotiation, no honorable or respectful victory or retreat.

There is only win, or lose. Win is accompanied by braggadocio, and loss by petulance and attempts at revenge.

He makes it impossible for the institutions of responsible self-governance to function.

So yes, people are disturbed. More like, alarmed.

It's not so much that people find it difficult to have thoughtful conversations with their political opposites, here in the age of Trump. It's more like people wonder what the point is.

Let's all chat, while the institutions that have made it possible for us all to co-exist for lo, these almost 250 years, burn to the ground. Let's all chat, while people's lives are being destroyed.

I've been engaging with people of all stripes, here and elsewhere, in online fora since the USA Patriot Act was a topic. That's over 15 years now. The assumption - my assumption - is and was that there is and was some value in an exchange of ideas.

And I think that's true. But I also think that the demographic for which that is true - the scope in which that has any effect - is fairly narrow.

Meanwhile, we have POTUS Trump.

"If anything can't go on forever, it will stop". Stein's Law. The bullshit we're seeing now can't go on forever. So, at some point it will stop.

What will be left? How will we, as a people, look each other in the eye, when all of this crap is done, and say, yes, I can share a nation, a community, a society, with you?

Conservatism, and the (R) party, has taken a really dark fucking turn. There will be a reckoning.

We can talk civilly about anything we like. But sometimes - a lot of the time - it feels like we're just dancing around that basic fact.

There is going to be a price to pay for all of the bullshit that is going on right now.

Let's talk about that.

I really cringe at what people are finding acceptable these days.

You are not alone.

Trump . . . is a giant bird, flipped by his supporters, to the rest of the country.

That pretty well sums up the situation. Except that it's the gift that keeps on giving.

What's rather appalling is how many of his supporters would whole-heartedly embrace this characterization of their vote. It wasn't, for that part of his base, an attempt to get particular policies implemented. It was just sending a crude message as crudely as possible; nothing more.

WJ

I think the public option would end up being underfunded. Republicans would want it to fail and so would some Democrats ( or their donors). If it were well funded and was a very attractive choice, then people would flock to it. So it won’t be, I am guessing. Could be wrong.

“My impression is that health care systems with private insurance components regulate the living crap out of them, which seems about as likely to fly here as single payer.” —me

“Is that what happens with Medicare Advantage plans today? Yet there are a bunch of them on offer....” — WJ

I was talking about other countries. My nonexpert impression is that those countries which use private insurance regulate it more than we do here, by having the government set prices for procedures, for example.

https://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/18080458/single-payer

don't have to go on and on about them in an echo chamber that already goes on and on about them.

for the record, i hope you can see that i'm simply returning your "liberals here don't complain about the Chinese Revolution so they must be enormous hypocrites" baloney.

and, i can point to the day when my attitude about all of this changed. it was the day Trump was elected. that's when i realized most people on team GOP don't actually care about anything except winning. and i was set free to hate them for it.

I can be angry, and I can despise and hold in utter contempt their leaders, but I can't hate half a nation.

A google search for "lists of Clinton donors" brings up "about" 12,900,000 hits.

boo, hoo.

Today, before our eyes, Trump and his allies seek to crush the foundations of multiracial democracy and replace them with a white ethnostate where the ruling class directs violence at scapegoat communities to create the climate it needs to get away with looting the country and dismantling all checks on its power. If you can see that, and articulate it, you don’t ask what Trump might do to make things better, or say he “urges unity vs. racism.” If you can’t see it, or your job requires you to blind yourself to it, you must treat his ultimate purposes as an impenetrable mystery. You might explain away his efforts to end an investigation of an attack on the United States, and his coziness with the perpetrator, as impulses of a man who merely worries the Russia matter undermines his legitimacy. You might marvel at his occasional, scripted, disingenuous condemnations of all the forces he has fostered, and chase down Democrats to ask them if they think Trump is racist. But seriously: What the fuck?

This is the nub of it. This is where we are at. It's not about civility. It never has been. It is simply this: Whose side are you on?

but I can't hate half a nation.

they hate us. and they don't care about your compassion.

Perhaps they, or some of them do, but do you want to look at that picture and think that’s what I’ve become, too ?

O’Rourke nailed it with his “what the fuck ?” response to the press question about how Trump might make it better.

And indeed in his speech beforehand:
“We have a President right now who traffics in this hatred, who incites this violence, who calls Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, calls asylum seekers animals and an infestation. You may call a cockroach an infestation—you may use that word in the Third Reich to describe those who are undesirable, who must be put down, because they are subhuman. You do not expect to hear that in the United States of America, in this age, in our generation, in this beautiful country.”

but do you want to look at that picture and think that’s what I’ve become, too ?

i don't know what you've become. i know they hate you, me and everyone who isn't a Trump supporter. they're ruining the USA in his name. and i hate them for it.

During my politically aware lifetime, the US presidency has been held by Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Obama, and Trump.

Nixon was a crook, and GW Bush was spectacularly bad. Of the others, only Obama would get onto a shortlist if the job were by appointment - the US system seldom elects excellent presidents.

But Trump is a different thing altogether. He's a fascist. He and the Republican party which supports him are a danger to democracy in the US and in the world.

This is not politics as usual, where we argue as politely as possible about how best to organise a liberal democracy. Now it's about whether we should have a liberal democracy or not. And if you say not, I'm not interested in having a friendly discussion with you of the merits of fascism, or whatever other word you want to adopt for Trump's politics.

It's helpful to be reminded by McKT that we must not be like the other side - that Winston was wrong to agree to do whatever the Brotherhood asked. But the reason to treat Trump donors decently is not because they might possibly be good people, but because we should be.


All of bobbyp's Crooked link is good, but this also deserves to be excerpted:

And this is why O’Rourke’s challenge, connect the dots, won’t just be hard for many political journalists to meet—it helps explain why they adopt the naive pose in the first place. Trump isn’t just rotten in this one realm, but in all that he does, and connecting the dots would require journalists inclined to cover campaigns and “normal” partisan combat to look aghast at a sinister pattern of behavior, and alert the country to it.

One recent incident that attracted relatively scant attention connects his racist incitement with his other nefarious activities: his unlawful intrusion in the war-crimes case of Eddie Gallagher, the Navy SEAL who fatally stabbed a teenage ISIS fighter, posed with his corpse, then threatened to kill anyone who reported him. Trump helped secure Gallagher’s acquittal, then ordered the Navy to strip the prosecutors who tried him of the achievement medals they were awarded for doing their jobs well. The Gallagher case became a right wing cause célèbre, saturated with jingoism and Islamophobia, which is surely why Trump first took interest in it. But what purpose did he serve by punishing war-crimes prosecutors whose superiors determined they had acted appropriately? Why would the president want to communicate to certain favored, dangerous people that they have his permission to be violent, and that those who stand in their way will be scorned, abused, or purged? It is easier to look away than to connect the dots, because if the president has truly fascistic ambitions—if he has abused his power to recruit violent sympathizers in the military or civilian life with the lure of immunity—then conventional journalism lacks the language to say so.

Thanks for that link, bobbyp and for highlighting the other portion, GftNC.

It is easier to look away than to connect the dots, because if the president has truly fascistic ambitions—if he has abused his power to recruit violent sympathizers in the military or civilian life with the lure of immunity—then conventional journalism lacks the language to say so.

Part of lacking the language is our overzealous insistence on "civility." Fighting this requires that we call it out, and that we know who's who. If people who are supporting Trump by giving him money, we should know who they are. If they're ashamed, good for them - they should take their self-examination a step further and stop it.

or the record, i hope you can see that i'm simply returning your "liberals here don't complain about the Chinese Revolution so they must be enormous hypocrites" baloney.

That's a small part of my point. My larger point is my sense is that a number of subsets across the political spectrum are driven by a view of history. My sense of the progressive left--and other lefty subsets--is that they have a particular issue with the white, western, Christian, capitalist world. My point is that, in context, (1) Christianity is a piker in terms of spreading misery compared to socialism--which some number of Progs are willing to flirt with if not entertain in some watered down form and (2), if you want historical perspective, both Islam and the Chinese and/or Mongols were much farther out there on the warlike spectrum than the white, Christian, capitalist west. As a result, a lot of conclusions drawn the farther left one goes are based on an erroneous and skewed take on history. I don't expect any agreement with this. I'm simply trying to explain my point.

it was the day Trump was elected. that's when i realized most people on team GOP don't actually care about anything except winning. and i was set free to hate them for it.

Ok, you were always free to hate anyone you want. I am with Nigel on this 100%. My view: Hating the opposition is wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that a number of people voted for Trump because--sorry to say, the Dems didn't offer anything of interest to them. Trump got the nomination with a plurality of base voters. Now, they seem to be all in for him, which will stain their brand for a decade at least (and it should). However, spewing vitriol doesn't change minds. It produces escalation. I can find plenty of lefty finger-giving on the internet--does that mean everything you say about Trumpers is also true for the left?


Just to say, you got her name wrong

Yep, Jesurlac. No "i". My bad. Late evening dyslexia. You two did not get along. I do recall that.

i know they hate you, me and everyone who isn't a Trump supporter. they're ruining the USA in his name. and i hate them for it.

This is silly. They don't all hate you. My law firm is split in three sections politically and no one gives a damn how others vote, and we are a very tight knit group. Do you know what the Democrat judges in Harris County do with respect to the Republican judges they unseated? They do the same the Republican Judges did back when Harris County went from blue to red: they appoint their former opponents as mediators, arbitrators, receivers and they ask them to sit as visiting judges. Castro's move was grossly out of character for inter party squabbles in Texas. It was a big norm violation in this neck of the woods. Here, at least so far, when someone wins an election, that is that.

People here work side by side. I think that's probably true everywhere. If I had a political fire breather from any spot on the spectrum giving others grief in the work place, I'd fire them. FWIW, I think it's more likely that people like you--right or left-- scare the shit out of people like me, who think you've lost most if not all since of proportion.

It's helpful to be reminded by McKT that we must not be like the other side - that Winston was wrong to agree to do whatever the Brotherhood asked. But the reason to treat Trump donors decently is not because they might possibly be good people, but because we should be.

Thanks for this but the larger picture is that voting for Trump--or Sanders--doesn't make someone a Nazi any more than it makes them fans of the USSR or Cuba or what have you. Like I said, people can be voting against someone just as easily as they can be voting for someone. There is a big-ass difference. Just because I can't stomach Trump doesn't oblige me to vote for Elizabeth Warren if I can't stand her policies. I am allowed, as an American, to refuse to vote for either house.


My sense of the progressive left--and other lefty subsets--is that they have a particular issue with the white, western, Christian, capitalist world...

Except that would be caricature.

Progressive Warren for example, labels herself an enthusiast for capitalism. But better regulated capitalism.
Of the score of candidates running for the nomination, only Sanders labels himself a socialist - and he'd be a fairly moderate one from a European perspective... and is a self-made millionaire.

I'm not sure the progressive left or its lefty subsets have much of a problem with Christianity, either. After all, Jesus himself was someone who displayed alarmingly socialist tendencies.
Particular interpretations of Christianity, especially those which don't seem very interested in what Christ is reported to have said, perhaps.

I don't even know what you mean by white and western, given a very large part of their vote is one or the other or both.
Unless it's an objection to this kind of thing :
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/08/anti-feminism-gateway-far-right/595642/

I think the public option would end up being underfunded. Republicans would want it to fail and so would some Democrats ( or their donors). If it were well funded and was a very attractive choice, then people would flock to it. So it won’t be, I am guessing. Could be wrong.

Donald,
Thanks for the reply. Certainly the evidence from Obamacare suggests that a lot of Republicans would want it to fail. (Unless, like Kentucky with kynect, they can rebrand it and pretend it was their idea.) But the example of Medicare suggests, optimistically, that it might not be underfunded enough to fail.

It will be interesting to see what happens in practice. My guess is that, having seen that attempts at compromise with the GOP will be spurned, what we gets will be the reult of internal Democratic compromises. Including on funding.

I can find plenty of lefty finger-giving on the internet--does that mean everything you say about Trumpers is also true for the left?

i have no idea.

i do know that the people who voted for Trump voted for someone who was clearly and undeniably an abhorrent person. not just that his policies were not mine, but that he, personally, was vile in every way. but they voted for him proudly, in no small part because they wanted to stick it to the left. and they still stick with him.

i don't see much point in trying to find common ground with those people. they want something from the country that is completely orthogonal to what i want. or maybe they aren't paying any attention at all, but they damn well should be.

if there are Republicans who are offended by Trump, they are free to stop supporting him - that would be a clear signal to me and everybody else that they aren't deplorable. but his approval among Republicans is currently at 88%, exactly where it has always been.

Trump regularly tells the country that i - and all Democrats - am the enemy. and the GOP supports him and cheers him on, top to bottom, tooth and nail.

well, message received.

no olive branch from me.

you hate me? fuck it, i'll hate you.

If I had a political fire breather from any spot on the spectrum giving others grief in the work place, I'd fire them.

for the record, i have never, ever brought up politics with anyone in the workplace. even when asked or when the topic is broached, i keep my responses as mild as i can make them. i just don't want to bring that into work.

i'm sure most people where i work have no idea what my politics are. and that's how i intend to keep it.

My sense of the progressive left--and other lefty subsets--is that they have a particular issue with the white, western, Christian, capitalist world.

Thete are, indeed, a few on the left who feel that way. And they make noise far exceeding their numbers.

But the vast majority of the progressive left that I know only have a problem with
a) unregulated capitalism, and maybe
b) the kind of "Christianity" which behaves as if it sees itself as a political group, uninhibited by the teachings of a teacher 2000 years ago.

My sense of the progressive left--and other lefty subsets--is that they have a particular issue with the white, western, Christian, capitalist world.

You mean the progressive left and other lefty subsets that live in the white, Western, Christian, capitalist world? I'm not exactly sure if that's a description of something you think exists or something you think lefties think exists (i.e. the white, Western, Christian, capitalist world), but it does seem to acknowledge where power lies (and you might add straight and male for good measure!). So, yes, lefties do seem to want to break the stranglehold that certain groups have had historically in this country in particular. But it's a problem with the dominance, not whiteness or Christianity or capitalist wealth in and of themselves. (The "Western" part is a little too vague, for me at least, to get into much and is probably covered well enough by the combination of "white" and "Christian.")

My point is that, in context, (1) Christianity is a piker in terms of spreading misery compared to socialism--which some number of Progs are willing to flirt with if not entertain in some watered down form

I guess "flirt with" includes things like strong labor representation, a robust safety net, and vigorous environmental and financial regulation. How that becomes a contest between Christianity and socialism, I don't know. It's probably better to discuss given policies on their merits without all this unhelpful and irrelevant "context."

(2), if you want historical perspective, both Islam and the Chinese and/or Mongols were much farther out there on the warlike spectrum than the white, Christian, capitalist west.

I don't live in a predominantly Muslim country or China or Mongolia. I don't know what these comparisons have to do with whether or not, say, Affirmative Action or single-payer healthcare are good policies. Whether or not white, Christian capitalists are the *Worst People Ever in Human History* has no bearing on my policy preferences.

I find this whole line of reasoning to be, for lack of a better word, goofy.

voting for Trump--or Sanders--doesn't make someone a Nazi...

Putting "or Sanders" in that is ugly. There is no "both sides" equivalence between Trump and any imaginable D candidate.

Just because I can't stomach Trump doesn't oblige me to vote for Elizabeth Warren if I can't stand her policies.

Declining to vote for whoever runs against Trump is, just, something we could have a conversation about. But we were talking about donors who have made the maximum possible personal financial contribution to getting Trump re-elected.

On the name, I think it was Jesurgislac. I am not sure.

On the substance, Trump’s interference in the military justice system was shocking. I usually go on about war crimes and have given up on that to some extent. We will always commit them and on a bipartisan basis and nothing will be done to high ranking perpetrators. So under both parties we will have unjust wars, bomb cities, supply weapons to war criminals and terrorists and impose murderous sanctions because we are unaccountable to anyone. But at least we did have a system which sometimes went after the people on the ground who committed embarrassing acts of brutality without sanction from above. Trump just gave his sanction to war crimes at all levels. Well, he did run on that back in 2016, so he kept his promise.

Calley got off lightly as well, so there has always been a constituency for this.

I haven't had (and continue to not have) much time today to do more than just keep up. But:

sapient: I am not remotely insulted (although slightly confused) to be mixed up with you.

and

McKinney: Thank you for both your answer, and your kind remarks. I think your answer to my question is very interesting, for reasons that I do not currently have time to outline, but will hope to come back to.

but they voted for him proudly, in no small part because they wanted to stick it to the left.

File under "Cleek's Law" - er, um - cleek.

I have no desire to stick it to anyone. I'd prefer that, even if people wanted different things than I did, they didn't feel like I was purposely trying to poke them in the eye with my preferences. I f**king hate this crap that we're living through right now. It's a hundred times worse than arguing about NAFTA, WMDs or the Iran nuclear deal. I have tons of Trumper friends who I used to argue politics with, but don't anymore because I would prefer to continue liking them, even if it requires certain avoidances.

(The above paragraph isn't in response to you, specifically, cleek.)

An alternate view of the Deep State
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-can-no-longer-justify-being-a-part-of-trumps-complacent-state-so-im-resigning/2019/08/08/fed849e4-af14-11e9-8e77-03b30bc29f64_story.html

Oh, and isn't it "Jesurgislac"?

i'm kindof impressed that Trump went through with actual workplace raids.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/ice-agents-raid-miss-work-sites-arrest-680-people-in-largest-single-state-immigration-enforcement-action-in-us-history/2019/08/07/801d5cfe-b94e-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html

i didn't think he'd have the guts to make life hard for big biz.

(The above paragraph isn't in response to you, specifically, cleek.)

what hsh said.

didn't think he'd have the guts to make life hard for big biz.

You might want to note that these businesses aren't all that large. And note that

“To those who use illegal aliens for a competitive advantage or to make a quick buck, we have something to say to you: If we find you have violated federal criminal law, we are coming for you,” said Mike Hurst, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi. But he declined to comment on whether anyone other than the immigrant workers would be charged as a result of the operation, which he said is ongoing. [emphasis added]
So, not too much inconvenience for the business' owner.

Also note that

“Here’s the deal, all right,” an agent says to an English-speaking woman accompanying Angie. “She just went. Her mom got on the bus. We took her mom’s documents, all right. She’s going to be processed, because she doesn’t have papers to be here legally.”

But “because she’s the only caretaker of the child,” the agent continues, “she’ll be released this afternoon. So with [Angie] being a U.S. citizen and being 12 years old … she’s going to be issued a notice to appear, she’ll have to see an immigration judge, she’ll be released this afternoon."

“Today?” a woman asks.

“Yes, yes,” the officer responds. “But I’m going to tell you something, she’s not going to be deported because she has a United States citizen child.” [emphasis added]

That is, many of those picked up are going to be back at work in a day or two. Because apparently under a Trump administration, "anchor babies" are a real thing.

I'm nearly certain Donald and hairshirthedonist are correct on the spelling of Jes' handle.

But if we are lucky, she may appear shortly and confirm the spelling for us.

I say this because the last time she appeared here, to my knowledge, was several years ago (it all bleeds together) when I was trying to figure out what Slart was getting at in a comment, and I jokingly wrote something like "do I have to summon Jes in here to tell you are being obtuse?", as she would in the old, old days, and sure enough, within the hour, after some years of silence from her end, down she swooped, like Pallas Athena alighting next to Achilles to question his motives, to tell Slart he was being obtuse (about what, who cares).

And then off she went.

It was pretty cool. I felt like a little kid pointing at a cloud and instantly causing it to give forth with thunder and lightening. Or like a seance participant causing a teapot on the sideboard to speak in the voice of a long-gone ancestor.

Jes, are you there?

[Jes, i promise to be nice]

It's taken a while, but the Democrats have finally realised that the Senate filibuster is of less importance than... the survival of human civilisation:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/456704-harry-reid-democrats-should-scrap-filibuster-to-battle-climate-change-if-they
“The answer is yes,” Reid told the Daily Beast, when asked if he would get rid of the tactic requiring 60 votes for legislation to be brought to the floor if it allowed Democrats to pass a bill addressing the climate crisis. “[T]he No. 1 priority is climate change. There’s nothing that affects my children, grandchildren, and their children, right now, more than climate."
Reid predicted that the death of the filibuster for legislation is inevitable.
“It is not a question of if,” he told The Daily Beast. “It is a question of when we get rid of the filibuster. It’s gone. It’s gone.

For the ultimate proper perspective on human depravity, this, from a New Yorker review of a new book on the mosquito throughout human history:

"In total, Winegard estimates that mosquitoes have killed more people than any other single cause—fifty-two billion of us, nearly half of all humans who have ever lived. He calls them “our apex predator,” “the destroyer of worlds,” and “the ultimate agent of historical change.”

As mortality becomes a palpable presence on my horizon, the very unspeakableness of the perils of existence leaves me depressingly small in the course of history.

My kingdom for a vodka tonic and mosquito net.

McKinney wrote:

"My point is that, in context, (1) Christianity is a piker in terms of spreading misery compared to socialism--which some number of Progs are willing to flirt with if not entertain in some watered down form."

This makes zero sense with just about anything argued here over the years by anyone that I can remember. If you are comparing flirtation with a European-type or Canadian government health care insurance scheme with Joseph Stalin's all-in socialist (not even that, as with p, in smaller proportion, the cruelty was the point not socialism) romance with catastrophic agricultural crop policies in the Ukraine during the 1930s or whatever cruel collectivist Maoist deprivations were forced on China, then all we have is a conversation stopper.

Just the same, the fact that China currently has a fragmented healthcare system in which many are not covered by insurance is a failure to my mind, but whether its a failure of capitalism or socialism I've no idea, and frankly I don't care.

Covering all of the Chinese citizenry with subsidized health insurance is not the disappearance of thousands in Tiananmen Square.

McTX, you are revulsed by p, but what line can he (he will, if you draw the line and point him at it) cross to make you wish you had voted for Hillary Clinton, the only other candidate who had a chance to prevent this monstrous Presidency.

Even if Daffy Duck would have been a suitable alternative to p and had been on the ballot.

oh shit.... can't believe i didn't catch this... the Castro who retweeted The List was Joaquin. he is not the candidate; his brother Julian Castro is.

lol

The comments to this entry are closed.