« a few words about the filibuster | Main | Tangential thoughts from RGB to Arthur Ashe »

September 22, 2020

Comments

Both sides suck.

Careful. You might become a libertarian...

The President--any president--has the constitutional right and power to nominate candidates to fill judicial vacancies. A senator who votes or abstains on the President's action is well within the Constitution.

To clarify:

I'm pretty sure that everybody here understands the process by which a SCOTUS seat is filled. I'm sure we all understand that the POTUS is entitled to nominate someone, that the Senate is entitled to review that nomination and forward it to a vote if they wish, and that each Senator is entitled to vote or not, and to vote for or against, as they wish.

None of that is what anybody objects to.

What people find objectionable is Mitch McConnell and the (R)'s in the Senate refusing to do any of that when an extremely popular (D) POTUS made the nomination, and then barely waiting until the body of Ruth Bader Ginsburg was cool before rushing to do so when a (R) POTUS who did not even win the popular vote does so.

Basically all of the anger is about McConnell and the (R)-led Senate judiciary committee refusing to even give Garland a hearing.

The anger is deserved. And, it's likely that at some point there will be payback of some kind, and that will also be deserved.

Have fun.

straw on sale down at Lowes today?

Here's another fun link

quick ! change the subject !

don't let people wonder if basing my own current lousy behavior on your imaginary future behavior is bullshit or not!

Basically all of the anger is about McConnell and the (R)-led Senate judiciary committee refusing to even give Garland a hearing.

The anger is deserved. And, it's likely that at some point there will be payback of some kind, and that will also be deserved.

Yes, and I get that. It's called power politics. If you'll recall, I began a day or two back noting universal hypocrisy and wishing for a deal. Some conservatives (Jonah Goldberg, David French, George Will) think that is the better route. I'm in that group. The counter-argument is that no one trusts Schumer not to find a 'changed circumstance', therefore, that minority view is getting virtually zero traction.

I get their point. Plenty of people here think HRC is a straight-shooter and all round awesome person. There is more than some evidence to the contrary. Partisans--of any stripe--will maintain the purity of their side against most if not all evidence. The Dems, in fact, are quite guilty of this. Both WJC and Biden have been credibly accused by adults with corroboration of sexual assault, but they're still cool. Kavanaugh, faced with much, much weaker evidence, remains an anathema on the left. Hypocrisy of the worst kind and solid evidence for not trusting Dems.

^ chaff

It's called power politics.

Two way street, that.

Also: in case it's useful in heading off tangents, I'm happy to stipulate that HRC may not in fact be an all round awesome person.

Also, that WJC was an unprincipled horn-dog in his private life who exploited his office to get laid. Which is true of probably 1 out of 3 people holding national office.

Also, that focusing on Kavanaugh's frat boy past was off point. Kavanaugh is not a jurist, he is and was a partisan hatchet man, and thus was not an appropriate choice for the bench.

There were other, better choices, equally conservative if not more so. Trump chose a frat boy Federalist party-line drone. Push back was appropriate and to be expected, it was just poorly chosen. IMO.

None of this is about who is more "trustworthy", there are good guys and creeps on all sides.

It's about what is going to make the country better, or worse. (R)'s tend to elect POTUS's who have trouble keeping their staff out of jail, who bleat about the defict while blowing it up, and who seem intent on destroying every national initiative that doesn't make rich people richer.

So I oppose them. We all make our own choices.

Basically all of the anger is about McConnell and the (R)-led Senate judiciary committee refusing to even give Garland a hearing.

an anger that is now compounded by the shameless way everyone who defended that position in 2016 has now shrugged it off as if it never happened. and frankly it feels of a piece with Trump's constant attempts to gaslight the country into a stupor so he can just do what he wants.

but yes, Democrats exist. so nothing matters.

hooray for the view-from-nowhere.

Oops. Another reason not to trust politicians, including Democrats:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/jon-tester-opens-the-door-to-nuking-the-senates-legislative-filibuster/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=more-in&utm_term=second

Trump cleared 20,000 lies back in July.

good "conservatives" are focused on what Democrats might do in the future, while pretending to be above it all.

Basically all of the anger is about McConnell and the (R)-led Senate judiciary committee refusing to even give Garland a hearing.

In fairness it should, perhaps, be noted that they are coming to a conclusion about the prospective nominee without a hearing either. Or even knowing who it actually is.

Another reason not to trust politicians

I can think of lots of reasons to not trust politicians.

"A politician changed his mind" is not one of them.

Live your "pox on both their houses" life, McK. The rest of us will try to keep the place from burning down.

No thanks are expected.

It's 'mind changing' when it's one side, it's a gross violation of civilized norms when it's the other side. The point is, all of the lefty whining about double standard won't hold up under the light of day. The same is true going the other way. What's laughable are the Cleek's who seem to think that snark or ramping up the outrage changes the obvious, patent mendacity of his/her own side's leaders.

No one outside the bubble pays any attention to partisan screamers. No one believes the screamers when they deny their own side's perfidy but rail about the other side's.

Dem complaints today about Repubs have been played out in the past going the other way and will repeat in the future going the other way.

Partisan's take themselves very, very seriously. They become so adept at rationalizing their own BS or dismissing complaints about it, they wind up permanently buying their own BS.

golly, if only there was somebody who was both infallable and above it all to tell us how dumb we all are.

alas.

welp, back to studying my Marx!

more Americans have died in the last 6 months than have died in any 6 month period, ever.

but, the Dems.

more Americans have died in the last 6 months than have died in any 6 month period, ever.

You just can't keep from showing your ass, can you? How about the Spanish Flu? Not only are you factually incorrect, but Cuomo, Feinstein, DeBlasio--to name three--stepped in it. Trump is a flapping goose, but no one to my knowledge has identified a scientific consensus of a specific protocol in March/April/May that was offered to Trump and which he rejected which has since proven to be so effective that today's morbidity could have been materially reduced. Since I make my living defending people and companies from *allegations* of negligence and other wrongdoing, and since a lot of that is after-the-fact, second-guessing, I'm used to asking: what was *evidence* that we can all look at, evaluate and agree was tangibly in existence that Trump or anyone else disregarded. Sure, he downplayed CoVID. Sure, his optimism bore no relationship to reality. Sure, his concept of science and medicine is at the kindergarten level, but suppose he said CoVID is the worst thing ever and we need to test our asses off and get a vaccine asap, how would that have affected the body count? Did Cuomo do a great job in NY? Your *evidence*?

The *evidence* from around the world suggests Trump's contribution was no more outcome-determinative than anyone else's. If saying stupid things about CoVID somehow made it more virulent, then you'd have an argument, but that isn't what makes diseases spread. If I'm defending a truck driver, the fact that he believes he is a PERFECT driver is irrelevant to whether he ran a red light. Either he did or he didn't.

But, acting like Trump could have done *something* different, even if you can't point to what that might be, is great political theater, and that's your forte, so don't change. No one would recognize you.

oh golly, McTx is apologize for Trump again!

i might just faint from surprise.

did i say 'apologizing'? clearly my shock was so great that i mistyped "defending".

no one to my knowledge has identified a scientific consensus of a specific protocol in March/April/May that was offered to Trump and which he rejected which has since proven to be so effective that today's morbidity could have been materially reduced.

How to address a pandemic.

Also, this is a blog that is mostly about politics. Most people here are interested in politics, most people here take a position on political issues.

We also talk about baseball and the Beatles and sci-fi, but mostly we talk about politics, and do so from a distinct stance.

Not all the same stance, everybody's is somewhat different. Some are even markedly different.

But, from a stance.

So it's kind of annoying to borderline rude to jump in and yell about "partisan screamers".

If you don't like either the (R)'s or the (D)'s, fine. If you don't want to deal with people who are, to a degree more than average, partisan, then you're in the wrong place.

This is not a request that you go away, you're welcome here.

But giving people shit for being partisan on ObWi is like going on Etsy and giving people shit for doing crafty stuff.

It's kind of the point of the place.

As far as "both sides":

We're living in a time when the sitting POTUS is publicly floating the idea of not accepting the outcome of the election. And that's just the latest of a series of outrages against his office, the rule of law, and simple decency.

So as far as I'm concerned, the "both sides" thing is off the table.

Both sides are not the same. Not right now.

If it floats your boat to jump in now and then and give us all a big lecture about what hypocrites we all are, I guess you're welcome to do so.

But given the circumstances it seems like kind of a puny point to make.

The POTUS is trying to figure out how to break everything so he can stick around to break even more. And the (R)'s have his back, almost to a person.

So I don't care about HRC, or WJC, or whether John Tester changed his mind about the filibuster.

Call me a hypocrite, I'll wear it proudly.

We're living in a time when the sitting POTUS is publicly floating the idea of not accepting the outcome of the election.

Perhaps more on point, where his campaign is actively working with some state legislators on how they can go about, after the election (if they don't like the result), changing the established practices and picking a different set of electors than the one the voters picked.

Having the state legislature do that may be constitutional. But it sure looks like an ex post facto law from here.

We're living in a time when the sitting POTUS is publicly floating the idea of not accepting the outcome of the election. And that's just the latest of a series of outrages against his office, the rule of law, and simple decency.

So as far as I'm concerned, the "both sides" thing is off the table.

Both sides are not the same. Not right now.

Everyone is free to discuss what they want. If the discrete topic is: are the R's being douche's by filling RBG's spot with an election pending?, then discussing that topic is fair game and if it turns out there is plenty of BS to spread around, then that's fair game too.

Certain peeps here are so in-the-f'ing-tank, their brain is fried. They make an attempt at substantive argument and fall flat on their face. Calling that out is fair game.

Pointing out that positions highly tainted or influenced by partisan preference have their own issues is fair game.

Since I agree with out about Trump, I'm missing your point. But, the subject seems to change a lot when the evidence against a certain side starts to build up. Making a note of that is fair game too.

The POTUS is trying to figure out how to break everything so he can stick around to break even more. And the (R)'s have his back, almost to a person.

I don't think that's quite Trump's motivation. I think he just wants to stick around so he can keep fooling himself that he's popular. Nothing more; not even something as substantial as breaking things.

Now for a lot of the Republicans, at least the Republican ideologues, supporting him, breaking things is indeed the whole point. I just think that, from their perspective, Trump isn't a fellow traveler, just a useful idiot.

Pointing out that positions highly tainted or influenced by partisan preference have their own issues is fair game.

what's truly awesome about this is that you are absolutely as partisan as anyone else here. any topic that comes up, it's a near certainty that when you drop in, you'll do it with a screed that attacks the Dems and defends Trump and the GOP, if not directly than by distraction or by bellowing about how the imaginary Democrats in your head are all in love with Mao or Marx or whatever. you go to the mat for your team on everything. and then you pretend you're above it all. you're as hypocritical as anyone here.

moving on...

watching Max Boot seethe is almost as fun for me as watching Rubin:

No U.S. president has said anything like this before [not saying he'd give up power]. Ever. This by itself should be disqualifying. Even if Trump had been the best president in our history — rather than the worst — this refusal to play by the democratic rules should, all by itself, guarantee his electoral defeat.

...

Trump’s eagerness to confirm a Supreme Court justice before the election is based, in no small part, on the assumption that the outcome of the vote will be adjudicated. “I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices,” Trump said on Wednesday. Trump is seeking to hold on to power any way he can.

This is the stuff of nightmares. Already social scientists warn that we may be backsliding into autocracy. Now we may be facing the worst threat to our democracy since the 1930s — the period that is the setting of the dystopian novels “It Can’t Happen Here” and “The Plot Against America.” It can happen here, and the plot against America has already been set in motion by a real-life analog to Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip or Charles Lindbergh.

The Republican Party is unlikely to restrain Trump’s authoritarian instincts. While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pledges that “the winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th,” the GOP will do everything possible to ensure that Trump is certified as the winner — even if he should rightfully lose not only in the popular vote but in the electoral college, too.

duh

meanwhile...

How to earn your client life in jail.

The kid has a plausible self-defense claim. The naive well-meaning 17 year old narrative is, potentially, sympathetic.

If they want to make this some kind of 2nd Amendment culture war extravaganza, it may not play quite as well.

If I was this kid's parents, I'd be shopping for new representation. But that's just me.

I like the idea that no matter what Trump did, nothing would have happened differently with regard to COVID. It's as if there aren't other countries with leaders who can actually concentrate and plan and influence people's behavior based on expert advice and whose outcomes have been far better. It's as though consistently undermining faith in public-health experts doesn't have any effect on anything. It's as though holding indoor rallies without masks doesn't signal to millions of people that they can do whatever the f**k they want.

There's no national plan or coordination more than six months into this thing, because our POTUS is a f**king heartless moron. But that doesn't matter. That doesn't change anything.

Keep tut-tutting everyone for being the bag. Whatever.

But, the subject seems to change a lot when the evidence against a certain side starts to build up.

I observe a non-stop string of assertions, but no "evidence".

Both sides suck.
Careful. You might become a libertarian...

They suck every bit as much. Possibly more.

The faux above the fray pose reminds me a bit of the Mittster.

Ok, it isn't exactly a brilliant debate tactic to misstate what someone says and then go to town on the newly created reality. But, have at it. I get that it isn't any fun when everyone's heads are exploding in righteous outrage and then someone comes along and points out inconsistencies and double standards or, in Cleek's case, just straight up factual ignorance. It's worse when you don't have a substantive answer to the fact that Dem's are no more trustworthy or consistent than Repubs, or in the case of CoVID, Dems screwed up too and no matter how awful DT is, it's pretty damned difficult to quantify his impact on the outcome.
Bad news kids, just because he's an all-world asshole doesn't mean things would be demonstrably better if he was one of the progressive elect. New York state would be Ex. A in support of that last proposition.

When your best and only response is "Trump is the worst ever!", no matter what the particular issue happens to be, it's actually worse than no response at all. Because someday DT will be gone. Then what will your answer be?

to. the. mat.

Bad news kids

Old straight white man condescends to everyone else. News at eleven.

JHC people, go outside and let this guy talk to his phantoms.

McKinney, has it occurred to you that you're rather selective in your criticisms of people here who are particularly partisan (or who think HRC was "all-round awesome" - I think those were your words, I'm not going to go back to check)?

And that no matter how many times people here (like me) tell you that they believe Juanita Broadrick, Paula Jones etc, you still conveniently forget this when making your arguments about us partisan Dems?

Truly, what russell says is right: Trump is so far outside what any POTUS ever has been capable of, and yet is still being supported by the GOP in lockstep, despite, to give just one example, trampling all over their vaunted concern with the deficit. What possible sense can your bothsideserism make under these circumstances, if not an attempt to distract us from your having shared so many of their views in the past?

As for Trump and Covid, do you imagine that it is random chance that explains how e.g. Germany, with a population of 83 million, and proximity to (and sizeable participation in) some of the original spread-hotspots in ski resorts in Italy, has a figure of 112 deaths per million, flatlining since end April, versus the US at 610 per million and rising? Do you imagine that the German scientists and epidemiologists were keeping their thinking secret? Newsflash: they weren't.

just straight up factual ignorance.

lol. fine, i didn't double-check a fact.

it's the Marxist in me.

sealioning

Because someday DT will be gone. Then what will your answer be?

He may be gone, but the people who supported his every move, despite it contradicting everything conservatives have always said they believed in, won't be.

Old straight white man condescends to everyone else.

Including other old, straight, white men -- which is a good chunk of the folks here.

Including other old, straight, white men

hey, i won't be 50 for another 100 hours.

Sealioning

An absolutely excellent, and very necessary, word. Thanks cleek!

When your best and only response is "Trump is the worst ever!"

Well, it does cover a lot of ground.

Then what will your answer be?

I'm sure the (R)'s will find some other incompetent crook for us to complain about. They seem to have a deep bench in that department.

Who knows, maybe it'll be another Trump, they seem to want to make a new family business out of it.

Including other old, straight, white men

Yes, of course, because there can be only one top dog.

And I'm well aware that #notalloldstraightwhitemen are like that.

An image came to mind a few minutes ago of the Maine legislature's judiciary committee hearing in 2009, when several thousand people jammed the Augusta Civic Center to testify and/or witness re: gay marriage. There were people on the other side whose "testimony" was so vile that a large portion of the audience silently stood up and turned their backs. A somewhat different message than "don't bite hooks."

P.S. Happy almost birthday to cleek!

It's worse when you don't have a substantive answer to the fact that Dem's are no more trustworthy or consistent than Repubs

I'm in the fortunate position of not trying to prove that (D)'s are more trustworthy or consistent than (R)'s.

I think their policies are better. So they get my support.

And Trump is sui generis. He is bad beyond all consideration of party affiliation.

The (R)'s just happen to have rolled out the red carpet for him. So now they own the freaking mess he is making of governance and of the country.

no matter how awful DT is, it's pretty damned difficult to quantify his impact on the outcome.

A lot of people, tens of thousands of people, are dead, from COVID, because Donald J Trump is a vain flaming asshole.

If you want to say De Blasio and Cuomo and whoever else owns some of that, fine with me. Trump owns more.

Trump had the information he needed, he had the power of the presidency and the ample resources of the United States of America - both public and private sectors - to work with.

And he sat on his fat ass and let people die.

Jared made a few side deals to help his buddies get just a bit richer, just to put a cherry on top of it.

What you're selling here, I ain't buying. And you haven't said anything here to make me think your knowledge or understanding of any of this is any deeper or more accurate than mine.

You're just here to yell at us for not being sufficiently impartial, apparently.

It's not the time for impartiality.

What possible sense can your bothsideserism make under these circumstances, if not an attempt to distract us from your having shared so many of their views in the past?

When the issue was: the R's are gross hypocrites for refusing Garland a hearing under the pretext of a pending election and then granting the hearing to Trump's nominee, I did three things: (1) I agreed the R's are hypocrites, (2) I pointed out that nothing the R's did or are doing violates the Constitution and (3) I pointed out that the Dem's pull the same hypocritical shit, e.g. (a) the filibuster, which is DOA if the Dems flip the Senate, although throughout their minority in the Senate, the filibuster was the bomb, a bulwark of representative democracy and (b) having a presidential nominee whose sexual assault accusations are far more compelling than those against Kavanaugh. Plus, the Dem's are a pack of liars. Just like the R's. Trump's an outlier, but that doesn't make everyone who opposes him a saint. Nor is DT the proximate cause of every shitty thing on the planet. The left is adding its own shit here and there. It's the f'ing moral preening and carrying on like the lefties have all the right answers and anyone who doesn't buy their/your BS is a moral leper that I find laughable.

A lot of people, tens of thousands of people, are dead, from COVID, because Donald J Trump is a vain flaming asshole.

And, considering how things have gone in every other developed country, it isn't really possible to dispute that. (Unless you want to blame one of his other faults, of course.) But regardless, he's demonstrably the root of the problem.

I suppose that you could argue that the Democrats have someone anywhere in prospect who is as bad. (And that they would embrace him.) But the name of an individual, and evidence, will be required. Not saying it's not possible, just that I'm not aware of one.

remember when the vast liberal media complex told the country that C19 was a hoax and that they should ignore the warnings

darned factual inaccuracies! McTx, the arbiter of truth, is never going to let them live that down, i bet.

Trump is unambiguously a fascist. He has made it as plain as day that he approves of what Hitler and Mussolini did to keep power once they got it. He will intimidate opposition voters. He will make it as hard as he can for opposition voters to vote. He will encourage his supporters to vote more than once. If he can, he will appoint Supreme Court Justices who will keep him in power whatever the result of the Presidential election.

Trump is old and stupid, but the US should not rely on that to save it. If he retains power after the forthcoming election, his successor will be younger, brighter, but with the same political instincts. And it may be too late to stop them.

It is the duty of every non-fascist to oppose Trump in every way they can. Even if that means voting to stop Trump doing something the US Constitution allows.

By the way, everyone, have I missed somebody other than Tara Reade accusing Biden of sexual assault? Last I heard she was a frequent liar and (semi)-fraudster/grifter. Not that that invalidates her accusation of course, but as regards reliable testimony, Christine Blasey-Ford seemed a pretty compelling, highly respectable witness to me. I'm sincerely asking here what I have missed: is there anyone other than Tara Reade, and if not, what makes her accusation so compelling? I'm happy to be educated by anybody, not excepting McKinney.

that's another $50 to Biden and $50 to Patricia Timmons-Goodson (who is running to oust the deplorable class-A wingnut and woman who never let a chance to lie about a liberal pass her by: Virginia Foxx) !

keep em coming. i can do this forever.

McTX's posts always go better for me when I imagine them being team read by John Houseman as Charles W. Kingfield and Andy Griffith as Ben Matlock.

have I missed somebody other than Tara Reade accusing Biden of sexual assault?

there were a few early last year. but of those, only Reade goes much beyond "hugged me a little too long". and, my favorite:

The Boston Globe reported that the interaction occurred when Biden met a voter at a coffee shop before a campaign event in Iowa.

When Biden met the voter's granddaughter, he asked her age. After she replied that she was 13 years old, Biden turned to her brothers and said, "You've got one job here, keep the guys away from your sister."

the scoundrel!

Moody's compares GOP economic plans to The Dems' and...

The economic outlook is weakest under the scenario in which Trump and the Republicans sweep Congress and fully adopt their economic agenda

so much socialism! (warnings about which must be based in absolute 100% objective fact because McTx never says anything that isn't a 100% verified indisputable fact).

Thanks, cleek. So if it was only Tara Reade, I wonder what McKinney thinks makes her allegations "far more compelling than those against Kavanaugh". He must have some reason, which (based as I am out of the US, and frequently missing days of US news) is not evident to me. Perhaps I have missed some development which cast substantial doubt on Christine Blasey-Ford?

that's another $50 to Biden and $50 to Patricia Timmons-Goodson

This thread has put some $$$$ in Espy's campaign as well.

Keep 'em coming!!

Also, FWIW, yes, the Tara Reade accusation is apparently what McK brought up.

Reade made claims that deserved a hearing, but she was not a great witness. As in, her attorney dropped her as a client because she was not a great witness.

And that's pretty much where it stands. If there's more to it, I'm sure we'll hear about it.

And speaking of cancel culture, since we always seem to need to, Blasey-Ford has had to move 4 times, hire private security, and leave her teaching position, since giving her testimony.

Just thought I'd mention that, since we hadn't heard much on the cancel culture front yet today.

It's the f'ing moral preening and carrying on like the lefties have all the right answers and anyone who doesn't buy their/your BS is a moral leper that I find laughable.

So McK admits that he just comes here to sneer.

He must have some reason

And facts, no doubt.

McTX's posts always go better for me when I imagine them being team read by John Houseman as Charles W. Kingfield and Andy Griffith as Ben Matlock.

Maybe one of these guys.

And whichever one he is, I'm probably the other one.

:)

Blasey-Ford has had to move 4 times, hire private security, and leave her teaching position, since giving her testimony.

Yes. Lest we forget.

It's the f'ing moral preening and carrying on like the lefties have all the right answers and anyone who doesn't buy their/your BS is a moral leper that I find laughable.

Conservatives: non-conservatives are naive.
Libertarians: non-libertarians are uninformed.
Liberals: non-liberals are immoral.

Trump is old and stupid,...

Biden is even older. It's going to be a MAGA election: Make Ageing Great Again.

How is it moral preening to nominate and vote for a ham sandwich?

It seems to me that third party candidates and the folks who vote for them love themselves moral vanity campaigns.

Given our shitty system and the choices it vomits up, we have two choices: Evil, or Trump if you prefer, or ..... a ham sandwich.

All else is pointless moral preening in 2020.

And I'm not sure even sapient believes Hillary Clinton is a perfect specimen.

I don't. I hate all of em.

But the woman who was accused right here of hardly being up to snuff as a small town attorney and, falsely, originally by Russian and Eastern European Trump disinformation factories, and then here, of lying about the severity of her flu attack during the 2016 campaign would have been the better hold yer nose choice in an immoral world over the monster now running amok.

Trump is old and stupid,...

Biden is even older.

However, on the evidence in hand, Biden is at least firing on all cylinders. Whereas Trump has visibly lost ground over the past 4 years, and wasn't notably coherent at the beginning.

Not to mention Biden, like pretty much everybody in Washington (except Palin, if she is there), is and always has been smarter than Trump. Just like everybody here is. It's a damn low bar.

And I'm not sure even sapient believes Hillary Clinton is a perfect specimen.

My name was invoked? I'm here!

You are correct. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is a perfect specimen. I don't believe that I am a perfect specimen. We are flawed people. Humans are flawed. Our country is flawed. France is flawed. Is this news to anyone?

Clinton spent a good part of her life trying to figure out how to make good policy to make people's lives better. Mixed results, as with most people who do that. She and her husband got rich, but her family foundation was well thought of by folks who rate philanthropy. She's okay with me, and I happily voted for her. I don't look for her as my moral lodestar, but I respect her, and don't think she should shut up.

So, yes, that's my view of Hillary Clinton.

Let me mention flaws for a moment:

A lot of people hate Hillary Clinton because she got rich. (Through corruption? I don't think so. She was a Yale Law graduate who worked at a prestigious Arkansas law firm, had a position on the board of Walmart (if I'm not mistaken, she was the first woman on that board), and she was a good lawyer. And she was investigated forever and ever, and nada.) So the "left" hates her because she communed with Wall Street.

Other people hate Hillary because she is a socialist. Health care!

Whatever. She's not running for anything, but because "the Clintons" come up so often here, I just thought I'd rant. I'll rant about Bill too, but not tonight.

Love y'all. The muppet item was great, russell.

Other people hate Hillary because she is a socialist. Health care!

Should have added to this group: No bake cookies!

Trump is old and stupid,...

Biden is even older.

Biden, however, is not stupid. Advantage Biden.

Should have added to this group: No bake cookies!

That's it. She's dead to me.

We had plenty of arguments here before Trump was on the radar. FSM willing, we’ll have plenty more after he’s gone - the sooner the better. I’d bet everyone would be pleased as hell if we didn’t have to waste another word on him.

What hsh said. In fact, I don’t agree with some of what is said in this thread, but getting the narcissist out is a necessary step in itself and will also open up a bit of space to argue about other things besides the narcissist and his massive cult following.

In fact, I have a link to put up, but will do it in an old thread.

Further to McKinney's comments about Cuomo's supposedly ghastly handling of Covid in NYC, proving that Dems can do as badly as Trump, this article in today's WaPo interested me:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/23/fauci-finally-loses-his-patience-with-rand-paul/

I wonder if McKinney would accept Fauci's expertise on this subject?

Money quote:

Paul (R-Ky.), as he often has, questioned the strict mitigation measures that states across the country had undertaken. He accused Fauci of being too laudatory of New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), noting that Cuomo’s state experienced one of the worst outbreaks in the world.

“How can we possibly be jumping up and saying, ‘Oh, Governor Cuomo did a great job’?” Paul asked. “He had one of the worst death rates in the world.”

That outbreak, of course, was seeded very early on, before much of the more serious mitigation efforts began. Cuomo has been criticized for the state’s policy on nursing homes, especially, and Fauci acknowledged that the state made “mistakes.” But Fauci noted that the state now has one of the lowest test-positivity rates in the country, saying it’s because it has embraced health officials’ guidance.

“No, you misconstrued that, senator, and you’ve done that repetitively in the past," Fauci shot back. "They got hit very badly. They’ve made some mistakes. Right now — if you look at what’s going on right now, the things that are going on in New York to get their test-positivity 1 percent or less is because they are looking at the guidelines that we have put together from the task force of the four or five things: of masks, social distancing, outdoors more than indoors, avoiding crowds and washing hands—”

Paul interrupted, positing that New York is actually in much better shape right now because it has attained some form of herd immunity.

Fauci was again unimpressed.

“I challenge that,” he said. He asked for more time to respond, “because this happens with Senator Rand all the time.”

“You are not listening to what the director of the CDC [Robert Redfield] said,” Fauci added, “that in New York, it’s about 22 percent [that have tested positive]. If you believe 22 percent is herd immunity, I believe you’re alone in that.”

If Cuomo were a Republican, I'm guessing that McKinney's position would align more closely with Fauci's. But he's not partisan like the rest of us hypocrites here on this blog who don't get to ride high on a horse named "Both Sides."

I'm guessing you're right, hsh. Still, it would be nice to hear about this from McKinney, bearing in mind lj's recent comments.

I'm guessing you're right, hsh. Still, it would be nice to hear about this from McKinney, bearing in mind lj's recent comments.

The comments to this entry are closed.