« I can't believe this is happening to me.... | Main | Nothing really matters, anyone can see, Nothing really matters... »

November 02, 2019

Comments

Less than 13 million people live in NYC and LA combined. The population of the US is over 325 million. You're being silly, Marty. And what likelihood do you think there is that the EC is going away?

In the Marty version of "justifiable" impeachment, even the Nixon tapes weren't enough to warrant Senate conviction and removal from office, and all those eyewitnesses? Poof. They can be ignored.

Therefore Goldwater made a big mistake when he told that thug, "You don't have a chance, Dickie."

They bluffed him out of office.

plus, US v Nixon was wrong!

But maybe Nixon was wrongly decided — heresy though it is to say so. Nixon took away the power of the president to control information in the executive branch by holding that the courts had power and jurisdiction to order the president to disclose information in response to a subpoena sought by a subordinate executive branch official. That was a huge step with implications to this day that most people do not appreciate sufficiently...Maybe the tension of the time led to an erroneous decision.

no, wait. that was Justice I LikeBeer

Marty, there are 100 Senators. And every state gets 2.

Maybe I'm missing your point.

If there were enough House members to vote to impeach, and enough Senators to vote to convict, then they could throw the prick out of the white house just because they all shared the opinion that he is a piece of shit.

This would be CONSTITUTIONAL.

They might pay a terrible political price, but that, too, is allowed.

Truly amazing that Rethuglicans seem to lack basic reading skills.

your votes count nothing because NYC and LA pick the President

Just FYI, LA doesn't even pick California's governor or senators. (Which is why all 3 are from San Francisco, not LA. Even though, at least for the 2 who weren't incumbents last time, their opponents were from LA.) Amazingly enough, California voters seem to select on the basis of what the candidate says, not where they are from. I say this as someone who lives near San Francisco (not in it; rather few people actually do) and who tends to disagree with the politics of all three.

So your concerns about who will pick the President seem . . . overblown. Still, if it worries you, you could push for the straight national-popular-vote approach to electing the President. Not that it, either, would reliably select the candidate that you or I might prefer. Democracy works that way sometimes.

your votes count nothing because NYC and LA pick the President

actually the EC picks the President. and you lurve the EC.

I'm also an old white dude. I live near, not a megalopolis, but a sort of medium-opolis. My state has 11 electors, and it's next to a state with 4.

Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, the state with 4 electors gets an enormous level of attention at election time, because it's an early primary state, and is also kind of a toss-up electorally.

My state is basically ignored, because Everybody Knows It's Gonna Go (D).

If I was a (R) in my state - of whom there a respectable number - I'd be annoyed, because I might as well stay home. My vote would not count for a damned thing.

We're talking a bit over a million people, in MA, in 2016, who voted for Trump. They might as well have just stayed home, their votes counted for nothing.

In any case, fear not, nobody is gonna make people in WY or ID ride the subway or eat deli sandwiches. I don't mean to be dismissive, but the whole "making everyone live in a megalopolis" thing just seems wildly - and I do mean wildly - out of proportion to reality.

Until then its frightening. Go to the Berkshires and ask what they think of state government favoring Boston.

But of course going into a predominantly African American urban neighborhood and asking those citizens what they think about assholes in the Berkshires having absolute political veto over things would be entirely inappropriate!

Good to know.

And withholding military aid that has been authorised by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, is also (I believe) illegal.

Let's call it unlawful. The executive branch is generally required to spend the money appropriated by Congress (Impoundment Control Act of 1974, plus subsequent court cases). If the President wants to not spend particular funds, he must ask and get approval by both houses of Congress within 45 days. It's a positive approval thing: if Congress takes no action, that's a no.

From memory, so possibly wrong in some details... In the case of the aid for Ukraine, there were conditions that Ukraine had to meet that had been set by Congress. The DoD, who was responsible, had certified that the conditions were met well before the phone call. Pentagon staff had already raised the question, "Why haven't the funds been released?" before the phone stuff.

One question that comes up is timing. For example, if the Treasury waits until the last day of the fiscal year to release the funds, is that a violation of the Impoundment Act? My inclination would be to say yes, but so far as I know it's never been litigated.

For all the demands from the White House that the whistleblower testify (in person and identified, in violation of the applicable whistleblower laws), it seems that

The Senate passed a resolution last night, by unanimous consent and with no Republican objections, calling for the Trump administration to turn over the whistleblower complaint to the intelligence committees, as is required by law.
Apparently a flagrant enough violation that even in McConnell's Senate nobody objected.

FWIW - folks in the Berkshires are not the ones who are generally bent out of shape about Boston. The folks they hate are the NY'ers who invade every summer for Tanglewood and Jacob's Pillow and Williamstown. They like the money, but don't like the attitude.

The folks who hate Boston are more in the middle of the state - Worcester county, probably Hampden and the hill towns up in Franklin.

Hampshire county is kind of in the same geographic area, but they have their own thing going on with Northhampton and the colleges, so Boston doesn't really register with them quite as much.

Folks on the Cape - i.e., the real folks on the Cape, the ones who live there year round - also pretty much hate Boston. For about five months out of the year, they have to put up with annoying tourist traffic. It can take all day to go across town to buy a gallon of milk.

FWIW, 80% of the population in MA lives in metro Boston, so there's that, too.

Nevertheless, we find ways to work it out.

because NYC and LA pick the President call me then. I dont care what the make up of the population is, people dont want to live like they are in a megalopolis. Or maybe no one will care, but I will be dead. Until then its frightening.

My bold.

Obviously I am speaking from a personal history and current-day context that makes "megalopolis" something less than a frightening concept.

That said, the sentiment Marty shares here just puzzles the hell out of me.

What exactly do you think is going to happen to people in smaller states that is so "frightening"? Really, what?

Because I don't get it. And when I say "I don't get it", what I mean is, it strikes me as divorced from reality.

Nobody is coming to get you.

We talk about the undemocratic nature of the EC on a blog and muse about getting rid of it. That's frightening. Run to the hills!

No, really. I want to understand what Marty (or whoever) is afraid of.

Let's say the EC goes away. Not gonna happen, but let's just play it out as a mental exercise.

What happens to people living in small states? How do their lives change? What are people living in (e.g.) NY or LA going to impose on them?

I don't get it.

And the reason I want to know is because, if this is the thinking that is keeping a guy like Trump in office, I want to understand it so I can perhaps put "People Like Marty" at ease.

I have no interest in changing anybody's life in small states. Certainly not in any way that I can imagine will be consequential to them, at all.

What is the threat here? I want to know, because as far as I can tell this sense of impending doom is FUBARing this country.

if the EC goes away, two elections in the last 120 years would have gone the other way. two!

massive upheaval. massive. so much change.

They sure make it easy for evil Democrats to convince people that they are being "othered."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/12/trump-adviser-stephen-miller-white-nationalist-agenda-breitbart

the GOP budget hawks have a fresh and brilliant idea about how to buy a bunch of votes solve the deficit: lower 'middle class' tax rate to 15%.

drowning the govt in a bathtun is right out. new plan is to suffocate the government in debt and bought votes.

yes, bathtun. i have one at my house. i bathe in wine.

don't you?

Wasn't your nickname in college "Tuns o' Fun"?

What I find significant in all of this is that while Marty is, to all evidence here, an individually decent human being, his voting priorities and his fears (also as evidenced here) align quite neatly with those of the White Supremacists.

I guess Trump is just good at threading the needle of white resentment.

What happens to people living in small states? How do their lives change? What are people living in (e.g.) NY or LA going to impose on them?

A few weeks ago I visited some in-laws in rural Kansas. Mostly the things they were complaining about were regulations. To pick an example I heard multiple times... California drives national emissions standards just by the size of the markets there. To meet those standards, farm equipment manufacturers do things with the diesel engines that reduce power, mileage, and indirectly, reliability. There is a thriving underground market in replacement ROMs for the ECMs on tractors, harvesters, and farm trucks. Not just physically swapping them, but also reverse-engineering to figure out the code/data and how to change it. Swapping the ROMs is illegal; reverse-engineering is a felony DMCA IP violation.

Meanwhile, of course, those same Kansans are likely unconcerned when a small elected board in Texas is driving national textbook standards...

What are people living in (e.g.) NY or LA going to impose on them?

Omeone-say ight-may ake-tay away-way eir-thay uns-gay.

To meet those standards, farm equipment manufacturers do things with the diesel engines that reduce power, mileage, and indirectly, reliability.

And... reduces emissions from the farm equipment. Right?

So, I understand why it's annoying. Don't people in Kansas understand why it's important?

And, I understand why it's probably not something where they personally see the benefit, directly and immediately. Don't they make the connection to the bigger picture?

Do they not recognize that everybody else also makes concessions in one way or another that benefit them (e.g., farmer in Kansas)?

Since Marty made his grifter claim about Obama, and was asked for the evidence on it by me (several times) and some others (Nigel and cleek), he has commented three times on other matters without providing any evidence that Obama was any kind of grifter. Marty, I hope therefore you understand why nobody is able to take that accusation seriously, or indeed your complaints about lack of evidence in e.g. the impeachment enquiry.

Michael Cain: thank you for the interesting info above on a) the unlawfulness or otherwise of the withholding of the military aid to Ukraine, and b) the impact of the emissions standards on agricultural communities.

To meet those standards, farm equipment manufacturers do things with the diesel engines that reduce power, mileage, and indirectly, reliability.

Of course, regulations also force UP mileage. Although IIRC diesel engines get special, easier standards. Sounds like what they are asking for (whether they know it or not) is MORE regulation.

"The more meaningful feature of the Electoral College is its allocation of electoral votes among the states. The Electoral College mirrors the "federal ratio" of representation of Congress. The compromises that had been hammered out among the competing interests in creating Congress were just carried over to the selection of the president. This could have been done more naturally by letting Congress pick the president, but the founders worried that such a president would not be independent enough and Congress would become too tempting of a target for corruption. The Electoral College could serve as a temporary Congress.
...
The Electoral College is a creaky system that we would be unlikely to adopt if we were drafting a constitution today. But it makes a modest contribution toward moderating and nationalizing our politics, and it has the advantage of being familiar if not necessarily loved. We could do worse."

The Electoral College Is Just OK: Somewhere south of "a work of genius"; somewhere north of "a disaster for our democracy."

GftNC, that discussion is not a two paragraph thing I can do at work. Obama accomplished very little in his career except check boxes for a Presidential run. His grift was the power itself, disappointed in his ability to wield it he spent his last two years doing with executive orders what he couldnt accomplish otherwise.

the blessed Founders also thought the EC would act as a buffer, to balance the public's fleeting passions and the interests of the country. the Electors would choose the best people and reject the obviously unfit. it clearly does not do that. strike one.

the fact that it was intended to do that in the first place is absurd. strike two.

it wildly distorts how candidates actually run for President (compounded by the unrelated primary system). instead of running where the people are, they run where the EC votes are. strike three.

it erodes faith in government when every four years, a new generation of people who rightfully don't give a crap about the arcane bargains worked out between the original thirteen states are flabbergasted to learn what it does to their votes. strike four.

Big farms are consolidating into even bigger farms. Equipment is becoming so expensive and specialized that only very large operations can afford the financial risk of buying it.

A large farm in Minnesota: Millennial Farmer

His grift was the power itself

E.g., his grift was getting elected. By solid majorities.

A precis of Obama's resume before being elected:

After graduating from Columbia University in 1983, he worked as a community organizer in Chicago. In 1988, he enrolled in Harvard Law School, where he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. After graduating, he became a civil rights attorney and an academic, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He represented the 13th district for three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 until 2004, when he ran for the U.S. Senate. He received national attention in 2004 with his March primary win, his well-received July Democratic National Convention keynote address, and his landslide November election to the Senate.

If you want to say he had limited experience in national politics, I won't argue the point. But he was an accomplished person, in areas that actually are relevant to the role of POTUS.

As far as executive orders, Obama is sort of average. Middling. Reagan, Nixon, Clinton, Johnson, Carter, and Bush all issued more.

It's fine if you don't like the guy. But everything you say about him is basically false. Like, factually false, and trivially disproven.

Come on, man. Do better than this.

plus, he was a tyrant.

Yes, come on Marty, that is so eccentric a definition of grift as to be meaningless. If you were driven by annoyance to say something you didn't actually mean, well no doubt we've all done that at times and you could say so and move on. I'm sure there's plenty you could legitimately blame Obama for (god knows Donald and others have regularly done so) but let's not get hung up in indefensible positions. And there's plenty to legitimately blame Trump for, as you very well know and many conservatives are slowly starting to realise.

I'm off to bed. This one will run and run.

Omeone-say ight-may ake-tay away-way eir-thay uns-gay.

I've been visiting the in-laws off and on for 40 years now. Guns just never come up. I know there's a rifle locked up somewhere in my BIL's house, but I'd have to hunt for it. He and his two sons take three deer a year on his property to help keep the local population in check. He'll kill a coyote if it's getting too bold (eg, starts trying to get into the barn). No one has ever seemed concerned that anyone was going to try to take the rifles/shotguns away.

To be honest, all of the serious gun nuts I've ever known live in the suburbs.

I think Marty is using ‘grift’ as some kind of metaphor.
Quite what he means by it, I have no real idea, other than that he doesn’t like the man’s politics.

That he perhaps sold the country on hope of progress that he didn’t quite deliver makes him no different from pretty well any president in history (with a possible couple of exceptions).

Trump is your actual crook, far as I can see.
“That phoney emoluments clause....”

Michael Cain: well that's your sample, I guess. There are "gun nuts" in deep rural/backwoods Maine, and also people whom I wouldn't call nuts, but who are pretty obsessed about the right to keep their guns, and they sure don't live in the suburbs.

This is an interesting conversation with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/john-roberts-court-abandoned-bipartisan-consensus-dark-money-republican-donors.html
I think the first thing is to highlight the record. Most Americans have no idea that under Chief Justice Roberts, there are 73 of these 5–4 partisan decisions in which there was a big Republican donor interest implicated. And in 73 out of 73, the big Republican donor interest won...

Obama is a grifter because he wasn't up to the job and hoodwinked a bunch of people into voting for him. he's a con man. he's an unqualified nobody who fooled all the dumb liberals.

or so goes the myth.

or so goes the myth.

Not to mention he had a GOP House 2011 to the end of his 2nd term and a GOP Senate 2015 to the end of his second term.

But other than that...no cliffhangers here! Smooth sailing!

As for executive orders...GW Bush issued more than Obama, and Trump on on a pace to exceed even that number.

To pick an example I heard multiple times... California drives national emissions standards just by the size of the markets there.

Michael,

I could find EPA regs about this matter issued in 2011, 2018 (TRUMP/PERRY!), and 2019(TRUMP/PERRY!) but nothing to substantiate the claim that California standards drove these regulations.

Is this another example of an "Obama Phone" slander?....a hearty favorite amongst my rural in-laws.

To be honest, all of the serious gun nuts I've ever known live in the suburbs.

You need to get out more. I suggest NE Washington State and Northern Idaho for a start.

I think what Marty is saying about the Electoral College is that a small number of people in rural areas, receiving federal subsidies, must continue to have the same electoral weight as a much larger number of people in cities, paying federal taxes. Because otherwise the Democrats would bring in too much welfare for the wrong sort of people.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to work out what the real issue is with "unfettered illegal immigration". Illegal immigration happens because illegal immigrants can get jobs in the USA, for example with Republican-voting farmers. And because legal immigration is made too difficult - after all, no one actual wants to be illegal. So if you want to stop it, you either make legal immigration easy enough, or you crack down on people employing illegal immigrants - that might leave crops to rot in the fields, but at least there would be fewer brown people in the country.

Which of those approaches do you favour Marty?

Is this another example of an "Obama Phone" slander?....a hearty favorite amongst my rural in-laws.

For whatever reason, that bit of silliness popped in my head today. Started under Bush to give people a way to manage their lives, including finding work. Turned into Obama giving stuff away to black people (even if they would never come out and say it in those words, publicly anyway).

I love that old crops to rot in the fields chestnut, plus the farmers on welfare meme. Any other divisive talking points you want to throw out?

Nothing to worry about there.

or you crack down on people employing illegal immigrants

But that would inconvenience people like . . . Trump. Not to mention cost them money.

And you omit the detail that hiring illegal immigrants means that you have leverage to keep wages low. One of the upsides to restricting legal immigration which doesn't get much play.

Because otherwise the Democrats would bring in too much welfare for the wrong sort of people.

FIFY

I love that old crops to rot in the fields chestnut, plus the farmers on welfare meme.

Agriculture subsidies are just a variation of crony capitalism.

You want to cut illegal immigration by 60%? Don't issue any visas....NONE. But I guess our fine "Know Nothings" believe that issuing visas is an acceptable price to pay....and as an added benefit...maybe, just maybe, these types don't come from, you know, those "shithole" countries.

You want to stop the other 40%? Make hiring of illegals a capital offence. A few executions would go a long way. After all, our good conservative assholes generally favor capital punishment. But that punishment is too much in relation to the crime? Well, just WTF do you want?

I know what you want. You want cheap labor.

Why can't you just come out and say it? At least that would have the benefit of being honest.

I love that old crops to rot in the fields chestnut...

Well, maybe those farmers should just go out and buy some under the counter illegal diesel tractors. That would teach those condescending libs!

Take that!

You need to get out more. I suggest NE Washington State and Northern Idaho for a start.

I'll admit the possibility. A lot of people that tolerate rollin' into town and shootin' people up living there? Lots of the ones that really believe, so they've got 20 weapons and 10,000 rounds of ammunition tucked away in the basement? Damn, NE Washington must be a lot richer than rural Kansas. The really dangerous nuts -- the kind that people were implying in a bunch of "Civil War" remarks a hundred comments or so back -- live in the suburbs/exurbs. Look where the mass shooters come from.

On the "Civil War" sort of topic, I'm the lunatic that says a partition of the United States is going to happen, approximately when, where at least one of the borders will be, and what the reasons will be. But "Civil War" with the rural folks shooting at the urban folks (or vice versa) isn't going to happen. Nor will eastern and western states be shooting at each other across the 500-mile-wide depopulated Great Plains.

Re: crops rotting in the fields, it's not like liberals make this shit up:

https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/farmers-tie-labor-shortage-state-new-immigration-law-ask-for-help/3l4Zm7QfEVbP9zI8QIovXP/

Took less than a minute to find that article (that I remembered reading when it came out).

Michael Cain: A lot of people that tolerate rollin' into town and shootin' people up living there? Lots of the ones that really believe, so they've got 20 weapons and 10,000 rounds of ammunition tucked away in the basement?

I believe bobbyp and I are the only ones who addressed the issue of guns, and I'm the one who brought it up. I brought it up in the context of russell's question about what the people Marty purports to be speaking for (who are so frightened, says Marty, of what the liberals and the city folks are going to do to them) are actualy afraid of. I suggested, admittedly snarkily, that one of the things they're afraid of is that liberals and city people will take their guns away.

I totally stand by that. I could walk up the road and find people like that in rural Maine. It has very little to do with what you're on about, except that mass shootings are part of what's driving the movement for the tighter gun control that a lot of people who aren't "gun nuts" or mass shooters are afraid of.

I love that old crops to rot in the fields chestnut

Is it true, or is it not true? Who actually picks produce?

Who works in meat packing houses?
Who are the line cooks in restaurants?
Who are the cleaning people in offices and hospitals?
Who are the health aides and orderlies in nursing homes and hospitals?
Who are the grunt labor in building trades?
Who?

All fucking myths, obvs.

I totally stand by that.

My sister, her husband, one of my nieces, and niece's entire entourage of in-laws, all believe that liberals want to take away the guns. My brother in law frequently talks about the time when "Obama came for the guns", which is an episode in the annals of Obama that I apparently missed.

And they need the guns, to defend themselves from the government, in case the government comes to take the guns away.

It makes my freaking head hurt to even try to unpack all of that.

I love them all, and they're all out of their freaking gourds.

FWIW, all of my other current brothers-in-law also own and (on occasion) carry firearms. Brother in law from Montana can recite the muzzle velocities of his various firearms from memory, but he goes camping in remote areas of the mountain west fairly regularly, and that information is actually relevant, because bears etc. You actually want the bear to stop before it has a chance to reach you.

Ohio brother in law has a pistol he acquired when an employee threatened to come and kill everybody in his shop when he was laid off, and he also has an old rifle that's kind of a family heirloom. To allay any sense of alarm, Ohio BIL met with disgruntled employee (with the gun in his desk) along with said employee's manager, generally talked him down off the ledge, gave him a month's severance, and got him into some counseling. All ended basically well. Ohio BIL is a stand-up guy, about whom many edifying stories could be told. Another time.

In any case, neither of those guys freaks out about it, they just have guns and don't make a big deal about it. Because they're not out of their freaking gourds.

I'd blame it on something in the water in Arizona, but I suspect it's more widely spread than that.

And what in hell is anybody in SF LA or NY trying to make anybody in [insert small state here] do that they don't want to do?

OK, if the small state is RI then maybe everybody is trying to get them to stop electing gangsters for public office.

But I don't think Marty's talking about RI.

Really, I'd like to know. I really hope it's not "don't swap out the ROMs and ECMs on your tractors".

And what in hell is anybody in SF LA or NY trying to make anybody in [insert small state here] do that they don't want to do?

Eat tacos? ;-)

I'm so old I remember when the local spaghetti joint in my home town was considered by some people to be "foreign food."

How times change.

Just so we can keep track of what's happening right now.

McKinney (and his friends) find people like me exhausting. You know what? This sh*t is what's exhausting. In fact, I'm worn out with reading about it. If you're demoralized by me, and not by this, then I don't know what to say.

And what in hell is anybody in SF LA or NY trying to make anybody in [insert small state here] do that they don't want to do?

My guess (and it's only a guess, not something I've researched): make them accept the other people, different people, are only that -- not threatening, just different. Make them accept that someone can be different, and still be a good, a real American. In short, accept that their narrow image of America has been too narrow.

It's a lesson learned in past generations. In many cases, by people who didn't want to accept their ancestors. But, eventually, did. (For an interesting parlor game, try to guess what group will be the exestential threat when they arrive half a century hence.)

And please scroll up to see how Sherrilyn Ifill started the thread. As she said, it's only Tuesday.

With a passing connection to the thread's major topic...

"Tractor hacking is growing increasingly popular because John Deere and other manufacturers have made it impossible to perform "unauthorized" repair on farm equipment, which farmers see as an attack on their sovereignty and quite possibly an existential threat to their livelihood if their tractor breaks at an inopportune time."
Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware: A dive into the thriving black market of John Deere tractor hacking.

"For much of the last decade, American corporations have been doing their absolute best to limit the purchasing and servicing power of consumers. For instance, you may have heard that Apple was recently forced, after a long battle with the Right to Repair movement, to roll back their anti-consumer policies against self-repair and third-party repair."
How American Farmers Are Outsmarting John Deere

I think that even rank and file Trumpers eat tacos.

I can tell you what I'm afraid of.

I'm afraid of people being bullied and threatened because they're gay, or seem gay, or speak Spanish. That's not an academic fear, it happens and has happened to people I know.

I'm afraid of people being literally snatched from their homes and schools and places of work and then being held, somewhere, where their families find it difficult to locate and contact them, and then being sent "back" to some place that in many cases they have no memory of and perhaps don't even speak the language. This has happened to people that I know of, but don't know personally, so one degree of separation from me. More than once.

I'm afraid for the Jewish people in my neighborhood, who are numerous, who have to worry if they're looking at the beginning of yet another episode of "throw the Jew down the well so my country can be free". Is it just a fluke, or a number of flukes? Or do they actually have to start worrying about this crap? Yet again?

I'm afraid for the black people who seem to be the only people in my white-bread town who ever get pulled over by the cops, and who in many places have to realistically look at any encounter with the cops as a possible threat on their life.

I'm afraid for the many married gay couples I know who have children and have to wonder if both their marriages and their parenthood are at risk. Again.

Right? Those are the kinds of things I worry about.

I am in fact an old straight white dude suburban householder with a pretty good 401k and a pretty good resume and nice white color job and a mostly-paid-off ranch house in the suburbs. I have not one freaking thing in the world to worry about other than maybe hemorrhoids and occasional lower back pain. I'm all good.

All of the above is the stuff I worry about. And it's not hypothetical, and it's not remote from me. I worry about it because people close to me are affected by it and worry about it.

I don't give one single solitary crap if people want guns, just don't kill harm or threaten other people with them. I don't care if people go to NASCAR or church or hunt or eat at Applebees or the Waffle House or whatever freaking thing they want to do. If you want to say "Merry Christmas" to me instead of "Happy Holidays", it's all good with me.

Go for it. Live your life. I sure as hell am living mine.

But get over this god-damned corrosive pernicious bullshit sense of victimhood and resentment. I hate to break it to you, but nobody's even really paying all that much attention to you other than NYTimes reporters looking for a human interest story. Get the hell over it. It's ruining a lot of other people's lives. Probably yours, too.

Find a way to get past it.

I think that even rank and file Trumpers eat tacos.

Yes. That was kind of my point. The bogeyman actually drives a taco truck and is hardly scary at all.

A good article in the Atlantic talking to the point:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/how-america-ends/600757/

The Republican party needs to find a way to reject xenophobia, and for now it is racing in the opposite direction.

A healthy conservatism is not about the rejection of change, but a clear sighted management of it.

farmers see as an attack on their sovereignty

Dear farmers of America: it saddens me to inform you that you are not sovereign. Not even over your tractor.

John deere is, however, after your wallet.

That was kind of my point

D'oh. Sorry Janie.

@russell -- :-)

I'm afraid for the Sikh people who, after centuries of being hassled** elsewhere by Muslims, now find themselves targeted by ignorant bigots here who think they are Muslims.

** Actually, a) a war between the Sikh Empire and Muslims, and b) millions of Sikhs fleeing Pakistan during the partition of India (and for good reason).

A healthy conservatism is not about the rejection of change, but a clear sighted management of it.

Well put, Nigel. It's how we know that most of today's self-proclaimed conservatives . . . aren't.

farmers see as an attack on their sovereignty

What are they going to make of the plans of the engine manufacturers like Cummins to transition entirely to electric power ?

(FWIW, they ought eventually to appreciate it given the probable significantly lower operating costs, and far greater torque, controllability etc.)

plus the farmers on welfare meme

Trump's farm bailout, which he personally caused the need for, cost double what Obama's Detroit bailout cost.

why has there been no Tea Party revival?

where are the clowns in tricorns?

where are the bold populist budget hawks?

From the ice-age to the dole-age
There is but one concern
I have just discovered :
Some welfare's better than others.
Some guys' bailouts are better than other guys' bailouts.

Venice.

Frightening, and sad.

This is another interesting article of some relevance to the thread discussion.

And gives a good idea of where the Republican whataboutery comes from :
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/joe-bidens-hillary-clinton-problem/601870/

That is not to say, of course, that either Biden or Clinton were criminals, or determined to trash the constitution to which they had sworn oaths.

But good leaders surround themselves with critical friends, rather than toadies.

Republican whataboutery does not come from genuine concerns about Clinton or Biden. For example, see Marty's "Obama is a grifter." It comes from their dishonesty.

Please don't further their narrative, Nigel. My guess is that if you cherrypicked anyone's professional life, you can find advice that people didn't listen to, perhaps to their detriment. (Although, the "emailz!" which weren't a problem for any R who handled emails similarly, and don't seem to be a problem for the current White House which is egregiously careless, especially shouldn't have been a problem for Hillary Clinton, because she was careful, the situation was investigated ad nauseam, and no problem was found.)

watching Taylor's opening statement.

holy. crap.

Heard Nunez opening statement on radio driving to work...really insane cuckoo land stuff!

not sure i can take 45 minutes of Nunes. all of his screws are loose.

not sure i can take 45 minutes of Nunes. all of his screws are loose.

Not all of them. A fair number seem to be flat missing.

i might not make it through five minutes.

"The Democrats are not trying to discover acts, they're trying to make up a narrative" says Nunes as part of his narrative, instead of asking questions.

facts, not acts.

Just read Ambassador Taylor's opening statement. Damning.

But not sure I saw anything which will make a great sound bite. And I'm afraid it's going to take a couple of those creating viral moments to make a difference. Merely overwhelming evidence? Sadly, unlikely to be enough.

it's amazing watching Nunes and the GOP counsel quiz Taylor about the tenets of "conservative" mythology. Taylor is struggling to find out WTF is actually being asked.

Just listened to Bill Taylor's opening statement. He's an impressive and conscientious public servant, and his recollections and notes are extremely damning. However, what wj says is probably right: "Merely overwhelming evidence? Sadly, unlikely to be enough,"

Nothing will make a difference in terms of whether Trump will be impeached. Nothing will make a difference in changing Republicans' behavior for the reasons we've discussed.

It's the right thing to do for Democrats to create a historical record. The hearings might also motivate Democrats. Watching these honorable public servants makes me proud, and that inspires me.

Nothing will make a difference in terms of whether Trump will be impeached.

Quite true. What's already on the public record, and admitted to by the White House and by Trump personally, is more than sufficiently damning.

Nothing will make a difference in changing Republicans' behavior for the reasons we've discussed.

I think "nothing" may be an overstatement. Call it my usual compulsive optimism if you like. But I think some Republican Senators may be induced to remember that their oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, and not to protect and defend Donald Trump. Probably not enough, but some.

One interesting nugget: Ambassador Taylor mentioning that one of his staffers was sitting next to Ambassador Sondland when he was on the phone with President Trump. And could hear Trump asking about the "investigations." That's new. It's also second hand. Expect the Republicans to jump on that.

But here's the thing. It sets up the possibility of calling that (so far unnamed) staffer as a witness. Which just might be the damning sound bite that's needed.

Yes, wj, I also noticed that and hoped so, but even that may not be enough. The goalposts of what is acceptable seem to have moved so far, and with such slipperiness, that it's hard to envisage "what's needed".

The Strong Support!

Rep Stewart thinks this is about Obama for some reason.

the GOP apparently thinks everyone is very very stupid.

WaPo helpfully provides an annotated version of Nunes' opening remarks which explains the various references to 'conservative' mythology for those who aren't familiar.

the GOP apparently thinks everyone is very very stupid.

Everyone? Or just everyone in their base? The evidence (over the years) rather suggests the latter.

Nothing will make a difference...

Empirically, that seems to be the case....
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/13/poll-voters-impeachment-070311
...A majority of voters, 62 percent, say there is no chance they could change their minds about impeachment, the poll shows. Another 19 percent say there’s only a small chance they change their minds.

The persuadables are are relatively tiny category - but the future of the US might depend upon them.

The persuadables are are relatively tiny category - but the future of the US might depend upon them.

But that is true in every election. The number of (real) independents, nationwide and specifically in the "swing" states, is not all that large. But the winner of every election depends on which way they jump.

The persuadables are are relatively tiny category - but the future of the US might depend upon them.

If this is true (and I'm not sure it is), it's important to find out who the true persuadables are, and not spin wheels looking for Marty types to see the light.

Young people are the ticket. They also have the most at stake.

Not only who they are, but what arguments will persuade them.

I see a tendency (both here and amongst politicians and campaigners generally) to focus on the arguments which are most persuasive to the folks making the argument -- which they therefore assume must persuade others. And not on what arguments actually will persuade the target audience.

De-lurking for a moment to express my amusement at the silly ride y'all are allowing Marty to take you on.

Marty: "GftNC, that discussion is not a two paragraph thing I can do at work. Obama accomplished very little in his career except check boxes for a Presidential run. His grift was the power itself, disappointed in his ability to wield it he spent his last two years doing with executive orders what he couldnt accomplish otherwise."

Upon reading Marty's response, I was reminded of nothing so much as one of my favorite passages from "Alice in Wonderland":

“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.”

Verbal Calvinball, if you will...

The definition of grift is pretty simple. These 2 are from Merriam Webster (other dictionaries are quite similar):

: to obtain money or property illicitly (as in a confidence game)
: to acquire money or property illicitly

There was discussion earlier about how to judge whether a person is arguing in good faith. When somebody uses a common word to allege dishonesty on the part of another and then when called on it supplies a personal, dissembling definition orthogonal to its true meaning, this strikes me as a perfect example.

don't be so tyrannical, worn. it's like you're plotting a coup.

or a regicide.

I have to admit, worn, I did immediately think of humpty dumpty when I read Marty's explanation. However, for reasons I have made clear, I don't think it's a silly ride. And if I'm wrong, and it is, no harm done in my opinion, and some others have been kind enough to agree, or at least be tolerant.

Thanks for delurking, worn. Please do so again.

And, yeah, wws

grifter

a person who swindles you by means of deception or fraud

Ex

But if the media is to tell the whole story of the rise and demise of America’s Mayor, they need to confess to their role in this grifter’s ascension.


The likelihood that Trump ran numbers is pretty low, but of course everyone understood that piece description.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad