« let's talk about something else | Main | We are all John Boltons now... »

January 16, 2020

Comments

wj: FYLTGE (from your lips to god's ear)

And yet, no matter what comes out, support for him seems not to waver. We keep thinking that can't go on, and then it does....

Here is a classic scene, seems like the "Best People" haven't watched the Wire (punch line comes at the end).

As for the die-hard supporters, I fear the criminal aspect is to them a feature, not a bug.

no matter what comes out, support for him seems not to waver. We keep thinking that can't go on, and then it does.

Among his true believers, sadly true. Religion, including idolatry, tends to work like that.

But
a) there does seem to be a bit of erosion among those who voted for him more as a vote against Clinton, and
b) the views of Senators seem to be shifting. That's their overt views -- they never have been among his fans. A marriage of convenience is especially subject to a nasty divorce when the convenience erodes.

ral, I'd say "life imitates art" . . . except that these bozos don't seem to have had anyone to rip up the notes.

every defector will be primaried out of their Senate job, guaranteed. perfect party discipline achieved.

instead the conscientious among them will, with furrowed brow and solemn sighs, justify acquittal with "Well, ok, he did it, but it doesn't warrant removal." the rest will invent fairy tales where Trump didn't do anything.

Are Republicans seriously arguing the principle that if new evidence comes up after the start of a trial, directly relevant to the issue being tried, that it shouldn’t be heard ?

Really ???

Are Republicans seriously arguing the principle that if new evidence comes up after the start of a trial, directly relevant to the issue being tried, that it shouldn’t be heard ?

In a word: Yup.

But consider their alternatives. If they allow evidence to be presented, then they are faced with explaining why they ignored it. If they just refuse to allow it, when it comes out they are faced with explaining how they allowed that to happen. If they can establish a principle that says they can't consider later evidence, they are (or at least can hope they are) off the hook.

In other words, the alternatives are worse.

Most of them are complicit, if not in this act, in another. Opening the Pandora's evidence box will expose them all as criminals. Awkward.

if new evidence comes up after the start of a trial, directly relevant to the issue being tried, that it shouldn’t be heard ?

right. because something something Democrats.

the GOP is a cult.

Perhaps they should just pray for guidance....
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/trump-supreme-court-shortlister-william-pryor-god-juries.html

OK, so having read Nigel's Slate link, I just want to say that if ever Judge William Pryor is elevated to the SCOTUS, all ObWi personnel should immediately make preparations to leave the US and seek asylum in Canada, or possibly in the UK or the EU. I'm not saying that earlier developments might not warrant the same action, but if he is ever confirmed then we will know for sure that the US is lost, and that the days of the Handmaid's Tale, Salem Witch trials etc are nigh.

Hmmm. On reflection, maybe a slight over-reaction. But only a slight one.

Prevarication can be fun! Join the holy orgy. Kama Sutra everyone!

Perhaps they should just pray for guidance....

What I never get are the people who (a) clamor for religious liberty, and (b) are offended if somebody says "Happy Holidays".

Some folks just don't seem to have the cognitive dissonance gene.

Are Republicans seriously arguing the principle that if new evidence comes up after the start of a trial, directly relevant to the issue being tried, that it shouldn’t be heard ?

"Arguing the principle" doesn't quite capture it. It might be more accurate to characterize their position as "Evidence? Fuck you".

In the face of which, they insist upon a civil response.

It is, really, kind of getting old.

It is, really, kind of getting old.

Not going to end well. Hope the "end" is not the end.

In the face of which, they insist upon a civil response.

This is what they do.

I'd like to see our conservative interlocutors defend this bullshit.

To expand on my previous:

I'm driving to work the other morning. The car in front of me has a "Trump 2020" bumper sticker. At a red light, I'm close enough to read the fine print:

"Make liberals cry again"

So, OK, that's cute. But it's also, straight up, bone stupid.

First of all, liberals aren't crying. They are fucking pissed off.

Second, how long do you think your little nihilstic "burn-it-all-down" fuck your feelings moment is going to last? And what reason are you giving me, your garden variety coastal liberal elitist, to give one single solitary flying fuck about you and your interests and what you want or need, when your little Trumpian moment in the sun has come and gone?

People like me aren't going anywhere. And I, personally, will never forget the fucking calamity that Trumpies have foisted upon the country and the world. As far as I can tell, Trump supporters have demonstrated themselves to be radically selfish and irresponsible social and political actors. Fucking entitled resentful little children.

I have no particular animus toward them at a personal level, and include a number of Trump supporters among my own family and friends. Just as I have no particular animus toward children when they behave, however egregiously, like children. But I have no respect or regard for their social or political point of view, nor I am likely to ever have any. They've cast their lot with the most despicable character of, at least, a generation, and done so with unapologetic enthusiasm.

On their head be it. The whole fucking disaster.

We'll get through this one way or another. People Like Me will pick up the pieces. We'll probably even allow Trumpies to continue to vote, and run for office. Maybe we'll even invite them to dinner parties, if they promise to leave that shit at the door.

But I, personally, will never ever ever ever ever forget what they have done to this country.

Fuck my feelings? You think you're gonna make me cry? You just make me shake my head. You're a child, and I will treat you as a child. When, and if, you ever find your way to thinking, feeling, and acting like an adult, perhaps we can have a conversation.

OK, so take this with a late-night wine-with-dinner grain of salt, but I have to say I think this is freaking hilarious.

Right?

Can't take a joke, you Gadsden flag wavers? Kiss my liberal keister.

And now I'm signing off, before I actually get rude. This stuff is getting under my skin. Too much damage is being done, we're getting kind of close to the point where a mere sense of humor will no longer be sufficient.

G'night all.

I'd like to see our conservative interlocutors defend this bullshit.

Well it's clearly indefensible bullshit. But I would argue that it isn't conservative, at least as I understand the term.

I would hope that the footnote gets left in. Just to make clear to the Supreme Court justices why they should unanimously overturn the ruling. Regardless of whether they think there are grounds for overturning Obamacare. Shoddy workmanship should be called out, no matter whether you agree with the goal or not.

As far as I can tell, Trump supporters have demonstrated themselves to be radically selfish and irresponsible social and political actors. Fucking entitled resentful little children.

Which is why they have embraced someone who routinely acts like a 3 year old** having a tantrum.

** No offense intended to most 3 year olds, many of whom are actually better behaved than this a good part of the time.

From bobbyp's cite:

Paul says if four or more of his GOP colleagues join with Democrats to entertain new witness testimony, he will make the Senate vote on subpoenaing the president’s preferred witnesses, including Hunter Biden and the whistleblower who revealed the Ukraine scandal — polarizing picks who moderate Republicans aren’t eager to call

Not the comfy chair!

Seriously, let's introduce the topic of family members riding political coat-tails into Trump's impeachment trial.

Let's drag the whistleblower out onto the open, so he or she can talk about living life with a security detail.

Go for it, you Randian ass. Put whatever passes for a moderate (R) these days in the cross hairs.

I have popcorn.

Russell is a lot more forgiving and forbearing than I am.

In my more pleasurable dreams, every Trump family member, Cabinet member, and supporter get *their* citizenship revoked and are deported to helliest hellhole I can find.

To say I hate them all with the fury of a thousand suns is understating the case.

But I would argue that it isn't conservative, at least as I understand the term.

oh, but it definitely is, as i define it.

I have no particular animus toward them at a personal level

you're a better man than i am, russell.

i see these stickers and i think "this person wants me to know she hates me. she's telling the world that she's an out-and-proud asshole."

at this point, endorsing Trump means endorsing everything he's done. there have been more than enough opportunities for decent people to say "Nope, that's enough." if you're with him, you have to know what you're endorsing.

so, when i see a "Trump 2020 / Make the liberals cry" sticker, i see a person who endorses sexual assault, tax fraud, mail-order scams, unhealthy father/daughter dynamics, freeweelling corruption and an utter disregard for truth and knowledge and decency. and i see a person who wants me to see that.

so, they get all the animus they've requested, from me.

and no, i will never forget, either.

Thanks, cleek. Speaking for me in a much more constructive way than I usually do.

you're a better man than i am

No, really, I'm not. My gut response to some guy flipping me the bird is to flip him right back, only with both hands. My immediate impulse upon seeing the bumper sticker was to get right up on the guy's @ss, to make his driving experience as uncomfortable as I could make it.

Fnck my feelings? No dude, fnck yours!

Right? Not the response of a particularly good person. So no, I'm not that good of a person.

And that's why, for myself, I feel obliged to try to remember that Trump supporters are more than just their bumper sticker. It is, I suppose, sort of a personal discipline, and it's mostly hard, because I mostly just want to yell at them all the time. All the time, every day.

As may have been obvious, from my posts above.

And all of that anger is, I think, an expression of grief, about how far - how very, very far - we are, as a nation, from where we could be and should be. Grief about the smallness of our goals and what we settle for as "success".

Tax cuts! Business friendly policies!

And everything and everyone else on the planet can go to hell. What a puny achievement, given what we are capable of. And, have achieved, at various moments, however brief.

We could be so much better than we are right now. Without breaking a sweat, really. We just need to remember that we're capable of it.

And that's why I didn't ride that guy's ass all the way from Lynn to Cambridge. Because there has to be something left after Trump is gone. There has to be room for all of the Trumpies to rejoin the human race. At least, the ones who still want to.

So I try my best to not just flip the bird back. Much as I would like to.

It's not about being a "good person", or being more "forgiving". It's about trying to keep my eyes on the damned prize, so that there's something left of this damned country after the trainwreck.

Regarding Parnas, I neither believe or disbelieve anything he says. Probably some of what he says is true, and some not, and some sort-of true but not quite as he tells it. What's undoubtedly true is any and every thing he says is intended for his own advantage.

We are being dragged through a great big pile of steaming toxic shit, but a cabal of corrupt mendacious snakes. He's just one of the snakes.

None of us has any idea how deep this mess is, or how profound the corruption is. Whatever we can imagine, it's probably worse. I don't know what it will take to unravel it, or if it can all be unraveled, or what will be left standing if we are able to unravel it all.

This is one deep, deep mess we are in. Where it all lands is, I think, not completely in our control. We just have to hold on to our humanity and commit ourselves to making things something like better, to whatever degree we can.

Buckle up and hold on to your hats.

But cleek, you define it imprecisely. Rather than

Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.
it should be
Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today as the self-proclaimed conservatives (mis)understand it, updated daily.
Of course I would also say that it's a definition of "reactionary", as one of your commenters noted. Granted, the reactionaries have appropriated the label. But their abuse of the labguage doesn't have to be embraced by the rest of us. At minimum, if we are going to accept their theft of the term, we need a new label for those of us who actually are conservatives.

My gut response to some guy flipping me the bird is to flip him right back, only with both hands.

Allow me to commend to you this half-way house to tranquility. Hold up your hand, extending the little finger. Think of it as a Hallmark Moment:

When You Don't Care Enough to Send the Very Best.
You not only get to flip them off, you get to express how little you think their opinion is worth. So it's a snub as well.

Enjoy!

Hold up your hand, extending the little finger

LOL.

If I lived in the south, I could also go with "Bless your heart, dear".

As it is, I'm gonna stick with not riding the guy's @ss, with maybe a "You have a nice day now!" thrown in for good measure.

So, does that mean you're going with whatever's the opposite of what a conservative would do...? ;-)

LOL

Yes. Updated daily.

:)

ERA, redux:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/person-who-changes-constitution/605104/

Watch out for another executive power grab.

The Gang That Can't Shoot Straight seems to have not only done criminal stuff, not only talked about what they were doing, but actually written down their criminal plans.

They should have paid heed to this guy:

"Don't write when you can talk; don't talk when you can nod your head."

Similar quote attributed to Earl Long.

A better quote from Lomasney would appear to be the more general "Never let anyone get anything on you." But then they don't seem to have a clue how to do that either.

byomtov, thanks for that link [and hi there!]

At minimum, if we are going to accept their theft of the term, we need a new label for those of us who actually are conservatives.

hmm. paleo-con and neo-con are already taken. what about "The People Formerly Known As Conservatives" ?

or, Ƭ̵̬̊

I suppose WE could go with the flow and appropriate "liberal". Leave you guys with "socialist" or something.

Not accurate, of course. But hey, we'd get the right wing media helping popularize it. ;-)

if we are going to accept their theft of the term, we need a new label for those of us who actually are conservatives.

My suggestion: don't accept their theft of the term.

They are reactionaries. Call them that. If they object, so be it.

Hi ral,


How's the piano?

I'm still at it, though taking a break from lessons over the holidays. Very busy at work (another start-up) so that interferes, mostly due to a shortage of mental energy.

I hope all is well with you. Any bridge news? And how's the piano right back at you?

My suggestion: don't accept their theft of the term.

They are reactionaries. Call them that.

That's *my* take as well. But as you can see from cleek's comment, it feels like a two front war. Sigh.

wj,

The old Russian joke is "Don't think. If you think, don't talk. If you talk, don't sign. If you sign, don't be surprised."

Sorry, missed one sentence: "If you talk, don't write. If you write, don't sign."

Lurker, it's no joke.

Lurker, it's no joke.

Yup.

Yup.

A number of the ads embedded in the article were for pickup trucks. But such juxtapositions are pretty common. Especially if ad selection keys off of content.

The Trump administration takes a bold stand against fresh fruits and vegetables in school lunches. Because requiring schools to serve fresh fruits and vegetables is too much of an imposition on our local freedoms.

These people are orcs.

At some point, some of the folks who support Trump will wake the hell up and decide that, tax cuts and business friendly policies be damned, he's just too nasty to get behind.

And, some of them won't. They'll go to their graves wearing their MAGA hats.

It's difficult to force kids to eat what they don't want to eat.

"'That directive is costing schools an added $5.4 million a day, of which $3.8 million worth of produce goes directly into the trash, according to national estimates,' reads one recent editorial in a Connecticut paper chastising the USDA for all of the food waste its program creates. 'A Harvard Public Health study found that 60 percent of the vegetables and 40 percent of the fruits are being tossed. Researchers at the University of Vermont found an overall increase of 56 percent in wasted food as a direct result of the mandate.'"
States Fight Back Against USDA Rules That Cause School Food Waste: Bad mandates result in uneaten foods. Schools figure out how to respond.


"It doesn't matter how healthy options are if kids won't eat them, and many would not. 'Countless parents and more than one million public school students voted with their mouths, leaving the school lunch program in unprecedented droves last year[2013],...'"
Sanity Restored to School Lunches?: It doesn't matter how healthy options are if kids won't eat them.

Did you actually read those articles?

There have been suspicions that the administration deliberately chose Michelle Obama's birthday to announce this new policy.
Would fit perfectly (and of course it is officially denied and pure coincidence).

Did you actually read those articles?

Yes, why?

Yes, why?

Because I'm not sure they make the point I think you think they make.

And now: text messages from Parnas to . . . one of Congressman Nunes staffers. Looks like he was one of those in the loop about Ukraine -- for all that direct contact was avoided because Nunes was under investigation by the Ethics Committee and they didn't want to have visible contact.

Of course, the Congressman's constituents may not care. Then again, he was down to just 52% of the vote in 2018, so perhaps not all that safe a district for him.

Sanity Restored to School Lunches?: It doesn't matter how healthy options are if kids won't eat them.

if only there was some kind of place we could send children where they could be taught about things like nutrition and making smart choices.

sounds like socialism.

protip: Ron Swanson is not a role model.

the GOP cult doesn't care about corruption in service of the cult.

the GOP cult doesn't care about corruption in service of the cult.

True. But as we saw in 2018, there are a fair number of voters who are NOT members of the cult, even if they have voted for Republicans. Sometimes recently. That's how the Democrats took the House. And may well take the Senate this year.

No doubt my view is colored by having watched the cult here in California. Where it is still going strong . . . but not strong enough to be an actual force in state politics. There will doubtless be places where it holds on at the local or state level. But enough of this idiocy may leave it irrelevant at the national level as well.

If you doubt it, consider that California elected Reagan as governor twice, and went for his a President twice as well. It's not like Democratic majorities are baked into our DNA or something. Yet here we sit. The cult does live on, but it definitely doesn't thrive.

Interesting article on Japan and social norms:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200114-why-japan-is-so-successful-at-returning-lost-property

But as we saw in 2018, there are a fair number of voters who are NOT members of the cult, even if they have voted for Republicans. Sometimes recently. That's how the Democrats took the House. And may well take the Senate this year.

we'll see.

i always go back to Gallup, which has always show that the change in % of people who self-identify as Republican hasn't changed since 2016 and Trump's support among those same people hasn't changed either.

whatever happened in 2018 happened despite that. maybe that's just turnout. maybe independents switched. probably both.

what it means for this year, though...

future is hazy.

FYI, voter registration in Nunes' district is:
Democrats: 43.1%
Republican: 26.5%
No Party Preference: 25.1%
Being an incumbent helps, of course. But when the cult is only a quarter of the voters?

I keep reading that a decision to admit witnesses and documentary evidence will require four (4) Republican Senators to bread ranks and vote for that. But I also see that three Republicans — Maine’s Susan Collins, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Utah’s Mitt Romney — have already signaled that they want to have witness testimony.

But wait. If those 3 vote for witnesses, that gives a 50-50 tie . . . which would be resolved by a vote of the presiding officer: Chief Justice Roberts. I'm trying, without much success, to picture Roberts buying the argument that you can have a trial without evidence. In defiance of all precedent, specifically precedent in impeachment proceedings. Failure of imagination on my part, perhaps?

And... the three moderate (R)'s say, "LOL, just kidding!"

They really want those tax cuts.

To be honest, I really don't know where the country goes from here, no matter where things go in November.

This isn't specifically about Trump. Trump is a corrupt venal ass, but that's just who he is and nobody with any sense expected any different.

McConnell has established the new rules, which basically amount to "Fnck you".

I have no idea how the rest of us are expected to work with that.

It’s turtles all the way down, Russell.

Not exactly on topic, but things are slow. Also not anything most of us don't already know, but presented succinctly, regarding the populist plutocrat (or "PP").

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-to-debunk-trumps-false-claims-about-the-economy

when you're confident the jury is bought and paid for:

In an incredible exchange at Davos, @realdonaldtrump admits he is comfortable with the status of the impeachment trial because the White House is withholding evidence. "Honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material." As always, he says the quiet part out loud.

https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1219981403120644103


the GOP is a cult.

To be honest, I really don't know where the country goes from here, no matter where things go in November.

Realistically? At some point, maybe after November or maybe in a few more years, the Democrats end up with a majority in the Senate. And the Republican Senators discover what their short-sighted power politics has bought them. The filibuster, for all its faults, survived because Senators knew that someday they would be in the minority. But while it may linger a little longer in a few cases, as soon as something that the majority (regardless of party) cares about is blocked, it's bound for the ash heap of history.

I admit that I find myself conflicted. On one hand, I would love to see McConnell voted out of office in November. But on the other, there would be something karmic at him coming back and having to live personally on the short end of the stick.

i want to see McConnell driven from the Senate, and from polite company, forced to sell used cars from a trailer down by the river.

FYLTGE.

Being an incumbent helps, of course. But when the cult is only a quarter of the voters?

Some while back there was a UK phenomenon labelled “shy Tories”, where the Conservatives received a lot more votes than anyone would admit to when polled.
Nothing on this scale, though.

Clearly a large number if people are quite prepared to vote for Trump, but are unwilling to admit they support him or the party which is in thrall to him.

"But on the other, there would be something karmic at him coming back and having to live personally on the short end of the stick."

A more savage mass Karma is in order.

A more savage mass Karma is in order.

Deserved? Perhaps.

But what are the chances?

Think I'll focus on hoping for things that are actually, if not likely to happen, at least within the realm of possibility. (Always granting that I wouldn't have considered a President Trump within the realm of possibility. So what do I know?)

I think we all need to understand that the sort of fall from grace we are talking about here for the GOP and for those who are enabling this in the name of magical thinking is not going to happen quietly and without any unrest. It's been a while since we've had riots or assassinations or domestic terror of the Weathermen or OKC variety, but that, historically is where we need to get to before this sort of change happens.

I've done some grad work in Peace and Conflict Studies. They always stress that it's non-violence that carries the day, but every time I look at the cases they cite, I see that the parties advocating non-violence are not the only parties involved. Sinn Fein was the more acceptable alternative to the Provos. MLK was the more acceptable alternative to Malcolm X or Huey Newton. Gandhi was the more acceptable alternative to the Ghadar revolutionaries. And the accords are never anything more than contingent. Only continued, good faith effort can repair this sort of regime cleavage.

So wj may be right in the long run, but getting to that long run will likely be messy, and it is by no means assured.

Completely agree with nous @ 12:48.

I'll add one thing to this:

the sort of fall from grace we are talking about here for the GOP and for those who are enabling this

When they fall, they're taking a lot down with them.

When the center cannot hold, the political sh*t hits the fan.

When there is no center, political norms give way to violence.

When the center thinks it can politically accommodate the far right, the result is fascism.

A viable center that accommodates, but does not entirely surrender to, the far left can do good things.

There are exceptions to all of the above!

There you have it.

HERE you have it:

https://twitter.com/SenSherrodBrown/status/908349218330431490?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1220041989955244033&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F

None of these conservative vermin die by the mercy of natural causes.

Look at the subhumans swarm:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/opinion/richmond-gun-rights-rally.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

in case anyone wasn't sure:

Rand Paul is an asshole:


Just minutes into the session, as lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) presented his opening argument for removing the president, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) displayed on his desk a hand-lettered message with big block letters pleading: “S.O.S.”

Impeachment trial live updates

In case that was too subtle, he followed this later with another handwritten message pretending he was an abducted child:

“THESE R NOT MY PARENTS!”

“PLEASE HELP ME!”

Paul wrote “IRONY ALERT” on another scrap of paper, and scribbled there an ironic thought. Nearby, a torn piece of paper concealed a crossword puzzle, which Paul set about completing while Schiff spoke. Eventually, even this proved insufficient amusement, and Paul, though required to be at his desk, left the trial entirely for a long block of time.

DIAF, GOP

One wishes yet more militant armed landscapers among Rand Paul's neighbors.

Fuck Libertarians.

Ron Paul is his parent.

Call Social Services.

nous @12:48: Fascinating, thought-provoking comment.

I've done a few peace-studies classes and workshops in my day (not recently), and that's an observation I never heard anyone make. But it rings true.

I've thought about something similar in these later years as I've watched relatively centrist people on (sort of) my side (e.g. during the years of gay rights/marriage campaigns) clutch pearls over the radical fringe, and the purist fringe crap on the moderates, and I always want to say: it takes both. The radicals help make the moderates look sensible to the other side, and the centrists are the ones who tend to work out what's actually politically possible. (Very much off the top of my head thought train.)

*****

cleek @9:55: How did we get to a point where half the country glories in having people running the show who don't have the standards of behavior of a kindergartner? (Rhetorical question.)

Paul should be in jail, according to the oath he took at the start of the trial.

What makes the Hottentot so hot?

REPORTER: “Do you have any comments on Elon Musk?”1
TRUMP: “Well, you have to give him credit. I spoke to him very recently, and he’s also doing the rockets. He likes rockets. And he does good at rockets, too, by the way. I never saw where the engines come down with no wings, no anything, and they’re landing. I said I’ve never seen that before. And I was worried about him because he’s one of our great geniuses, and we have to protect our genius. You know, we have to protect Thomas Edison and we have to protect all of these people that came up with originally the light bulb, and the wheel, and all of these things, and he’s one of our very smart people and we want to cherish those people. That’s very important. But he’s done a very good job.”

https://books.google.com/books?id=8YtJDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT1225&lpg=PT1225&dq=funny+who+invented+the+wheel+cartoons+from+the+new+yorker&source=bl&ots=5v5hfBL9F5&sig=ACfU3U0UCHPPo8RBLyvW17XmgzRjKlOrHA&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi29sy8hZrnAhVUVs0KHakpDjoQ6AEwEXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=funny%20who%20invented%20the%20wheel%20cartoons%20from%20the%20new%20yorker&f=false

https://www.google.com/search?q=who+invented+the+wheel+cartoons+from+the+new+yorker&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=rz4ANf1q6yy4TM%253A%252Cwh6H-MD1eYT9lM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRKJOpJAV2k-SktLm83fuN41-GZsA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjkp7bqhZrnAhWDcc0KHf0WDykQ9QEwBnoECAUQBw#imgrc=rz4ANf1q6yy4TM:&vet=1

https://www.google.com/search?q=who+invented+the+wheel+cartoons+from+the+new+yorker&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=rz4ANf1q6yy4TM%253A%252Cwh6H-MD1eYT9lM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRKJOpJAV2k-SktLm83fuN41-GZsA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjkp7bqhZrnAhWDcc0KHf0WDykQ9QEwBnoECAUQBw#imgrc=IyTmwxj_zFEQSM:&vet=1

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

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/01/reagan-and-the-hostages/

When will Ronald Reagan be executed, butchered and slaughtered for his treason?

The radicals help make the moderates look sensible to the other side, and the centrists are the ones who tend to work out what's actually politically possible.

No argument that it takes both. But does it take violent radicals? Not just the occasional outburst, mind, but ongoing groups focused on using violence on behalf of their cause? Because that's how I read some of the comments here.

For example, what was the group violently advocating for gay rights and gay marriage? Not individual outbursts like Stonewall, but something like the Provisional IRA or the Ghadar revolutionaries. Maybe I'm just oblivious (OK, even though I'm pretty oblivious), but I think I would have noticed that . . . and I didn't.

GOP Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina told reporters he was “hearing exactly what they said yesterday…. nothing new whatsoever.”

But another Republican, Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, acknowledged that the case against the president is probably new information for most of them. “‘Nine out of 10 senators will tell you that they have not read the transcript of the proceedings of the House. And the 10th senator who says he has is lying.”

Senator Kennedy is definitely not one of my heroes. But I have to say I think he pretty much nailed it here.

Of course, whether any of the new information will make it past the willful deafness is another story.

Sometimes, a situation can be summarized in a sentence:
Republicans: The case for impeachment is terrible — and the portions are so small

"Republicans: The case for impeachment is terrible — and the portions are so small"

Funnel and a broomstick.

I'd like to see our conservative interlocutors defend this bullshit.

Delurking.

Which bs, the "partisan footnote" bs, or the factual assertions in the footnote bs?

As to the second, the Slate article asserts the "Trojan Horse" theory is a theory "with no basis in fact" without, well, any facts to support that assertion.

Last time I checked, Obamacare would have cost me close to $3k/month. Obamacare was, IMHO, designed to fail the self-employed and small business owner. It would have gone further had the unions not pushed back. I had COBRA I paid for for 3 years (Cal-COBRA after fed COBRA) simply due to the cost being much better than Obamacare. Now I am on a health sharing plan because COBRA ran out simply because of the cost of Obamacare. Does single payer looks better than before? Sure, from an individual financial perspective. So yes, IMHO, there is a factual basis for the Trojan Horse Theory.

wj - what was the group violently advocating for gay rights and gay marriage? Not individual outbursts like Stonewall, but something like the Provisional IRA or the Ghadar revolutionaries. Maybe I'm just oblivious (OK, even though I'm pretty oblivious), but I think I would have noticed that . . . and I didn't.

The gay rights crowd has been, until recently, seeing steady progress in the courts and in politics. It's only in the last few years that we have seen not just a stalling out, but a reversal of their progress and a move on the right to protect discrimination based on sexual preference or gender identity in the name of religious freedom.

The examples I cited have much longer tails, and gay rights was riding on that longer coattail of the civil rights movement for years before the religious right began working to peel off the Christians of color.

And if you want to find gay rights activists who are embracing more violent means, look to the black block and antifa. There are a lot of queercore activists in their numbers. They just have other irons in the intersectional fire as well.

We presume, as with Marty's experience, bc, that you were part of the roughly 20% of the Obamacare population who did not qualify for the subsidies and couldn't qualify for Medicaid because of your accumulated assets.

So, yes, that sucks.

But that's a problem of America, not Obamacare, that those who have the goods must pay through the nose for health insurance, if they are not employed.

A Republican conservative would tell you to get a job.

However, many of the 80% who qualify for the Obamacare subsidies seem to be satisfied, as they keep coming back for more.

It would nice if, for a change, some of them would show up and say so, but I guess this blog attracts the high-asset earners, who don't care for subsidies, but nevertheless at least mention when they don't get them.

When do you qualify for Medicare? Soon, I hope.

And why not right now? Well, just cus you are on your own and .. well ... the rest is just made up crap about the American way.

Good luck and good health to you.

The traditional spectacle of pearl clutching from someone preparing to vote to acquit a brazen criminal:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/23/susan-collins-impeachment-note-john-roberts-102826

Can we execute female Senators for new heights in mealymouthedness?

The Greeks wouldn't have needed a Trojan Horse if the Trojans would not of been such hardheaded asses and would have stopped preventing the uninsured from accessing healthcare inside the walls of warmongering Troy.

The Greeks were the heroes.

The Trojans had gates, ya know. They were locked.

Next time it won't be a horse.

Can we execute female Senators for new heights in mealymouthedness?

Call me an old traditionalist, but I think voting them out of office might be the more appropriate remedy.

Better still, call me a youngish traditionalist.

If a female Democratic Senator had handed the Chief of Injustice a note asking to be excused to pee, it would be reported in the subhuman vermin anti-American right-wing noise machine as a bomb threat, and an unfair and biased one at that.

Which bs, the "partisan footnote" bs, or the factual assertions in the footnote bs?

Both the footnote and the factual assertions therein are bs, your personal experience notwithstanding.

Last time I checked, Obamacare would have cost me close to $3k/month.

You assert a factual claim. Prove it.

Obamacare was, IMHO, designed to fail the self-employed and small business owner.

Sure. Because as we all know, ALL public policies need to revolve around the needs and wants of the small business owner....Chamber of Commerce 101. Again, I'd say...prove it.

And what Thullen said.


RIP Jim Lehrer.

Sorry he's going to miss the bloodiest, most savage and lethal Civil War in American history.

I guess none of it will be reported now.

As to the second, the Slate article asserts the "Trojan Horse" theory is a theory "with no basis in fact" without, well, any facts to support that assertion.

The article in fact cited several reasons why the "Trojan Horse" hypothesis regarding the ACA was total horseshit. NONE OF WHICH YOU BOTHERED TO ADDRESS.

So I see no reason not to laugh off a horseshit claim with no factual basis because I, too, brought no "facts". That is rather silly.

William Barr lays the cornerstone for the declaration of martial law and the arrests and murders of all liberals, Liberal Jews, blacks, immigrants of all stripes besides Russian, gays, and the homeless and the unemployed as we enter trump's second term and he defaults on the government debt of the United States, thus halting all government functions outside the of military and protecting with armed force the lives and assets of the very rich and the Supreme Court rules that women and abortion doctors will be executed for their deeds, all public schools will be forced to tow the Christian line, and Obamacare, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the Federal Reserve Bank and all public lands are declared unconstitutional.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/01/23/the-attorney-general-lays-the-groundwork-to-carry-out-his-threat/

Obamacare was, IMHO, designed to fail the self-employed and small business owner.

I am curious as to what the putative motivation would be for someone doing so.

The legal code is full of stuff designed to disadvantage various groups. But it's usually possible to find some motivating dislike behind them. Who dislikes the self employed? Who dislikes small business owners per se (as opposed to business owners generally)?

Now if you want to posit indifference or incompetence, fine. But that's a long, long way from "designed to fail" a particular group.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad