The cultish aspects of the New Republican Party have been observed and commented upon by many. But it's also important to acknowledge the differences between a political personality cult and a small religious cult.
A religious cult can survive with as few as a couple dozen adherants (a few hundred is more common, but a couple dozen will often suffice for years.) The political personality cult has to appeal to a much wider spectrum of people to become strong enough to make a political impact. Therefore, the political personality cult needs a much larger and more tangible enemy than some abstract notion of an evil spirit/demonic personality/Satan/Devil thing. Political cults need enemies they can get at--they need to hate other people. (Religious cults generally come to hate other people too, but it's derivative--the other people are seen to be servants of the devil spirit. In political cults it's the other people who are the primary-level objects of the cult hate.)
In what I can only describe as a fairly desperate development, Republican pundits have grown tired of trying to get "liberal" news organizations to "out" the whistle-blower of recent Washington fame, and have taken to scattering his name (they're sure they've figured it out) across low readership right-wing publications in the hope that it'll get picked up by the "liberal" press eventually, so that FoxNews and the Wall Street Journal can then start to publish rants about how he's a Deep State shill for Joe Biden. (It worked on the Mueller Report, so they're gonna try it again.)
I s'pect that they'll eventually just go with it anyway if they can't get some reputable liberal publication to print the name for them, but they're trying real hard to make the liberals print it first. I'm not sure why that is. Seems to me they could just go for it. Ain't like the dedicated Trumpkins are gonna care about that minor mischief.
example 1 example 2 And there were a couple of articles from right-winger authors yesterday I noticed.
I suppose this what Petes was doing such a poor job of telling us the other day.
"In the minds of Trump, his allies and, increasingly, his supporters, [and Petes] it’s not just Democrats but American democracy that is the obstacle." PoliticoMagazine
But, that's pretty much just what we already knew. The authors of the above essay think we're in terrible danger. I disagree (about the level of danger that is). Trump is the death rattle of their movement. And, we got the young people on our side. The old high school educated white folks can't sustain a revolution. They ain't got the wind; they ain't got the energy. Too old now; they waited too long. (Anger they got plenty of, but anger won't do it for them.)
Apparently people have started sawing through the new sections of Trump's Wall that were just put up. It is being done with commonly available equipment.
I was talking to someone yesterday who is questioning the impeachment inquiry, fearing that it has become a partisan tool.
But that would be ignoring how many people genuinely feel that any President should not try to coerce someone to help him benefit politically at the expense of our country. It has only been made partisan by those who are putting party before country.
"I was talking to someone yesterday who is questioning the impeachment inquiry, fearing that it has become a partisan tool."
Perhaps you should point out that this impeachment is indeed a partisan exercise. That's too bad, but that's the way it is. Trump decided to do what he did. The Republicans decided to back him en mass.
The Democrats think that a President (any President) should not be using the power of his office to pressure foreign governments to give him "dirt" on his political opposition.
The Republicans think it's okay so long as it's a Republican President who's abusing the power of his office and not a Democrat.
Unfortunately, this has become a highly partisan distinction. But, they choose that route.
Then ask them, straight up, calmly, dispassionately, which side of that fight they're on. It is what it is. They now have to decide which side of that question they come down on.
Trying to wish it away is no longer possible. Trump did it. It is no less evil because it has become "partisan". Do we let him get away with it or do we not? Whining about it becoming "partisan" doesn't solve the problem he's presented us with.
"Apparently people have started sawing through the new sections of Trump's Wall…"
Seems like something's not going according to plan there; I was given to understand that they were supposed to climb up to the top and throw themselves onto the spikes on the top.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "…questioning the impeachment inquiry, fearing that it has become a partisan tool."
That is a "process" argument, a solidly Republican argument. Argue about the process instead of facing the question of what Trump did. Head in sand sorta thing. Pretend the real problem will go away if only they can find something else to talk about.
I see that Robert Blair, top aid to the White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, has refused his subpoena. The Trump White House is going straight at the unanimous Supreme Court opinion in United States v Nixon which held that the President was not immune to Congressional oversight, and had to submit to Congress in an impeachment proceeding.
I've said several times that I'm confident this will eventually resolve the right way, but this frontal assault on United States v Nixon does suggest that the Trump White House has reason to believe the Supreme Trumpkins might overrule the Nixon case. That would be… Well, that would be bad, very, very bad. If that happens we have a whole new ball game goin' on. I think Trump might even try to cancel the 2020 election if he can get Nixon overruled.
"Trump met with loud boos, some cheers at UFC fight"
Okay, they got different takes on things; I get that.
However…
I'm also finding another FoxNews instigation of their right-winger audience. Headline reads:
"JUSTICE DENIED? Crash killed 5 family members – but Dem-appointed judge gives defendant 1 year probation"
"Dem-appointed judge"? Granted, this is just the headline on their main page https://www.foxnews.com/, it doesn't repeat on the subsequent webpage that contains the story behind the headline, but that's what's on their main page, top dead center, priority space, the biggest type and the biggest picture on the page.
When one reads the article one finds out that the defendant was charged with "inattentive driving, driving across a median and failure to obey traffic devices" (to which they tacked on vehicular homicide and vehicular assault). Nope, not drunk, not under the influence of drugs--had a coughing fit on the way home from work and lost control of his pickup. Horrible accident obviously. But FoxNews' take on it? It's the Democrats involved in ghastly killings! Slow news day for them I suppose. (Can't report on the news out of Washington D.C.; never do for their audience to learn too much about what their Dear Leader is actually up to these days.) And this is their solution.
Top dead center of their main page--supposedly national news--biggest typeface on the page, biggest color picture on the page, and all because the judge had been appointed by a Democratic governor and they could hit that.
I don't find a comparable for that on CNN, not this morning, not any morning.
Speak of the devil… Kellyanne Conway showed up on FoxNewsSunday this morning. It was twelve minutes of fairly classical Kellyanne. Although, she was constrained a little bit because it was a supposedly friendly FoxNews interviewer she was trying to run over.
Then ask them, straight up, calmly, dispassionately, which side of that fight they're on. It is what it is. They now have to decide which side of that question they come down on.
In the end it will not be that question that decides his vote. He doesn't like Trump, didn't vote for him in 2016 and won't vote for him in 2020. What will decide whether or not he votes Democrat is who their nominee is. He won't vote for Elizabeth Warren either. If it came down to those two he will vote Libertarian. Which in the end would be a vote for Trump, but people who are voting like that don't seem to care.
I think Trump might even try to cancel the 2020 election if he can get Nixon overruled.
He, or someone in the Republican party, has already managed to get other Republicans off of the primary ballet, leaving only Trump to vote for. In Minnesota the Republican Party has also managed to remove the write in line as well. Granted, Trump will no doubt slither in, but it would still be nice to have some kind of at least surface attempt at a democratic process.
In September, an obscure Twitter account promoting a fringe belief about an anti-Trump cabal within the government tweeted out a hashtag: #FakeWhistleblower.
It was typical for the anonymous account, which traffics in far-right content and a conspiracy theory known as QAnon, some of whose adherents think that satanic pedophiles control the “deep state.” The Federal Bureau of Investigation recently labeled QAnon a potential domestic terror threat.
Still, that did not stop others, including a Republican congressional candidate, from quickly picking up the hashtag and tweeting it. Within a week, hundreds of QAnon believers and “MAGA” activists had joined in, posting memes and bogus reports to undermine the complaint by a government whistle-blower that President Trump had pressed Ukraine’s leader for dirt on former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son.
I've said several times that I'm confident this will eventually resolve the right way, but this frontal assault on United States v Nixon does suggest that the Trump White House has reason to believe the Supreme Trumpkins might overrule the Nixon case. That would be… Well, that would be bad, very, very bad. If that happens we have a whole new ball game goin' on.
Yes. Even the fellow I was talking to about the election is getting very concerned about the future of our country. But not enough to see that removing Trump is really the only way to try to get us back on track. Not enough to take a chance on whoever is the Democratic nominee.
Well, aside from occasional bouts of semi-panic that sometimes come upon me when I contemplate the fact that Trump actually did win the electoral college in 2016… Generally, I'm fairly confident that he's history come January 2021, and the malignant political machine that he overtook in that election is almost certain to come clear apart in the recriminations that will follow the 2020 election.
One of the things that make me (usually) comfortable predicting that our country will recover from this is the fact that Trump polls so horribly among the young voters. They're seemingly semi-immune to the extreme partisanship that's on display on cable tv and on the internet. They've grown up with it and seem to have developed a certain level of casual immunity to the nastier strains of propaganda.
(And, I think the reason Trump took over the Republican Party instead of the Democratic Party is because the Republican Party went down that path of faerie tale history and fake economics and general refusal to accept reality years before the disease of hyper-partisanship began to infect the Democratic Party as well. The Republicans began to buy into fantasy and fabrication with Reagan and FoxNews in the '80s, and been working on it harder and longer than the Democrats. I think that impressive lead in the race to the bottom will come back to finally and fatally bite them this round.)
"…and the malignant political machine…is almost certain to come clear apart…"
Just to make everyone feel better… One initial sign of that happening is in Trump's Twitter feed today. He's pouring the praise on "OAAN" (One America News Network), which has been solidly pro-Trump even as some at FoxNews are getting a little bit uncomfortable with where Trump is taking them.
One of the advantages of the right-wing since the days of Reagan is that they had one voice--coördinated and curated by the late Roger Ailes after Ailes quit his job as a media advisor for Reagan's reëlection campaign.
Trump originally was going to take his notoriety from his losing presidential campaign and go into business in competion with FoxNews after the 2016 campaign, but he won--to his suprise along with everyone else's. So, whilst he's trying to get reëlected, other folks, specifically including the folks at One America News Network have stepped into the breach and tried to grab some of that advertising money that FoxNews has had locked down.
This means that the voice of the right-wing is going to get competitive, and for that kinda money they're gonna go after one another tooth and nail. There won't be the one, overarching coördinator keeping the right-wing faerie tale formed up into a single narrative that they can all salute with a straight face.
Somebody stole Trump's idea before he could cash in on it. That's gonna help inflame and expand those "recriminations" I mentioned earlier.
One of the things that make me (usually) comfortable predicting that our country will recover from this is the fact that Trump polls so horribly among the young voters.
Yes, that is the one thing that has given me some hope. Their concerns, climate change and gun control, are both things that Trump's policies don't address.
Lynnette: "In the end it will not be that question that decides his vote. He doesn't like Trump, didn't vote for him in 2016 and won't vote for him in 2020. What will decide whether or not he votes Democrat is who their nominee is. He won't vote for Elizabeth Warren either. If it came down to those two he will vote Libertarian. Which in the end would be a vote for Trump, but people who are voting like that don't seem to care."
Well I can relate to your friend there. If it's between two choices I don't like I will vote for a third even if it means that the one of the two I liked less will benefit from it. I never liked tactical voting, it lets our politicians off the hook by scaring us with a worse alternative.
For the dems to go into 2022 with an "at least he/she's not Trump" agenda would probably be a huge mistake. And I'm not near as convinced as Lee seems to be that Trump will be a spent force come general election time. I think he's poised to win another 4 years as it stands today.
I doubt Biden can beat him and I doubt even more Warren even stands a chance.
That said, I have a question for ya'll: Are the dem candidates we see so far the ones that will compete for the nomination? Or is it still possible for a new candidate to break in there and steal the nomination. A new "Obama" if you will, who sweeps in late and carries it, is that possible? Or are the ones in the race now the only options?
Lee: "That's theoretically possible. As a practical matter… No; ain't gonna happen."
Then I would bet on Trump in 2022 if I were to bet money today. Beto is out, Tulsi is out, Kamala seems to be on the ropes if not out already. So it's Sanders, Biden and Warren in the lead.
I think Sanders would be the most trouble for Trump but I also think he's the least likely to get the dem nomination (of the three).
Biden was close to Warren a few weeks back but now he's shot up and she's down so he's got the lead, for now. But he's just so old and sleepy. I really can't see him maintaining thge energy needed for a national campaign.
And Warren, fake indian as she is, is probably WAY to much of a socialist and tax-hiker to win the swing states needed. Plus she's Pocahontas already wether she likes it or not, and the fact that she got into University claiming minority status while being like 98% white... well, that's no good in a campaign.
Then you've got that boy Buttigieg also, not so sure about him. Not seen much from him. But does he even have a shot at the nomination?
"But does [Buttigieg] even have a shot at the nomination?"
Yeah, he's got a shot. Odds are against him, but he's got a real shot; not hypothetical; not imaginary--he's got a real shot at it. He's been gathering supporters as he goes along.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (New York and the northeast), has ruled that Donald Trump's long-time accounting firm must hand over eight (8) years worth of Trump's tax returns to the NYC prosecutor who's investigating Trump himself for proof of campaign finance violations and charges of fraud (for which Trump's prior attorney Michael Cohen is already doing three years' prison time.)
Might be they get Trump ousted before 2022, IDK. But as I understand it it would have to be done by Impeachment which would then have to get a 2/3 majority vote in the Republican controlled senate.
Lots of them senators are going to be up for re-election also, and bringing down their own President might not sit so well with many prospective voters.
So my understanding is it would have to be hugely damaging and clear evidence of wrongdoing for them to burn Trump. Is that really realistic?
"And Warren, fake indian as she is, is probably WAY to much of a socialist and tax-hiker to win the swing states needed."
Current polling shows Warren beating Trump in all the important "swing states", Pocahontas and tax hikes notwithstanding. They already know all that, and she's still leading Trump in the swing states the Democrats would have to win. She's not so far a head that it's impossible for him to catch up, but she's ahead for now.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Is that really realistic?"
That there'll be 20 Republicans in the Senate vote to throw Trump out of office? Hell no! Ain't gonna happen. Doesn't matter if there is "hugely damaging and clear evidence of wrongdoing". The Republican base will stick with Trump and the Republican Senators have no choice but to do the same and hope they survive.
Lee: "Current polling shows Warren beating Trump in all the important "swing states", Pocahontas and tax hikes notwithstanding. They already know all that, and she's still leading Trump in the swing states the Democrats would have to win. She's not so far a head that it's impossible for him to catch up, but she's ahead for now."
But we've all learned not to trust the polls, now haven't we? Plus Trump's allegedly got a huge re-election budget wich he started to ammass almost as soon as he got into office. And he's likely to do his rallies as he did last time around. Plus the guy seems to have about as much energy as when he was elected the first time, which is unusual really.
GWB aged horribly and even Obama went from brown hair to grey in a matter of year. But the Orange one is more or less the same shade of orange now as when he entered office. I don't think quarrels and battle bring him down, I think he feeds on it. Probably a sociopathic or psychopathic personality, definetly a narcissistic one. He'll prolly win again.
"…we've all learned not to trust the polls, now haven't we?"
What you should have learned was to not trust the pundits trying to interpret the polls. The polling was mostly correct, within the margins of error. They showed Hillary winning by 3-4%. She won by just over 2%. That's well within the stated margin of error for most of the polls.
Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight blog had Hillary as a two to one favorite, but that means one time outta three he'd have expected Trump to win. Trump scored on his luck is all that happened there. (The New York Times published pundits who read the polls and claimed Hillary was 90% sure to win--which just means they had a failure of imagination--in truth their polls showed the same thing as Nate Silver's polls--Hillary with a 3-4% lead; she came in at 2% plus a little bit.)
"Plus Trump's allegedly got a huge re-election budget…"
"But the Orange one is more or less the same shade of orange now as when he entered office."
Actually, he varies quite a lot. That spray on tanning stuff fades within a week or so and he has to restore it. His original hair color was brown. He's gone to a semi-orangish yellow which helps conceal scalp peeking through the wisps he poofs, swirls, and lacquer sprays into place.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ The House committees investigating the impeachment allegations have just released the first batch of hearing transcripts. Might be a noisy news week after all, 'tween that and Trump doing twitter blasts about his tax returns too.
GWB aged horribly and even Obama went from brown hair to grey in a matter of year.
Trump's hair color of choice aside, it is likely that Dubya and Obama actually gave some thought and concern to the security and the prosperity of the United States. Trump on the other hand only cares about Trump so what is happening in the country or outside of it is of little concern. Much less stressful for him.
...Trump doing twitter blasts about his tax returns too.
Yup, the court ruled against him.
But it appears that the DOJ is trying to quash Anonymous' book on Trump. His/Her publishes says that isn't happening. It comes out Nov. 19. I'll look for it...
Well I can relate to your friend there. If it's between two choices I don't like I will vote for a third even if it means that the one of the two I liked less will benefit from it.
I usually feel the same way. But if one of my choices is someone who I consider to be engaging in criminal activities I will not vote for that person. I will do my best to vote him out of office, even if it means voting for someone I am on the fence about.
The dominoes begin to fall. Lev Parnas, the Ukrainian born "business associate" of Rudy Guiliani, who was nabbed at the airport carrying a one-way ticket to Vienna, Austria has indicated that he's changed his mind and is willing to coöperate with the impeachment investigation against Donald Trump. Reuters
All indications are that the House Democrats are going to push ahead with their impeachment investigation with what the Supreme Court once called "all deliberate speed" (and also proceed that way with the Articles of Impeachment, 'cause, let's face it, there's almost zero chance they're gonna decide to not go ahead and send what they got on to the Senate for trial).
Then it's gonna be the Senate Republicans' problem. There'll have to be a few Democratic House members over at the Senate in the afternoons (acting as prosecutors; called "managers" in impeachment proceedings), but there's no reason the House can't go on about its business after they get the actual Articles of Impeachment off of their plate. And that's exactly what they should do.
Send it off, and quit worrying about it. Everybody knows the Republicans ain't gonna vote to remove Trump from office. So, don't worry 'bout it, and get back to real legislative business. That's their best bet to hold their House majority in 2020. They'll especially need to pass legislation to keep the government open past the new year when it's scheduled to run out of money again.
Straightforward--This is why Trump must be impeached, and why the Republicans in the Senate who will vote to save him from that fate must be turned out of their majority.
Forty-nine seconds on YouTube tells us all we need to know to know that we need to suppress that threat.
I think I will make this my first argument for any and all dedicated Trumpkins who might be dumb enough to ask why I think he's gotta be impeached. Put it on my cellphone just to have it with me when and if….
Then it's gonna be the Senate Republicans' problem.
And they'll be dealing with it in the midst of an election year. I actually think the timing may prove unfortunate for them. This is when all of the dirt becomes public.
Unless, of course, they can make the trial, if it comes to that, private. But given that they are the ones who have been complaining about lack of transparency, that will be somewhat problematic.
The governor's election in Kentucky is very, very close at the moment. The Democratic candidate has a slight edge, but it could go any way. Hmmm...it appears his lead is shrinking.
Straightforward--This is why Trump must be impeached, and why the Republicans in the Senate who will vote to save him from that fate must be turned out of their majority.
Thinking himself all powerful is the mindset of a potential dictator.
Interesting is the fact that Article II contains the section (4) that provides for impeachment.
I notice that Ambassador Sondland is takin' shit from the career people in the State Department for supposedly fabricating conversations with them, and takin' shit from Republican Trumpkin loyalist types for being insufficiently protective of Trump (he's shading that way, but they want more; they wanted dedicated total defense of Trump).
I'm wondering if this will cause him to come up with a third version of his story? If it does, whomever doesn't like his story is sure to use his serial revisions as evidence that he's lying about the stuff they don't like (whilst being not bothered at all by Trump's history of serial revisions).
Lindsay Graham is basically shrugging off Sondland's reversal on the quid pro quo. As far as Graham is concerned as long as the President of Ukraine didn't feel coerced than that's good enough for him.
The lack of character in his response is astounding.
Graham is a sidekick by nature. He's hollow, a man with no center. When he lost John McCain he was truly lost on his own. Now he's a sidekick again. When Trump leaves he will find someone else and blend in seamlessly again. That's who he is.
The web widens: Jennifer Williams, senior National Security advisor to Mike Pence, who was listening in on the now infamous 25 July '19 phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy, is testifying in closed door hearings today before the combined House committees investigating impeachment. Pence is on the hot seat now along with Trump.
I may have been unclear in the above note ↑↑ Jennifer Williams listened in on the Trump/Zelenskyy call. Pence did not, he was out of town on business. However, she prepared a summary of the call and reported it to Pence the next day, so he knew all about it.
Nate Silver at FiveThiryEight claims that Biden isn't fading as much as seems to be the perception in the national media (excluding FoxNews which is the Repubican media). He thinks they're looking at it too superficially. (And neither is Buttigieg gaining ground as much as the national media thinks--although he is gaining ground.)
My guess is they'll proceed even more carefully. They wouldn't want to be accused of trying to make Pelosi president. They've already been accused of staging a coup.
"They wouldn't want to be accused of trying to make Pelosi president."
I think they're just trying to scuff Pence up a little, preparatory to the 2024 election (and to maybe make him a little more reluctant to pardon Trump should Trump decide to resign after losing the 2020 election, on the theory that Pence will pardon him--scuff Pence up a little now, and make that pardon a little less likely to happen).
"Klobuchar actually qualified for the debate in December."
She's been picking up support, lagging Buttigieg in that department; he's rising faster than she is, but she's picked up a little bit here and there as she goes along and other folks falter.
Huh! It looks like the President of Ukraine was preparing to announce an investigation of Biden, on CNN no less, but then changed his mind when the aid was released. Now if that doesn't sound like bowing before coercion I don't know what does.
"It looks like the President of Ukraine was preparing to announce an investigation of Biden…"
Just saw that in the NewYorkTimes. Ukraine's got enough trouble, and it wouldn't be a good look for the Democrats to drag them into this kicking and screaming, but, it that can be confirmed without doing damage to the relationship….
"Lindsey Graham, introduced a resolution condemning the House’s proceedings for lacking transparency, and then refused to read the evidence from closed-door depositions this week now that it is being made public. The impeachment investigation is a 'joke' and a 'political vendetta,' Graham told reporters, so why bother? "In such a politically divided moment, Graham is merely saying out loud what has become increasingly obvious: the President has successfully rendered the investigation irrelevant, at least for his most fervent supporters (and that apparently includes virtually all of the Republican elected officials in both the House and the Senate). There is no evidence, no testimony, no revelatory text message, that can sway them. There is a justification for anything that has come out, and for anything that might still be revealed. Trump has framed the impeach- ment case, as with all the other challenges to his controversial actions over the past few years, as a purely partisan matter of loyalty and legitimacy." Atlantic
Some may suspect that the public hearings will have some effect on the dedicated Trumpkins. I'm thinking maybe a couple of percentage points. Trump has jumped up to 43% or so job approval on the basis of he still hasn't crashed either the economy or the stock market. Maybe public hearings will move him back down to 40% or there'bouts. (And then again, maybe not.)
[Chump]: "Well, aside from occasional bouts of semi-panic that sometimes come upon me when I contemplate the fact that Trump actually did win the electoral college in 2016… Generally, I'm fairly confident that he's history come January 2021"
LOL. So Trump did win. That's a rare admission.
I've no idea what's gonna happen next year. Don't much care. Trump's ineptitude scares the crap out of me. But I know "the idea of Trump" ain't goin' away. By which I mean the idea that spawned Trump, Brexit and the Demonised Masses.
Michael Bloomberg's been makin' more news of of late; he's actually and officially entered the Democratic primary for Alabama, a threat Lynnette warned about above ↑↑. Bloomberg may just be screwin' with people for the fun of it. He's got enough money to use it to amuse himself if he pleases. And then again, they say that once a politician gets the Presidential Itch there's no cure for it this side of the grave. So, who knows?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Been also noticin' some weird diversionary moves by the advocates for autocracy of late. Screwin' with things for the sake of screwin' with things, it would seem; makin' a mess for the sake of having the mess, as it were. Michael Bolton's been dangling teases in the press 'bout knowin' shit that he ought to be asked about, but he's not been divulging what that shit might be, nor explaining why he's not just comin' out with it. Could be that Bolton is just wanting to get the Democrats diverted into the courts. Trump's been tryin' hard to get the impeachment investigation tied up in litigation and run out the clock to the end of the half (i.e. next November's elections). Bolton has reason to be seriously pissed at Trump, but Bolton may hate the Democrats even more, and may be willing to play stalking horse for Trump on this one. Hard to say just which it is. I would note also that the House committees in question dropped their subpoenas of one Charles Krupperman, NSA advisor to Trump after he sued to get a court decision on whether or not he should obey a Congressional subpoena. Ordinarily one would think that would render the matter moot, but Mick Mulvaney, Trump's Chief of Staff, has attempted to join in what should be a moot case by now. (Turns out that the judge in that case had shown no particular interest in prompt resolution of the question and it seems the Trump administration is very, very interested in doing whatever they can to keep that judge involved in their stall.)
And then there's Petes. ↑↑
"That's a rare admission."
Gotta figure Petes knows what that means to him, what that's about, but he may be the only one.
"Sixty-two percent of Republican supporters have said that there is nothing Trump could do, no crime or war crime, no high crime or misdemeanor, that would lead them to vote against him in 2020. There is only one way to describe this, and that is a cult, completely resistant to reason or debate. The tribalism is so deep that Trump seems incapable of dropping below 40 percent in the national polls, and is competitive in many swing states. The cult is so strong that Trump feels invulnerable. If Trump survives impeachment, and loses the 2020 election, he may declare it another coup, rigged, and illegitimate. He may refuse to concede. And it is possible the GOP will follow his lead. That this is even thinkable reveals the full extent of our constitutional rot." Andrew Sullivan
At this point I think she's probably running for Vice President. She'd be a complementary addition to a Biden led ticket.
I think I tend to agree with you on this. Her actually getting the nomination for President was always a long shot. But Vice President? Maybe a chance with that. She would be a nice stable voice in any administration.
In such a politically divided moment, Graham is merely saying out loud what has become increasingly obvious: the President has successfully rendered the investigation irrelevant, at least for his most fervent supporters (and that apparently includes virtually all of the Republican elected officials in both the House and the Senate). There is no evidence, no testimony, no revelatory text message, that can sway them.
Sadly, I believe this to be true. I cannot understand such complete brainwashing. For me it wouldn't matter if the person were a Democrat or a Republican, if he/she behaved as Trump has done I would not place any trust in him/her. It goes beyond the poor administration of government and the lack of integrity. This man is a complete charlatan and propagandist who is out to make himself an authoritarian leader who governs with little regard for true democracy.
I've no idea what's gonna happen next year. Don't much care. Trump's ineptitude scares the crap out of me. But I know "the idea of Trump" ain't goin' away. By which I mean the idea that spawned Trump, Brexit and the Demonised Masses.
That was a good video, Petes.
The problem for those voters, such as the man in Erie, though, is that they are searching for something that no one person can do, not Obama, and not Trump. I suspect that the tectonic shift is really reversion to the mean. The world when those manufacturers were going gang busters was a world where America and the West in general were the ones doing the consuming, the ones doing the building, the ones who were in charge of international institutions. Now that is not necessarily the case. There has been the rise of China. There has been the rise of India. The world's wealth is being distributed differently. Trump's tariffs won't fix that. We have to learn how to survive in a different type of world.
As for racism being a factor, while the man in Erie may not be a racist, there are those who are hanging on to Trump's coattails who are. We are seeing spikes in crimes that are definitely race or anti-immigrant related. Now I can understand a protest vote, which is what so many of those who are voting their pocketbook are doing, but there is also a slippery slope that needs to be carefully avoided. Or we will have more serious problems than lack of jobs.
Hysteria? No, I don't agree at all. The impeachment inquiry needed to be done. There are things that Trump and his supporters are doing that are wrong. I don't care that the stock market is soaring, there is a question of personal integrity. And those who would support impeaching Clinton should also be supporting the inquiry for Trump. If they are not then there is a serious double standard.
I do agree that the idea of Trump is not going away. But we have to find a way to change that mindset or we may all go away. We need to find our roots again. Fighting each other, blaming immigrants or even the so called elites isn't going to do that.
He may refuse to concede. And it is possible the GOP will follow his lead. That this is even thinkable reveals the full extent of our constitutional rot."
Constitutional rot? Or Republican?
I suspect that people, like the man from Erie in Petes' video, may actually stand up and object to that. That may be a breaking point for them. A protest vote is one thing, allowing the demise of our democracy is another.
The ‛man from Erie’ casually ignores the fact that while most Republicans aren't necessarily racists, most all the racists most always vote Republican (been that way since the late 60s/early 70s). It's a hidden, but widely known truth that the Republicans rely on picking up the racist vote, and would almost never win a national election without it and must cater to them to keep them coming out to vote. The Evangelicals and fundie Catholics just aren't numerous enough without them. That particular deal with the devil is one they fully understand and one to which they willingly, even eagerly, accede. This ain't news folks; ain't even new.
"Fighting each other, blaming immigrants or even the so called elites isn't going to do that."
They're in serious need of a better claim to ‛victim’ status. Blaming their troubles on the notion that snooty college professors look down on them is one of the stupidest rationalizations I've heard of in politics in a long time, but they're goin' for it.
"But I know 'the idea of Trump' ain't goin' away."
"I do agree that the idea of Trump is not going away."
The demonization of immigrants is a recurring theme that predates Trump--it's not Trump's idea; it's not even ‛the idea of Trump’. In our country such demonization has routinely been applied sequentially, to the Germans, then the Irish, then the Italians. Then came the Orientals (and the Chinese Exclusion Act). Then Jews and eastern Europeans. It's simple tribalism at its heart. It was a trait developed in the antiquity of human evolution which increased survival rates for the aboriginal species and thus got passed on to progeny. But, like the innate human attraction to sugar, salt, and fats in the diet, what was a beneficial instinct in primitive man is no longer beneficial now that we're "civilized". It's got nothin' to do with ‛the idea of Trump’
I noticed on FoxNewsSunday this morning that the Republican guests kept telling the audience that none of the witnesses so far had confirmed the "quid-pro-quo" that Trump harps upon. One after another said this. In support of this story they cited the testimony of Ambassador Sondland before the House Committees (closed hearings). They blithely ignored the fact that Sondland later decided to "expand and clarify" his remarks after other people had testified, and he then admitted that he'd told the story wrong the first time.
The FoxNews audience isn't being told about Sondland having second thoughts and rolling on Trump.
Blaming their troubles on the notion that snooty college professors look down on them is one of the stupidest rationalizations I've heard of in politics in a long time, but they're goin' for it.
Careful who you say that to. They might accuse you of calling them stupid.
But I have wondered if they would let someone perform surgery on them who has no experience or any kind of higher education. Running a country is a rather complex endeavor needing some experience and or higher education, one would think.
I was listening to a panel of voters organized by CNN. What struck me was that of the, I think about six, people they had on almost to a person they couldn't understand why we should give aid to Ukraine when there are so many of our veterans who are in need. They may have differed in their opinion of whether or not Trump should have tried to coerce Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden and his son, but they agreed on that. They seemed incapable of looking beyond the fact of the aid to what it may support in Ukraine.
Apparently the idea that we may have serious adversaries in the world who may not hold our best interests at heart does not occur to them. Nor does the correlation between having allies and acting from a position of strength and our economic well being seem to occur to them.
The demonization of immigrants is a recurring theme that predates Trump--it's not Trump's idea...
I suspect that Trump has few original ideas. What he does is grab onto anything he feels may energize his base.
Perhaps I don't understand what PeteS meant by "the idea of Trump". But if it has anything to do with a single authoritarian leader who is going to bring back the "glory" that was, Trump has certainly been using an anti-immigrant platform to try to encourage people to think he is doing that. That and his anti-regulation policies to try to encourage business activity. Never mind that this may harm the very environment that we all live in.
The justification for foreign aid requires a minimum two-step thought process. The average voter is disinclined engage with political thoughts that require more than a single line of explanation (preferably short enough to put on a bumper sticker).
"Perhaps I don't understand what PeteS meant by 'the idea of Trump'."
Yeah, well, don't worry about it; I don't think Petes has a clear idea of what he meant by that either.
"The Republicans have learned that lying works with some people."
FoxNews has been on top of that notion for a long time now. The Republican Party is today what it is today because FoxNews appropriated their "messaging" function and turned it to generating television ratings (and the advertiser dollars that followed those ratings), and the Party let that happen; choose to let that happen in fact--so, the Republican "message" ultimately degenerated to the lowest common denominator, to the great financial benefit of Fox Corporation, but to the ultimate detriment of the Republican Party.
It may be some time before this one gets any play on FoxNews as well:
"Not long before the Ukrainian president was inaugurated in May, an associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s journeyed to Kiev to deliver a warning to the country’s new leadership, a lawyer for the associate said. "The associate, Lev Parnas, told a representative of the incoming government that it had to announce an investigation into Mr. Trump’s political rival, Joseph R. Biden Jr., and his son, or else Vice President Mike Pence would not attend the swearing-in of the new president, and the United States would freeze aid, the lawyer said. "The claim by Mr. Parnas, who is preparing to share his account with impeachment investigators, challenges the narrative of events from Mr. Trump and Ukrainian officials that is at the core of the congressional inquiry." NewYorkTimes
(Actually, I think the Ukrainian President has said that he didn't "feel pressured". I don't think he said that he'd not been informed of Trump's demands.)
Lynnette, by "the idea of Trump", I mean the idea that the man in Erie has -- the notion that his town used to have good employment, busy retail businesses, and young people who wanted to stay and work there. It's the same in the UK and to some extent throughout the West.
What has happened? Globalisation. I'm not sure what you mean by "reversion to the mean". Or that the wealth is being distributed differently. Or rather, I think I do know what you mean, but you seem to imply that it's an inevitability. That's the part I disagree with.
The idea that people with jobs are people with disposable income is at least as old as Henry Ford. You can't take jobs away and expect the economy to thrive. You can't move all your manufacturing overseas and expect to still have domestic customers for your produce. Yet that's what American businesses have done and, more importantly, have been allowed to do.
Don't get me wrong. This has been utterly fantastic for the world. Way more than two billion citizens of the world have been lifted out of poverty in the last thirty years. Even as a percentage rate, abject poverty is way lower. Things have never looked better for the human race. My own country went from second-world status to thriving economy in my lifetime. And part of that was through aggressively courting US multinationals, and eventually selling back to them.
That doesn't help the man in Erie. His local patch is devastated. It didn't seem like much when it was just Chinese plastic toys on the shelves at Christmas. But then it was Chinese steel made by state-owned companies flooding world markets. Now its Chinese hi-tech, a good deal of which was made with intellectual property stolen from American firms.
One country which got rid of its manufacturing even before the US was the UK. Unlike the US it had near neighbours who could out-compete it even before the rise of China. During the Thatcher years of the 1970-1990s it closed down its inefficient coal and steel businesses and other heavy industry, and lost manufacturing to Germany and Japan. After a lot of painful years it recovered by growing a very large service sector which now generates 80% of GDP (and arguably leaves the economy very unbalanced).
But the UK version of the man in Erie has not recovered. Decades later, the north of England is still a post-industrial wasteland. And this all happened before immigration reached the epic proportions of today. Now the local ex-industrial worker can no longer get any job that he had the skills to do, and competes with immigrant workers for the low paid low-skilled jobs that are left.
So the question is -- what was inevitable about all that? Governments (in principle) control their own immigration policies. They control which companies can do business in their domestic market, and can penalise ones that offshore all the good jobs. A country like Ireland does not have the clout to implement such policies as it is a reed blowing in the winds of the wider global economy. But the US is a continent-sized industrial power. Its failures are much more arguably the fruits of inept government. Whether you agree with that or not, it is easy for Trump to claim that the US has been getting a very bad deal. And the man in Erie senses it. In fact he doesn't need Trump to tell him. He's already got "the idea of Trump".
...(cont'd) Now, all this would be bad enough if we hadn't also had the worst financial crisis since 1929. The policy response to this has certainly saved the financial system for now, but it has also dramatically increased inequality. By drugging the markets with endless injections of liquidity, those who had assets have prospered while those who were already suffering from the loss of manufacturing have taken a double hit. The cost of accommodation has gone crazy for those who didn't own their own homes, and those who were barely keeping head above water are now gasping. The half of Americans without a 401k don't even benefit from the current stock market intoxication which has at least been a sop to some workers.
To be honest, I'm surprised that you two posters in Minnesota and Indiana don't "get this" more than you seem to. Though maybe proximity to big cities makes it more tolerable. (Or maybe living in a backwood shack makes it seem more remote in Lee's case ;-)
I feel for the man in Erie, and I've never done an industrial job in my life. In fact I've never traded in anything but intellectual capital. Even in that world, though, standards of living have been affect by offshoring. I'm all for raising living standards around the world. But there's a limit to how much you can average down your own standards without causing unrest. Germany just about managed it when it reabsorbed the much poorer East Germany in 1990. The European Union managed it when it absorbed eight former Soviet bloc countries in 2004, and somewhat less successfully with a further two in 2007. The more affluent economies were able to cope with -- and eventually thrive from -- greater integration. But even the mighty US is not equipped to deal with "averaging down" with the entire rest of the world.
P.S. Whatever about the man in Erie, it seems Democrats are more angry and estranged than Republicans with the current state of affairs.
"I'm surprised that you two posters…don't 'get this' more than you seem to."
We don't "get it" because it's not true. Your central premise is false, the one about "US multinationals" supposedly 'offshoring all the good jobs' (to paraphrase it lightly). That's simply false. You're spinnin' some bad BS and we happen to know better. It starts off wrong with the concept of "US multinationals". Now there's an opening oxymoron for ya, an imaginary construct almost on par with Mitt Romney's ernest assertion that "corporations are people too" (and the GIGO principle does apply here).
Following that opening error we should note that a Mexican making $2 per hour working for General Motors (link) doesn't have a "good American job". The once $32-per-hour Detroit auto worker doesn't want that $2 per hour job; he never wanted that job; he wanted the $32 per hour job. And that good (supposedly ‛American’) job didn't actually get offshored; it simply doesn't even exist anymore, not even for the Mexican I mentioned. (It simply vanished into globalization; to oversimply things a little for the sake of brevity.) A Chinese national living in a company barracks sewing textiles at 95¢ an hour (more likely a Vietnamese or a Laotian these days) doesn't have "a good American job". Norma Rae and her crew woulda burned the city of Raleigh to the ground (Charlotte too) if they'd have been forced to take those jobs.
Nope, none of your spiel makes any real sense. And, of course, none of it was Trump's idea either, nor is any of it ‛the idea of Trump’. This particular strain of economic bullshittery predated Trump's candidacy by a long shot. (In fact, I strongly suspect that what we have here is simply Petes' preëxisting economic theory relabeled as "the idea of Trump".)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ We have the House public hearings on impeachment starting this week, on Wednesday to be specific.
Real Clear Politics has Trump's job approval still bouncing around 43%; disapproval around 54%. That leaves 3% undecided. That's a spectacularly low number of undecideds. They have impeach and remove at 48.5% and not remove at 45.7%. That's around 6% undecided on the question of removing him from office via impeachment; also a spectacularly low number.
I figure if the House's public hearings drive Trump's job approval numbers down 3% they'll have been a success. Likewise, if they can drive down the anti-impeachment numbers by 3% they'll have been a success.
In neither case will the hearings result in Trump's conviction before the Republican Senate. So, I got my eyes mostly on their PR value at this point.
Lee: "The once $32-per-hour Detroit auto worker doesn't want that $2 per hour job; he never wanted that job; he wanted the $32 per hour job."
Have any of yall Netflix? In that case I can highly recommend the documentary "Made in USA" (possibly also named "An American Factory") where a shuttered Auto plant in Ohio is taken over by a chineese firm, the world's largest manufacturer of car glass windows.
They started by hiring all these former auto workers but at $12 an hour. Then it goes on and on and in the end the chineese have laid off most of them and insteaed hired younger people with less expectations.
They also have a group of americans for a visit to one of their main plants in China and as you can guess they are shocked by the output there and thge fanatical mindset of the workers.
All very interesting, and in the end the US plant does turn to profit, also I imagine in the age of Trump and the trade wars it's an even better operation these days, but it was filmed before then.
Don't have Netflix, but I did originally write that comment with a note that the Detroit worker wanted his "$32 per hour (union) job" back. Then I dropped the "union" description to save space in what was becoming a bit lengthier rebuttal than I'd originally anticipated.
House Republicans are gearing up for the Wednesday opening of hearings in the impeachment investigation by preparing to show off for a White House audience of one. Politico (They got primaries coming up this next spring and early summer and they don't want to get "primaried" by a true believer Trumpkin who's been told they're insufficiently dedicated to Trump.)
New transcripts just released shoot down the developing Republican "defense" of Trump that the Ukrainian government wasn't even aware of the hold on funds until after the funds were released. Politico The Republicans keep trying to come up with defenses somewhere short of "Trump did it so it's okay", which is the defense Trump wants to use, but they keep trying to find intermediate defenses, and those efforts keep getting shot down by new transcripts being released.
I think they're eventually gonna havta drop back to Trump's preferred defense; i.e. "Trump did it so it's okay."
The justification for foreign aid requires a minimum two-step thought process.
*sigh* Yes, and many people only look at the surface of things, which is why it is important to have good, knowledgeable, talented people in places like the State Department. It is their job to understand the nuances of our actions abroad. That the American public is being inundated with propaganda that denigrates these people will harm our country now and in the future.
But even the mighty US is not equipped to deal with "averaging down" with the entire rest of the world.
No, it is not. And that is what I meant by reversion to the mean.
For many years the US has basically had a clear economic field with little to no competition. Russia was mired in a state controlled command economy. Europe for many years was recovering from WWII. China was hiding behind a Great Wall. But as each of these regions became more active on the world stage they became stronger economically, well maybe not so much Russia, but obviously Europe and China have.
Russia is now mired in more of an oligarch, mafia type of economy, which leaches wealth from the Russian people. In the normal course of events this would lead to some kind of violent upheaval.
China, because of its huge population, has managed to suck in enormous amounts of natural resources in its quest to build an ultra modern society quickly. That many of its own citizens can't afford to take part should be of concern to those in power. Because in the normal course of events this would lead to some kind of violent upheaval too.
I guess my point is that for a long time the US was in a unique position. It wasn't that we were so smart, or talented. It was that others were simply not participating in the world economy, for whatever reason, to the same extent that we were.
I feel for the man in Erie, and I've never done an industrial job in my life.
It's never a good thing when businesses go under. It's even worse when it affects an entire town. But there are ways to rejuvenate cities. Finding an angel, getting little investors and community involved are things that can revitalize cities.
Those jobs that were in Erie are now elsewhere. They won't be back. But that's not to say that other jobs can't be created. We need to look forward not backward.
[Chumpy]: "...a bit lengthier rebuttal than I'd originally anticipated"
Y'all need ta learn the difference between a rebuttal and an obfuscatory rant. But yeah, we can agree it was too long either way.
[Lynnette]: "I guess my point is that for a long time the US was in a unique position. It wasn't that we were so smart, or talented. It was that others were simply not participating in the world economy, for whatever reason, to the same extent that we were."
Oh but you were more smart and talented, allowing that "you" were a horde of immigrants attracted by peace and opportunity. We poor Europeans could neither make peace with our neighbours nor get rid of them, so they kept coming back to harass us periodically. You had relative peace (once you got over your internal disagreements in the 1860s), and a continent you had procured from the Brits, the Injuns, the Frogs, the Dagos and the Russkis. Napoleon had made France a powerhouse of mathematics, and Bismarck did the same for Prussian physics ... but Einstein still ended up at Princeton, Fermi at Columbia, along with Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, Felix Bloch, Eugene Wigner and countless others in American academia and industry. Up to the 1930s you couldn't study physics without knowing German. Now we all have to spell things in American English ;-)
You mean like the one you put on just above, one that leads you away from your defense of this supposed "idea of Trump" thing, to an unrelated argument on how we supposedly "stole" the continent from (of all people) the Europeans (with only a passing mention of "Injuns")
When you're losing the argument, change the subject, declare victory, and move on fast to a new subject, as you have done above. Now that is truly "the idea of Trump".
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ TheAtlantic does a fairly decent essay on what's gone wrong with American Democracy here of late, and specifically what's behind the Republican Party's turn towards open hostility to the very idea of democratic self-government. It's a decent explanation, hits enough of the high points. Although I would argue with some of it, on the whole it's got the idea down. It does slight the interregnum between our attempt at competing with European imperialism (1880's to 1910's) and the post-WWII era, which interregnum gave us the Wobblies, Huey Long, the first Radio-Right-Wing personality, Father Charles Coughlin, and Charles Lindberg leading the very first "America First" fascist movement. But, ya can't expect a brief essay to hit all the high points.
Testimony in the Roger Stone trial has indicated that Trump and the 2016 Trump campaign apparatus knew a hell of a lot more about what Wikileaks had on Hillary, and about their intended schedules for releasing that information than has been previously known. Specifically, it's been revealed that Trump himself had direct discussions with Stone in the spring of 2016 about what dirt could be expected to be publicized by Wikileaks, and on what schedule. It also appears that the Mueller investigation knew of this information and decided to black it out in the final report. The black-out meant that he didn't have to answer any potentially embarrassing questions about why they weren't following up on this information. Politico
The impeachment hearings start today. The Democrats have rolled the dice; this could backfire on them if they can't show enough people why this matters.
I already know why I think it matters. The appeal to Ukraine was over the line for me. Coming as it did on the day after Mueller had failed to indict or even accuse him, it shows that Trump admits to no bounds on his behavior in office, and that simply can't be tolerated under a democratic, rule-of-law government.
So, I wish 'em luck; I hope it doesn't backfire. But the risk seems to have been forced on us I think.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ I'm not real interested in seeing Deval Patrick, Michael Bloomberg, or Hillary Clinton enter the Democratic primary at this late point in time. Seems to me that one of them already in it should be acceptable, but I guess it's up to the ‛real’ Democrats to make that decision.
Another essay in TheAtlantic to follow up on the one I posted yesterday morning ↑↑ (Tue Nov 12, 10:10:00 am)
According to this reading, the founders of the country, the original designers of the Constitution, did not anticipate the damage that Twitter and Facebook could do to the body politic. (I would argue that cable television could be added to that mix--the rise of Radio-Right-Wing was bad enough, but the real concentration of Right Winger craziness came with the creation of FoxNews.)
It's not too long, and worth a read. The basic ideas seem valid even if one might quibble with some of the details, and it's not too long.
Ambassador William Taylor's "opening statement" has turned into a narrative account of what he knows about the holdup of aid to Ukraine--Guiliani's role in it, the subversion of the public diplomatic channels, the whole nine yards. He's decided to get it all out there in one opening narrative. And then, I suppose, he's going to "take questions".
Oh but you were more smart and talented, allowing that "you" were a horde of immigrants attracted by peace and opportunity.
There were a lot of those people, yes. They are one of our strengths, despite Donald Trump's bias against them. But there were also indentured servants and slaves who didn't have much choice.
Our biggest achievement was in holding a country together despite it's varied inhabitants. We have had some tough times and we are at a rough patch now.
We have certainly given many people an opportunity to pursue their dreams and ambitions. While it may not have been easy many have become leaders in their field or successful businessmen and women.
It's time our political leaders catch up with them again. Standing up to those who would tear us apart is a start.
Specifically, it's been revealed that Trump himself had direct discussions with Stone in the spring of 2016 about what dirt could be expected to be publicized by Wikileaks, and on what schedule.
Of course he knew and lied about it.
...the subversion of the public diplomatic channels,...
Yes, there is one of those "back channels" that Trump is so fond of trying to set up.
They really had no choice, not if they were to uphold the duties of the Congress under the Constitution.
The appeal to Ukraine was over the line for me. Coming as it did on the day after Mueller had failed to indict or even accuse him, it shows that Trump admits to no bounds on his behavior in office, and that simply can't be tolerated under a democratic, rule-of-law government.
Yes, this goes beyond economics. It's about standing up for our founding principals.
I'm not real interested in seeing Deval Patrick, Michael Bloomberg, or Hillary Clinton enter the Democratic primary at this late point in time. Seems to me that one of them already in it should be acceptable, but I guess it's up to the ‛real’ Democrats to make that decision.
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon praised House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday, saying her handling of the impeachment inquiry is "actually quite brilliant."
The hearings are over for the day. I think they're over until Friday. I think the Democrats had a mostly good day.
The Republicans were mostly trying to lay groundwork for the "not impeachable" defense--‛may have been technically wrong but it wasn't that bad’. This is gonna piss off Trump who wants the Republicans to adopt the "perfect" phone call defense. (Partly because the current Republican stance on things leaves the Republicans room to say bad things about him in the upcoming elections if they feel the need to put some distance between themselves and Trump and he knows that. He wants them tied tightly to getting him reëlected; doesn't want to leave them any room to go saving themselves at his expense come the 2020 general election.) There's also the problem of possible testimony by some of the principles involved, John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc. and others coming down in the coming months IF the Supreme Trumpkins decide to not save their King and order the White House to comply with the House subpoenas already out there. The Republican Senators don't want to be caught saying Trump did nothing wrong, if some of them are ordered to give up their testimony and decide to roll on Trump in the coming year.
And now the D.C. Appellate Court has upheld a District Court opinion saying that Congress can indeed subpoena Trump's tax records if they so choose. (This is separate and distinct from the case in New York where the Manhattan District Attorney subpoenaed Trump's tax records--which case Trump also already lost at trial level and on appeal.) There's a statute that says Congress can do this, but Trump decided to fight it anyway--and he did get one Trump-appointed judge to go his way. Now it's on to the Supreme Court where he's got two Justices he appointed and a majority from the Federalist Society, so, who knows how it'll fare there? WashingtonPost
[Chumpy]: "...it shows that Trump admits to no bounds on his behavior in office, and that simply can't be tolerated under a democratic, rule-of-law government."
I'm grudgingly and belatedly coming round to a similar conclusion. On the other hand, think how bad your Dems had to be to let that car crash of a preznit into office.
[Lynnette]: "There were a lot of those people, yes. They are one of our strengths, despite Donald Trump's bias against them. But there were also indentured servants and slaves who didn't have much choice."
There's also the highly non-PC view that not all immigrants are equally worthy. If you've driven around Europe anytime since the 1990s the lack of visible borders is conspicuously different to previously. So the following from today's NYT is quite simply amazing -- I wonder what Marcus has to say about it:
Denmark resumes long-abandoned border checks
The Danish authorities, struggling to quell a wave of bombings attributed to Swedish gangs, have introduced passport controls at the border with Sweden for the first time since the 1950s.
For now, only air travelers from Sweden will be exempted.
Sweden has been rocked by more than 100 explosions in the first 10 months of this year, and at least 13 blasts have hit Copenhagen, although the police have not linked them all to Sweden.
The cause: Officials say Swedish gang violence has been spilling out of low-income suburbs, fed by surplus weapons left over from Yugoslavia’s civil war. The role of Sweden’s long policy of open arms for immigrants and refugees is a matter of sharp political debate.
"On the other hand, think how bad your Dems had to be to let that car crash of a preznit into office."
Odd that you can't seem to notice that Trump won the Republican nomination first, and he did that without yet having FoxNews' uncritical backing. (Prior to his ascendance to the lead in the Republican primary even Sean Hannity wouldn't back him publicly.)
Speaking of which…. I was looking at FoxNews' website this morning and couldn't find one single mention of the new item that came up yesterday in the hearings. Ambassador Sondland was heard talking on the phone to Trump on 26 July of this year, the day after the infamous phone call to Zelenskyy, and he was heard to inquire of Sondland whether or not he'd get "the investigations of Biden" that he'd requested. Sondland would later tell a staffer who asked about that "the President cares more about the investigations of Biden [than about general Ukrainian corruption]".
This was news. This is apt to turn out to be a big deal in the coming days. Trump immediately started telling reporters he knew nothing about any such phone call (quit saying that he "barely knew" Sondland though, as Sondland clearly had a direct communication line straight to him.). One would think this would be big news even on FoxNews. Nary a peep about it though. FoxNews' audience heard not a word about it if they followed FoxNews' oft-repeated advice and didn't listen to anybody else.
Pete: "The cause: Officials say Swedish gang violence has been spilling out of low-income suburbs, fed by surplus weapons left over from Yugoslavia’s civil war. The role of Sweden’s long policy of open arms for immigrants and refugees is a matter of sharp political debate."
Sure, it might be fed with weaponry from that war but the surnames of the today culprits don't usually end with -ich. Rather their first names are some variety of Ahmed or Mohammed (Ahmed, Achmed, Mohammad, Mohammed, Mehmet, etc.)
The last lunatic here who beat a 25 YO girl into a coma, for no reason other than she sat at the bus stop he passed by, with a 2*4 the day before yesterday was named Ibramim Ramadan. And the 15 YO shot the same day was named Jaffar, and he sold drugs for a guy lastnamed Ghara, and I bet you dollars to doughnuts the shooters names didn't end with -sson.
It's actually getting quite crazy here now. Even to the point where I myself, who always thought the crime was insane but that it wouldn't really affect me personally, am looking to move away. Shootings and explosions more or less daily, and that fucking police helicopter, necessary as it might be, keeps me awake at night.
But HEY! Pizza and Zlatan and cultural enrichment, and one day they will be the ones who will pay our pensions! Isn't that what you liberal fuckwads always promised us? Eh, Pete?
After all Europeans aren't birthing enough children to feed an ever growing GDP so we HAVE to bring in hordes of folks from completely non-assimilative cultures and give them wellfare even if they hate us and try to kill us. Because multiculturalism is the way to go, and if we don't embrace it we will all just grow old and die alone in our beds.
On the other hand we HAVE to reduce our environemental impact and thus our GDP because otherwise the cows will continue to fart and we will all die in a flood.
So, it seems, we will HAVE to face a future where we eat maggots instead of beef and import all of Africa so wellfare-dependent somalis can pay our pensions and enrich our stale european culture. The odd explosion, gang-rape, mugging, battering, terrorism or shooting is just a price to pay for progress.
Yesterday a guy of 20 was robbed by a group of about 10 in a parking garage in Gothembourg. They didn't just take his valuables, they stripped him of everything down to his underwear, then they finished by cutting off one of his ears.
Now, I know, and I don't mean I have been told so but I KNOW, these fucking robbers are immigrants. I know for certain. I am 100% sure.
Now why would they do that? If the aim is to rob, which I can to some degree understand (he has something, someone else wants it), why didn't they just take the valuables and get on their way?
BC it's not about that. It's about they HATE us, and want to humiliate us. So why in the greatest fuck of fucks should I want these savages in MY home country? Why should I care what happens to them in theirs?
"…the surnames of the today culprits don't usually end with -ich. Rather their first names are some variety of Ahmed or Mohammed (Ahmed, Achmed, Mohammad, Mohammed, Mehmet, etc.)"
"…the shooters names didn't end with -sson."
Not sure I'm following your point here. You're proposing to fix things by forcing them to change their names maybe?
Another day, another witness. The prior Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, summarily removed so's to facilitate what the Democrats are now calling the "bribery" of President Zelenskyy, will testify today. I'm not sure what she's got to add that's relevant to the impeachment beyond establishing that she was discharged from her duties to facilitate Guiliani's freer hand in all affairs Ukrainian.
Perhaps more significant, in closed hearings today, there'll be a lawyer for the Office of Management and Budget testifying. The political appointees heading that agency have declined to honor their congressional subpoenas, but just the other day word got around that a career employee, lawyer, Mark Sandy, would testify if subpoenaed. Needless to say, the Democrats saw to it that he got his subpoena. He might turn out to be an even more important witness than Marie Yovanovitch. If so, we'll see him return for public hearings next week probably.
Another bad day for Trump in the impeachment hearings. Nothin' much went right for him this time. He even stepped in it whilst Marie Yovanovitch was testifying and wound up making his Republican apologists start building her up instead of tearing her down (which would have been their initial plan, but he stepped in it pretty deep, and they wanted everybody to know that they'd not gotten any of the on them.)
I didn't think it was that big a deal, but even FoxNews was horrified (the news division; the opinionators will get hold of it later and be jubilant about it, but the news guys didn't have the luxury of time to craft a defense before they had to deal with it on camera).
I was able to listen to Marie Yovanovitch's opening remarks. Like Comey before her she came across as intelligent, knowledgeable and tough. While she wasn't able to testify specifically regarding the phone call what she was able to do was paint a picture of a President who used any means to his end. In her case she simply stated that a President had the right to recall any Ambassador they chose. Why was there a need to smear her reputation? And Trump played into that quite nicely by doing the same thing while she was testifying. Given the fact that she served under both Democratic and Republican administrations, who obviously found her very capable, it is no wonder that Republicans and their mouth piece may be shying away from criticizing her.
Looking over the media notes of today's closed House hearings on impeachment. It appears that some of Veep Pence's aids have testified to how Pence is blameless in all of this, but Trump looked mighty suspicious to them.
This will not go over well with Trump. He may be able to keep it up bottled for a little while, but this is not gonna sit well at all bottled up inside him, and eventually he's gonna let it out.
115 comments:
The cultish aspects of the New Republican Party have been observed and commented upon by many. But it's also important to acknowledge the differences between a political personality cult and a small religious cult.
A religious cult can survive with as few as a couple dozen adherants (a few hundred is more common, but a couple dozen will often suffice for years.) The political personality cult has to appeal to a much wider spectrum of people to become strong enough to make a political impact. Therefore, the political personality cult needs a much larger and more tangible enemy than some abstract notion of an evil spirit/demonic personality/Satan/Devil thing. Political cults need enemies they can get at--they need to hate other people. (Religious cults generally come to hate other people too, but it's derivative--the other people are seen to be servants of the devil spirit. In political cults it's the other people who are the primary-level objects of the cult hate.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Images
Benito Mussolini
Donald Trump
Benito Mussolini
Donald Trump
In what I can only describe as a fairly desperate development, Republican pundits have grown tired of trying to get "liberal" news organizations to "out" the whistle-blower of recent Washington fame, and have taken to scattering his name (they're sure they've figured it out) across low readership right-wing publications in the hope that it'll get picked up by the "liberal" press eventually, so that FoxNews and the Wall Street Journal can then start to publish rants about how he's a Deep State shill for Joe Biden. (It worked on the Mueller Report, so they're gonna try it again.)
I s'pect that they'll eventually just go with it anyway if they can't get some reputable liberal publication to print the name for them, but they're trying real hard to make the liberals print it first. I'm not sure why that is. Seems to me they could just go for it. Ain't like the dedicated Trumpkins are gonna care about that minor mischief.
example 1
example 2
And there were a couple of articles from right-winger authors yesterday I noticed.
I suppose this what Petes was doing such a poor job of telling us the other day.
"In the minds of Trump, his allies and, increasingly, his
supporters, [and Petes] it’s not just Democrats but American
democracy that is the obstacle."
PoliticoMagazine
But, that's pretty much just what we already knew. The authors of the above essay think we're in terrible danger.
I disagree (about the level of danger that is). Trump is the death rattle of their movement. And, we got the young people on our side. The old high school educated white folks can't sustain a revolution. They ain't got the wind; they ain't got the energy. Too old now; they waited too long. (Anger they got plenty of, but anger won't do it for them.)
Political cults need enemies they can get at--they need to hate other people.
Opposition parties, the media, immigrants, all seem to work quite well for that.
Huh!
Apparently people have started sawing through the new sections of Trump's Wall that were just put up. It is being done with commonly available equipment.
I was talking to someone yesterday who is questioning the impeachment inquiry, fearing that it has become a partisan tool.
But that would be ignoring how many people genuinely feel that any President should not try to coerce someone to help him benefit politically at the expense of our country. It has only been made partisan by those who are putting party before country.
"I was talking to someone yesterday who is questioning the
impeachment inquiry, fearing that it has become a partisan tool."
Perhaps you should point out that this impeachment is indeed a partisan exercise. That's too bad, but that's the way it is. Trump decided to do what he did. The Republicans decided to back him en mass.
The Democrats think that a President (any President) should not be using the power of his office to pressure foreign governments to give him "dirt" on his political opposition.
The Republicans think it's okay so long as it's a Republican President who's abusing the power of his office and not a Democrat.
Unfortunately, this has become a highly partisan distinction. But, they choose that route.
Then ask them, straight up, calmly, dispassionately, which side of that fight they're on. It is what it is. They now have to decide which side of that question they come down on.
Trying to wish it away is no longer possible. Trump did it. It is no less evil because it has become "partisan". Do we let him get away with it or do we not? Whining about it becoming "partisan" doesn't solve the problem he's presented us with.
"Apparently people have started sawing through the new
sections of Trump's Wall…"
Seems like something's not going according to plan there; I was given to understand that they were supposed to climb up to the top and throw themselves onto the spikes on the top.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"…questioning the impeachment inquiry, fearing that
it has become a partisan tool."
That is a "process" argument, a solidly Republican argument. Argue about the process instead of facing the question of what Trump did. Head in sand sorta thing. Pretend the real problem will go away if only they can find something else to talk about.
I see that Robert Blair, top aid to the White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, has refused his subpoena. The Trump White House is going straight at the unanimous Supreme Court opinion in United States v Nixon which held that the President was not immune to Congressional oversight, and had to submit to Congress in an impeachment proceeding.
I've said several times that I'm confident this will eventually resolve the right way, but this frontal assault on United States v Nixon does suggest that the Trump White House has reason to believe the Supreme Trumpkins might overrule the Nixon case. That would be… Well, that would be bad, very, very bad. If that happens we have a whole new ball game goin' on. I think Trump might even try to cancel the 2020 election if he can get Nixon overruled.
Okay, so I hit the headlines on the net this morning, and I come across the following lede on FoxNews/Politics
"Trump cheered (and booed) at UFC match in New York City"
Then I find this competing lede on CNN
"Trump met with loud boos, some cheers at UFC fight"
Okay, they got different takes on things; I get that.
However…
I'm also finding another FoxNews instigation of their right-winger audience. Headline reads:
"JUSTICE DENIED? Crash killed 5 family members – but
Dem-appointed judge gives defendant 1 year probation"
"Dem-appointed judge"? Granted, this is just the headline on their main page https://www.foxnews.com/, it doesn't repeat on the subsequent webpage that contains the story behind the headline, but that's what's on their main page, top dead center, priority space, the biggest type and the biggest picture on the page.
When one reads the article one finds out that the defendant was charged with "inattentive driving, driving across a median and failure to obey traffic devices" (to which they tacked on vehicular homicide and vehicular assault). Nope, not drunk, not under the influence of drugs--had a coughing fit on the way home from work and lost control of his pickup.
Horrible accident obviously. But FoxNews' take on it? It's the Democrats involved in ghastly killings!
Slow news day for them I suppose. (Can't report on the news out of Washington D.C.; never do for their audience to learn too much about what their Dear Leader is actually up to these days.) And this is their solution.
Top dead center of their main page--supposedly national news--biggest typeface on the page, biggest color picture on the page, and all because the judge had been appointed by a Democratic governor and they could hit that.
I don't find a comparable for that on CNN, not this morning, not any morning.
Speak of the devil… Kellyanne Conway showed up on FoxNewsSunday this morning. It was twelve minutes of fairly classical Kellyanne. Although, she was constrained a little bit because it was a supposedly friendly FoxNews interviewer she was trying to run over.
Then ask them, straight up, calmly, dispassionately, which side of that fight they're on. It is what it is. They now have to decide which side of that question they come down on.
In the end it will not be that question that decides his vote. He doesn't like Trump, didn't vote for him in 2016 and won't vote for him in 2020. What will decide whether or not he votes Democrat is who their nominee is. He won't vote for Elizabeth Warren either. If it came down to those two he will vote Libertarian. Which in the end would be a vote for Trump, but people who are voting like that don't seem to care.
I think Trump might even try to cancel the 2020 election if he can get Nixon overruled.
He, or someone in the Republican party, has already managed to get other Republicans off of the primary ballet, leaving only Trump to vote for. In Minnesota the Republican Party has also managed to remove the write in line as well. Granted, Trump will no doubt slither in, but it would still be nice to have some kind of at least surface attempt at a democratic process.
I'm also finding another FoxNews instigation of their right-winger audience. Headline reads:
"JUSTICE DENIED? Crash killed 5 family members – but
Dem-appointed judge gives defendant 1 year probation"
The propaganda starts at the top...
Far-Right fakery fills Trump's Twitter
In September, an obscure Twitter account promoting a fringe belief about an anti-Trump cabal within the government tweeted out a hashtag: #FakeWhistleblower.
It was typical for the anonymous account, which traffics in far-right content and a conspiracy theory known as QAnon, some of whose adherents think that satanic pedophiles control the “deep state.” The Federal Bureau of Investigation recently labeled QAnon a potential domestic terror threat.
Still, that did not stop others, including a Republican congressional candidate, from quickly picking up the hashtag and tweeting it. Within a week, hundreds of QAnon believers and “MAGA” activists had joined in, posting memes and bogus reports to undermine the complaint by a government whistle-blower that President Trump had pressed Ukraine’s leader for dirt on former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son.
Then Mr. Trump tweeted the hashtag himself.
I've said several times that I'm confident this will eventually resolve the right way, but this frontal assault on United States v Nixon does suggest that the Trump White House has reason to believe the Supreme Trumpkins might overrule the Nixon case. That would be… Well, that would be bad, very, very bad. If that happens we have a whole new ball game goin' on.
Yes. Even the fellow I was talking to about the election is getting very concerned about the future of our country. But not enough to see that removing Trump is really the only way to try to get us back on track. Not enough to take a chance on whoever is the Democratic nominee.
Well, aside from occasional bouts of semi-panic that sometimes come upon me when I contemplate the fact that Trump actually did win the electoral college in 2016… Generally, I'm fairly confident that he's history come January 2021, and the malignant political machine that he overtook in that election is almost certain to come clear apart in the recriminations that will follow the 2020 election.
One of the things that make me (usually) comfortable predicting that our country will recover from this is the fact that Trump polls so horribly among the young voters. They're seemingly semi-immune to the extreme partisanship that's on display on cable tv and on the internet. They've grown up with it and seem to have developed a certain level of casual immunity to the nastier strains of propaganda.
(And, I think the reason Trump took over the Republican Party instead of the Democratic Party is because the Republican Party went down that path of faerie tale history and fake economics and general refusal to accept reality years before the disease of hyper-partisanship began to infect the Democratic Party as well. The Republicans began to buy into fantasy and fabrication with Reagan and FoxNews in the '80s, and been working on it harder and longer than the Democrats. I think that impressive lead in the race to the bottom will come back to finally and fatally bite them this round.)
"…and the malignant political machine…is almost certain to
come clear apart…"
Just to make everyone feel better… One initial sign of that happening is in Trump's Twitter feed today. He's pouring the praise on "OAAN" (One America News Network), which has been solidly pro-Trump even as some at FoxNews are getting a little bit uncomfortable with where Trump is taking them.
One of the advantages of the right-wing since the days of Reagan is that they had one voice--coördinated and curated by the late Roger Ailes after Ailes quit his job as a media advisor for Reagan's reëlection campaign.
Trump originally was going to take his notoriety from his losing presidential campaign and go into business in competion with FoxNews after the 2016 campaign, but he won--to his suprise along with everyone else's.
So, whilst he's trying to get reëlected, other folks, specifically including the folks at One America News Network have stepped into the breach and tried to grab some of that advertising money that FoxNews has had locked down.
This means that the voice of the right-wing is going to get competitive, and for that kinda money they're gonna go after one another tooth and nail. There won't be the one, overarching coördinator keeping the right-wing faerie tale formed up into a single narrative that they can all salute with a straight face.
Somebody stole Trump's idea before he could cash in on it. That's gonna help inflame and expand those "recriminations" I mentioned earlier.
One of the things that make me (usually) comfortable predicting that our country will recover from this is the fact that Trump polls so horribly among the young voters.
Yes, that is the one thing that has given me some hope. Their concerns, climate change and gun control, are both things that Trump's policies don't address.
Lynnette: "In the end it will not be that question that decides his vote. He doesn't like Trump, didn't vote for him in 2016 and won't vote for him in 2020. What will decide whether or not he votes Democrat is who their nominee is. He won't vote for Elizabeth Warren either. If it came down to those two he will vote Libertarian. Which in the end would be a vote for Trump, but people who are voting like that don't seem to care."
Well I can relate to your friend there. If it's between two choices I don't like I will vote for a third even if it means that the one of the two I liked less will benefit from it. I never liked tactical voting, it lets our politicians off the hook by scaring us with a worse alternative.
For the dems to go into 2022 with an "at least he/she's not Trump" agenda would probably be a huge mistake. And I'm not near as convinced as Lee seems to be that Trump will be a spent force come general election time. I think he's poised to win another 4 years as it stands today.
I doubt Biden can beat him and I doubt even more Warren even stands a chance.
That said, I have a question for ya'll: Are the dem candidates we see so far the ones that will compete for the nomination? Or is it still possible for a new candidate to break in there and steal the nomination. A new "Obama" if you will, who sweeps in late and carries it, is that possible? Or are the ones in the race now the only options?
"Or is it still possible for a new candidate to break in
there and steal the nomination."
That's theoretically possible. As a practical matter… No; ain't gonna happen.
Lee: "That's theoretically possible. As a practical matter… No; ain't gonna happen."
Then I would bet on Trump in 2022 if I were to bet money today. Beto is out, Tulsi is out, Kamala seems to be on the ropes if not out already. So it's Sanders, Biden and Warren in the lead.
I think Sanders would be the most trouble for Trump but I also think he's the least likely to get the dem nomination (of the three).
Biden was close to Warren a few weeks back but now he's shot up and she's down so he's got the lead, for now. But he's just so old and sleepy. I really can't see him maintaining thge energy needed for a national campaign.
And Warren, fake indian as she is, is probably WAY to much of a socialist and tax-hiker to win the swing states needed. Plus she's Pocahontas already wether she likes it or not, and the fact that she got into University claiming minority status while being like 98% white... well, that's no good in a campaign.
Then you've got that boy Buttigieg also, not so sure about him. Not seen much from him. But does he even have a shot at the nomination?
"But does [Buttigieg] even have a shot at the nomination?"
Yeah, he's got a shot. Odds are against him, but he's got a real shot; not hypothetical; not imaginary--he's got a real shot at it. He's been gathering supporters as he goes along.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (New York and the northeast), has ruled that Donald Trump's long-time accounting firm must hand over eight (8) years worth of Trump's tax returns to the NYC prosecutor who's investigating Trump himself for proof of campaign finance violations and charges of fraud (for which Trump's prior attorney Michael Cohen is already doing three years' prison time.)
Next stop, the Supreme Trumpkins.
Might be they get Trump ousted before 2022, IDK. But as I understand it it would have to be done by Impeachment which would then have to get a 2/3 majority vote in the Republican controlled senate.
Lots of them senators are going to be up for re-election also, and bringing down their own President might not sit so well with many prospective voters.
So my understanding is it would have to be hugely damaging and clear evidence of wrongdoing for them to burn Trump. Is that really realistic?
"And Warren, fake indian as she is, is probably WAY to much
of a socialist and tax-hiker to win the swing states needed."
Current polling shows Warren beating Trump in all the important "swing states", Pocahontas and tax hikes notwithstanding. They already know all that, and she's still leading Trump in the swing states the Democrats would have to win. She's not so far a head that it's impossible for him to catch up, but she's ahead for now.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Is that really realistic?"
That there'll be 20 Republicans in the Senate vote to throw Trump out of office? Hell no! Ain't gonna happen. Doesn't matter if there is "hugely damaging and clear evidence of wrongdoing". The Republican base will stick with Trump and the Republican Senators have no choice but to do the same and hope they survive.
Lee: "Current polling shows Warren beating Trump in all the important "swing states", Pocahontas and tax hikes notwithstanding. They already know all that, and she's still leading Trump in the swing states the Democrats would have to win. She's not so far a head that it's impossible for him to catch up, but she's ahead for now."
But we've all learned not to trust the polls, now haven't we? Plus Trump's allegedly got a huge re-election budget wich he started to ammass almost as soon as he got into office. And he's likely to do his rallies as he did last time around. Plus the guy seems to have about as much energy as when he was elected the first time, which is unusual really.
GWB aged horribly and even Obama went from brown hair to grey in a matter of year. But the Orange one is more or less the same shade of orange now as when he entered office. I don't think quarrels and battle bring him down, I think he feeds on it. Probably a sociopathic or psychopathic personality, definetly a narcissistic one. He'll prolly win again.
"…we've all learned not to trust the polls, now haven't we?"
What you should have learned was to not trust the pundits trying to interpret the polls. The polling was mostly correct, within the margins of error. They showed Hillary winning by 3-4%. She won by just over 2%. That's well within the stated margin of error for most of the polls.
Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight blog had Hillary as a two to one favorite, but that means one time outta three he'd have expected Trump to win. Trump scored on his luck is all that happened there. (The New York Times published pundits who read the polls and claimed Hillary was 90% sure to win--which just means they had a failure of imagination--in truth their polls showed the same thing as Nate Silver's polls--Hillary with a 3-4% lead; she came in at 2% plus a little bit.)
"Plus Trump's allegedly got a huge re-election budget…"
There is that.
"But the Orange one is more or less the same shade of
orange now as when he entered office."
Actually, he varies quite a lot. That spray on tanning stuff fades within a week or so and he has to restore it. His original hair color was brown. He's gone to a semi-orangish yellow which helps conceal scalp peeking through the wisps he poofs, swirls, and lacquer sprays into place.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The House committees investigating the impeachment allegations have just released the first batch of hearing transcripts. Might be a noisy news week after all, 'tween that and Trump doing twitter blasts about his tax returns too.
GWB aged horribly and even Obama went from brown hair to grey in a matter of year.
Trump's hair color of choice aside, it is likely that Dubya and Obama actually gave some thought and concern to the security and the prosperity of the United States. Trump on the other hand only cares about Trump so what is happening in the country or outside of it is of little concern. Much less stressful for him.
...Trump doing twitter blasts about his tax returns too.
Yup, the court ruled against him.
But it appears that the DOJ is trying to quash Anonymous' book on Trump. His/Her publishes says that isn't happening. It comes out Nov. 19. I'll look for it...
Well I can relate to your friend there. If it's between two choices I don't like I will vote for a third even if it means that the one of the two I liked less will benefit from it.
I usually feel the same way. But if one of my choices is someone who I consider to be engaging in criminal activities I will not vote for that person. I will do my best to vote him out of office, even if it means voting for someone I am on the fence about.
"It comes out Nov. 19. I'll look for it..."
I believe it's being published by Amazon. You may need to order it.
The dominoes begin to fall.
Lev Parnas, the Ukrainian born "business associate" of Rudy Guiliani, who was nabbed at the airport carrying a one-way ticket to Vienna, Austria has indicated that he's changed his mind and is willing to coöperate with the impeachment investigation against Donald Trump. Reuters
All indications are that the House Democrats are going to push ahead with their impeachment investigation with what the Supreme Court once called "all deliberate speed" (and also proceed that way with the Articles of Impeachment, 'cause, let's face it, there's almost zero chance they're gonna decide to not go ahead and send what they got on to the Senate for trial).
Then it's gonna be the Senate Republicans' problem. There'll have to be a few Democratic House members over at the Senate in the afternoons (acting as prosecutors; called "managers" in impeachment proceedings), but there's no reason the House can't go on about its business after they get the actual Articles of Impeachment off of their plate. And that's exactly what they should do.
Send it off, and quit worrying about it. Everybody knows the Republicans ain't gonna vote to remove Trump from office. So, don't worry 'bout it, and get back to real legislative business.
That's their best bet to hold their House majority in 2020. They'll especially need to pass legislation to keep the government open past the new year when it's scheduled to run out of money again.
Straightforward--This is why Trump must be impeached, and why the Republicans in the Senate who will vote to save him from that fate must be turned out of their majority.
Forty-nine seconds on YouTube tells us all we need to know to know that we need to suppress that threat.
I think I will make this my first argument for any and all dedicated Trumpkins who might be dumb enough to ask why I think he's gotta be impeached. Put it on my cellphone just to have it with me when and if….
Then it's gonna be the Senate Republicans' problem.
And they'll be dealing with it in the midst of an election year. I actually think the timing may prove unfortunate for them. This is when all of the dirt becomes public.
Unless, of course, they can make the trial, if it comes to that, private. But given that they are the ones who have been complaining about lack of transparency, that will be somewhat problematic.
Forty-nine seconds on YouTube tells us all we need to know to know that we need to suppress that threat.
I'll check that out tonight.
The governor's election in Kentucky is very, very close at the moment. The Democratic candidate has a slight edge, but it could go any way. Hmmm...it appears his lead is shrinking.
Straightforward--This is why Trump must be impeached, and why the Republicans in the Senate who will vote to save him from that fate must be turned out of their majority.
Thinking himself all powerful is the mindset of a potential dictator.
Interesting is the fact that Article II contains the section (4) that provides for impeachment.
I notice that Ambassador Sondland is takin' shit from the career people in the State Department for supposedly fabricating conversations with them, and takin' shit from Republican Trumpkin loyalist types for being insufficiently protective of Trump (he's shading that way, but they want more; they wanted dedicated total defense of Trump).
I'm wondering if this will cause him to come up with a third version of his story? If it does, whomever doesn't like his story is sure to use his serial revisions as evidence that he's lying about the stuff they don't like (whilst being not bothered at all by Trump's history of serial revisions).
Lindsay Graham is basically shrugging off Sondland's reversal on the quid pro quo. As far as Graham is concerned as long as the President of Ukraine didn't feel coerced than that's good enough for him.
The lack of character in his response is astounding.
Graham is a sidekick by nature. He's hollow, a man with no center. When he lost John McCain he was truly lost on his own. Now he's a sidekick again. When Trump leaves he will find someone else and blend in seamlessly again. That's who he is.
The web widens:
Jennifer Williams, senior National Security advisor to Mike Pence, who was listening in on the now infamous 25 July '19 phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy, is testifying in closed door hearings today before the combined House committees investigating impeachment.
Pence is on the hot seat now along with Trump.
I may have been unclear in the above note ↑↑ Jennifer Williams listened in on the Trump/Zelenskyy call. Pence did not, he was out of town on business. However, she prepared a summary of the call and reported it to Pence the next day, so he knew all about it.
Nate Silver at FiveThiryEight claims that Biden isn't fading as much as seems to be the perception in the national media (excluding FoxNews which is the Repubican media). He thinks they're looking at it too superficially. (And neither is Buttigieg gaining ground as much as the national media thinks--although he is gaining ground.)
Klobuchar actually qualified for the debate in December.
Pence is on the hot seat now along with Trump.
My guess is they'll proceed even more carefully. They wouldn't want to be accused of trying to make Pelosi president. They've already been accused of staging a coup.
"They wouldn't want to be accused of trying to make Pelosi president."
I think they're just trying to scuff Pence up a little, preparatory to the 2024 election (and to maybe make him a little more reluctant to pardon Trump should Trump decide to resign after losing the 2020 election, on the theory that Pence will pardon him--scuff Pence up a little now, and make that pardon a little less likely to happen).
"Klobuchar actually qualified for the debate in December."
She's been picking up support, lagging Buttigieg in that department; he's rising faster than she is, but she's picked up a little bit here and there as she goes along and other folks falter.
Ummhmm a real dark horse. :)
But it looks like Bloomberg is going to enter. That may totally change the equation.
I'm not seeing the need for another billionaire septuagenarian in the race.
Huh! It looks like the President of Ukraine was preparing to announce an investigation of Biden, on CNN no less, but then changed his mind when the aid was released. Now if that doesn't sound like bowing before coercion I don't know what does.
I'm not seeing the need for another billionaire septuagenarian in the race.
Apparently he does.
"It looks like the President of Ukraine was preparing to announce
an investigation of Biden…"
Just saw that in the NewYorkTimes. Ukraine's got enough trouble, and it wouldn't be a good look for the Democrats to drag them into this kicking and screaming, but, it that can be confirmed without doing damage to the relationship….
Ambassador Sondland may want to revise his sworn testimony once again.
"Ummhmm a real dark horse."
At this point I think she's probably running for Vice President. She'd be a complementary addition to a Biden led ticket.
"Lindsey Graham, introduced a resolution condemning the
House’s proceedings for lacking transparency, and then
refused to read the evidence from closed-door depositions
this week now that it is being made public. The impeachment
investigation is a 'joke' and a 'political vendetta,' Graham
told reporters, so why bother?
"In such a politically divided moment, Graham is merely saying
out loud what has become increasingly obvious: the President
has successfully rendered the investigation irrelevant, at least
for his most fervent supporters (and that apparently includes
virtually all of the Republican elected officials in both the House
and the Senate). There is no evidence, no testimony, no
revelatory text message, that can sway them. There is a
justification for anything that has come out, and for anything
that might still be revealed. Trump has framed the impeach-
ment case, as with all the other challenges to his controversial
actions over the past few years, as a purely partisan matter of
loyalty and legitimacy."
Atlantic
Some may suspect that the public hearings will have some effect on the dedicated Trumpkins. I'm thinking maybe a couple of percentage points. Trump has jumped up to 43% or so job approval on the basis of he still hasn't crashed either the economy or the stock market. Maybe public hearings will move him back down to 40% or there'bouts. (And then again, maybe not.)
The link's good. The attribution is a little off. ↑↑ It's the NewYorker, not the Atlantic.
[Chump]: "Well, aside from occasional bouts of semi-panic that sometimes come upon me when I contemplate the fact that Trump actually did win the electoral college in 2016… Generally, I'm fairly confident that he's history come January 2021"
LOL. So Trump did win. That's a rare admission.
I've no idea what's gonna happen next year. Don't much care. Trump's ineptitude scares the crap out of me. But I know "the idea of Trump" ain't goin' away. By which I mean the idea that spawned Trump, Brexit and the Demonised Masses.
Michael Bloomberg's been makin' more news of of late; he's actually and officially entered the Democratic primary for Alabama, a threat Lynnette warned about above ↑↑. Bloomberg may just be screwin' with people for the fun of it. He's got enough money to use it to amuse himself if he pleases. And then again, they say that once a politician gets the Presidential Itch there's no cure for it this side of the grave. So, who knows?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Been also noticin' some weird diversionary moves by the advocates for autocracy of late. Screwin' with things for the sake of screwin' with things, it would seem; makin' a mess for the sake of having the mess, as it were.
Michael Bolton's been dangling teases in the press 'bout knowin' shit that he ought to be asked about, but he's not been divulging what that shit might be, nor explaining why he's not just comin' out with it.
Could be that Bolton is just wanting to get the Democrats diverted into the courts. Trump's been tryin' hard to get the impeachment investigation tied up in litigation and run out the clock to the end of the half (i.e. next November's elections). Bolton has reason to be seriously pissed at Trump, but Bolton may hate the Democrats even more, and may be willing to play stalking horse for Trump on this one. Hard to say just which it is.
I would note also that the House committees in question dropped their subpoenas of one Charles Krupperman, NSA advisor to Trump after he sued to get a court decision on whether or not he should obey a Congressional subpoena. Ordinarily one would think that would render the matter moot, but Mick Mulvaney, Trump's Chief of Staff, has attempted to join in what should be a moot case by now. (Turns out that the judge in that case had shown no particular interest in prompt resolution of the question and it seems the Trump administration is very, very interested in doing whatever they can to keep that judge involved in their stall.)
And then there's Petes. ↑↑
"That's a rare admission."
Gotta figure Petes knows what that means to him, what that's about, but he may be the only one.
"Sixty-two percent of Republican supporters have said that
there is nothing Trump could do, no crime or war crime, no
high crime or misdemeanor, that would lead them to vote
against him in 2020. There is only one way to describe this,
and that is a cult, completely resistant to reason or debate. The
tribalism is so deep that Trump seems incapable of dropping
below 40 percent in the national polls, and is competitive in
many swing states. The cult is so strong that Trump feels
invulnerable. If Trump survives impeachment, and loses the
2020 election, he may declare it another coup, rigged, and
illegitimate. He may refuse to concede. And it is possible the
GOP will follow his lead. That this is even thinkable reveals the
full extent of our constitutional rot."
Andrew Sullivan
At this point I think she's probably running for Vice President. She'd be a complementary addition to a Biden led ticket.
I think I tend to agree with you on this. Her actually getting the nomination for President was always a long shot. But Vice President? Maybe a chance with that. She would be a nice stable voice in any administration.
In such a politically divided moment, Graham is merely saying
out loud what has become increasingly obvious: the President
has successfully rendered the investigation irrelevant, at least
for his most fervent supporters (and that apparently includes
virtually all of the Republican elected officials in both the House
and the Senate). There is no evidence, no testimony, no
revelatory text message, that can sway them.
Sadly, I believe this to be true. I cannot understand such complete brainwashing. For me it wouldn't matter if the person were a Democrat or a Republican, if he/she behaved as Trump has done I would not place any trust in him/her. It goes beyond the poor administration of government and the lack of integrity. This man is a complete charlatan and propagandist who is out to make himself an authoritarian leader who governs with little regard for true democracy.
I've no idea what's gonna happen next year. Don't much care. Trump's ineptitude scares the crap out of me. But I know "the idea of Trump" ain't goin' away. By which I mean the idea that spawned Trump, Brexit and the Demonised Masses.
That was a good video, Petes.
The problem for those voters, such as the man in Erie, though, is that they are searching for something that no one person can do, not Obama, and not Trump. I suspect that the tectonic shift is really reversion to the mean. The world when those manufacturers were going gang busters was a world where America and the West in general were the ones doing the consuming, the ones doing the building, the ones who were in charge of international institutions. Now that is not necessarily the case. There has been the rise of China. There has been the rise of India. The world's wealth is being distributed differently. Trump's tariffs won't fix that. We have to learn how to survive in a different type of world.
As for racism being a factor, while the man in Erie may not be a racist, there are those who are hanging on to Trump's coattails who are. We are seeing spikes in crimes that are definitely race or anti-immigrant related. Now I can understand a protest vote, which is what so many of those who are voting their pocketbook are doing, but there is also a slippery slope that needs to be carefully avoided. Or we will have more serious problems than lack of jobs.
Hysteria? No, I don't agree at all. The impeachment inquiry needed to be done. There are things that Trump and his supporters are doing that are wrong. I don't care that the stock market is soaring, there is a question of personal integrity. And those who would support impeaching Clinton should also be supporting the inquiry for Trump. If they are not then there is a serious double standard.
I do agree that the idea of Trump is not going away. But we have to find a way to change that mindset or we may all go away. We need to find our roots again. Fighting each other, blaming immigrants or even the so called elites isn't going to do that.
He may refuse to concede. And it is possible the
GOP will follow his lead. That this is even thinkable reveals the
full extent of our constitutional rot."
Constitutional rot? Or Republican?
I suspect that people, like the man from Erie in Petes' video, may actually stand up and object to that. That may be a breaking point for them. A protest vote is one thing, allowing the demise of our democracy is another.
Huh! The Gophers took Penn State! Congrats.
Gopher mania is rife.
"…like the man from Erie…"
The ‛man from Erie’ casually ignores the fact that while most Republicans aren't necessarily racists, most all the racists most always vote Republican (been that way since the late 60s/early 70s). It's a hidden, but widely known truth that the Republicans rely on picking up the racist vote, and would almost never win a national election without it and must cater to them to keep them coming out to vote. The Evangelicals and fundie Catholics just aren't numerous enough without them. That particular deal with the devil is one they fully understand and one to which they willingly, even eagerly, accede. This ain't news folks; ain't even new.
"Fighting each other, blaming immigrants or even the so
called elites isn't going to do that."
They're in serious need of a better claim to ‛victim’ status. Blaming their troubles on the notion that snooty college professors look down on them is one of the stupidest rationalizations I've heard of in politics in a long time, but they're goin' for it.
"But I know 'the idea of Trump' ain't goin' away."
"I do agree that the idea of Trump is not going away."
The demonization of immigrants is a recurring theme that predates Trump--it's not Trump's idea; it's not even ‛the idea of Trump’. In our country such demonization has routinely been applied sequentially, to the Germans, then the Irish, then the Italians. Then came the Orientals (and the Chinese Exclusion Act). Then Jews and eastern Europeans.
It's simple tribalism at its heart. It was a trait developed in the antiquity of human evolution which increased survival rates for the aboriginal species and thus got passed on to progeny. But, like the innate human attraction to sugar, salt, and fats in the diet, what was a beneficial instinct in primitive man is no longer beneficial now that we're "civilized".
It's got nothin' to do with ‛the idea of Trump’
I noticed on FoxNewsSunday this morning that the Republican guests kept telling the audience that none of the witnesses so far had confirmed the "quid-pro-quo" that Trump harps upon. One after another said this.
In support of this story they cited the testimony of Ambassador Sondland before the House Committees (closed hearings). They blithely ignored the fact that Sondland later decided to "expand and clarify" his remarks after other people had testified, and he then admitted that he'd told the story wrong the first time.
The FoxNews audience isn't being told about Sondland having second thoughts and rolling on Trump.
Alternate reality over there.
Blaming their troubles on the notion that snooty college professors look down on them is one of the stupidest rationalizations I've heard of in politics in a long time, but they're goin' for it.
Careful who you say that to. They might accuse you of calling them stupid.
But I have wondered if they would let someone perform surgery on them who has no experience or any kind of higher education. Running a country is a rather complex endeavor needing some experience and or higher education, one would think.
I was listening to a panel of voters organized by CNN. What struck me was that of the, I think about six, people they had on almost to a person they couldn't understand why we should give aid to Ukraine when there are so many of our veterans who are in need. They may have differed in their opinion of whether or not Trump should have tried to coerce Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden and his son, but they agreed on that. They seemed incapable of looking beyond the fact of the aid to what it may support in Ukraine.
Apparently the idea that we may have serious adversaries in the world who may not hold our best interests at heart does not occur to them. Nor does the correlation between having allies and acting from a position of strength and our economic well being seem to occur to them.
The demonization of immigrants is a recurring theme that predates Trump--it's not Trump's idea...
I suspect that Trump has few original ideas. What he does is grab onto anything he feels may energize his base.
Perhaps I don't understand what PeteS meant by "the idea of Trump". But if it has anything to do with a single authoritarian leader who is going to bring back the "glory" that was, Trump has certainly been using an anti-immigrant platform to try to encourage people to think he is doing that. That and his anti-regulation policies to try to encourage business activity. Never mind that this may harm the very environment that we all live in.
The FoxNews audience isn't being told about Sondland having second thoughts and rolling on Trump.
The Republicans have learned that lying works with some people.
"…but they agreed on that."
The justification for foreign aid requires a minimum two-step thought process. The average voter is disinclined engage with political thoughts that require more than a single line of explanation (preferably short enough to put on a bumper sticker).
"Perhaps I don't understand what PeteS meant by 'the idea
of Trump'."
Yeah, well, don't worry about it; I don't think Petes has a clear idea of what he meant by that either.
"The Republicans have learned that lying works with some
people."
FoxNews has been on top of that notion for a long time now. The Republican Party is today what it is today because FoxNews appropriated their "messaging" function and turned it to generating television ratings (and the advertiser dollars that followed those ratings), and the Party let that happen; choose to let that happen in fact--so, the Republican "message" ultimately degenerated to the lowest common denominator, to the great financial benefit of Fox Corporation, but to the ultimate detriment of the Republican Party.
It may be some time before this one gets any play on FoxNews as well:
"Not long before the Ukrainian president was inaugurated in
May, an associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s journeyed to Kiev to
deliver a warning to the country’s new leadership, a lawyer for
the associate said.
"The associate, Lev Parnas, told a representative of the
incoming government that it had to announce an investigation
into Mr. Trump’s political rival, Joseph R. Biden Jr., and his son,
or else Vice President Mike Pence would not attend the
swearing-in of the new president, and the United States would
freeze aid, the lawyer said.
"The claim by Mr. Parnas, who is preparing to share his
account with impeachment investigators, challenges the
narrative of events from Mr. Trump and Ukrainian officials that
is at the core of the congressional inquiry."
NewYorkTimes
(Actually, I think the Ukrainian President has said that he didn't "feel pressured". I don't think he said that he'd not been informed of Trump's demands.)
Lynnette, by "the idea of Trump", I mean the idea that the man in Erie has -- the notion that his town used to have good employment, busy retail businesses, and young people who wanted to stay and work there. It's the same in the UK and to some extent throughout the West.
What has happened? Globalisation. I'm not sure what you mean by "reversion to the mean". Or that the wealth is being distributed differently. Or rather, I think I do know what you mean, but you seem to imply that it's an inevitability. That's the part I disagree with.
The idea that people with jobs are people with disposable income is at least as old as Henry Ford. You can't take jobs away and expect the economy to thrive. You can't move all your manufacturing overseas and expect to still have domestic customers for your produce. Yet that's what American businesses have done and, more importantly, have been allowed to do.
Don't get me wrong. This has been utterly fantastic for the world. Way more than two billion citizens of the world have been lifted out of poverty in the last thirty years. Even as a percentage rate, abject poverty is way lower. Things have never looked better for the human race. My own country went from second-world status to thriving economy in my lifetime. And part of that was through aggressively courting US multinationals, and eventually selling back to them.
That doesn't help the man in Erie. His local patch is devastated. It didn't seem like much when it was just Chinese plastic toys on the shelves at Christmas. But then it was Chinese steel made by state-owned companies flooding world markets. Now its Chinese hi-tech, a good deal of which was made with intellectual property stolen from American firms.
One country which got rid of its manufacturing even before the US was the UK. Unlike the US it had near neighbours who could out-compete it even before the rise of China. During the Thatcher years of the 1970-1990s it closed down its inefficient coal and steel businesses and other heavy industry, and lost manufacturing to Germany and Japan. After a lot of painful years it recovered by growing a very large service sector which now generates 80% of GDP (and arguably leaves the economy very unbalanced).
But the UK version of the man in Erie has not recovered. Decades later, the north of England is still a post-industrial wasteland. And this all happened before immigration reached the epic proportions of today. Now the local ex-industrial worker can no longer get any job that he had the skills to do, and competes with immigrant workers for the low paid low-skilled jobs that are left.
So the question is -- what was inevitable about all that? Governments (in principle) control their own immigration policies. They control which companies can do business in their domestic market, and can penalise ones that offshore all the good jobs. A country like Ireland does not have the clout to implement such policies as it is a reed blowing in the winds of the wider global economy. But the US is a continent-sized industrial power. Its failures are much more arguably the fruits of inept government. Whether you agree with that or not, it is easy for Trump to claim that the US has been getting a very bad deal. And the man in Erie senses it. In fact he doesn't need Trump to tell him. He's already got "the idea of Trump".
(cont'd)...
...(cont'd)
Now, all this would be bad enough if we hadn't also had the worst financial crisis since 1929. The policy response to this has certainly saved the financial system for now, but it has also dramatically increased inequality. By drugging the markets with endless injections of liquidity, those who had assets have prospered while those who were already suffering from the loss of manufacturing have taken a double hit. The cost of accommodation has gone crazy for those who didn't own their own homes, and those who were barely keeping head above water are now gasping. The half of Americans without a 401k don't even benefit from the current stock market intoxication which has at least been a sop to some workers.
To be honest, I'm surprised that you two posters in Minnesota and Indiana don't "get this" more than you seem to. Though maybe proximity to big cities makes it more tolerable. (Or maybe living in a backwood shack makes it seem more remote in Lee's case ;-)
I feel for the man in Erie, and I've never done an industrial job in my life. In fact I've never traded in anything but intellectual capital. Even in that world, though, standards of living have been affect by offshoring. I'm all for raising living standards around the world. But there's a limit to how much you can average down your own standards without causing unrest. Germany just about managed it when it reabsorbed the much poorer East Germany in 1990. The European Union managed it when it absorbed eight former Soviet bloc countries in 2004, and somewhat less successfully with a further two in 2007. The more affluent economies were able to cope with -- and eventually thrive from -- greater integration. But even the mighty US is not equipped to deal with "averaging down" with the entire rest of the world.
P.S. Whatever about the man in Erie, it seems Democrats are more angry and estranged than Republicans with the current state of affairs.
"I'm surprised that you two posters…don't 'get this' more
than you seem to."
We don't "get it" because it's not true. Your central premise is false, the one about "US multinationals" supposedly 'offshoring all the good jobs' (to paraphrase it lightly). That's simply false. You're spinnin' some bad BS and we happen to know better.
It starts off wrong with the concept of "US multinationals". Now there's an opening oxymoron for ya, an imaginary construct almost on par with Mitt Romney's ernest assertion that "corporations are people too" (and the GIGO principle does apply here).
Following that opening error we should note that a Mexican making $2 per hour working for General Motors (link) doesn't have a "good American job". The once $32-per-hour Detroit auto worker doesn't want that $2 per hour job; he never wanted that job; he wanted the $32 per hour job. And that good (supposedly ‛American’) job didn't actually get offshored; it simply doesn't even exist anymore, not even for the Mexican I mentioned. (It simply vanished into globalization; to oversimply things a little for the sake of brevity.)
A Chinese national living in a company barracks sewing textiles at 95¢ an hour (more likely a Vietnamese or a Laotian these days) doesn't have "a good American job". Norma Rae and her crew woulda burned the city of Raleigh to the ground (Charlotte too) if they'd have been forced to take those jobs.
Nope, none of your spiel makes any real sense. And, of course, none of it was Trump's idea either, nor is any of it ‛the idea of Trump’. This particular strain of economic bullshittery predated Trump's candidacy by a long shot. (In fact, I strongly suspect that what we have here is simply Petes' preëxisting economic theory relabeled as "the idea of Trump".)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
We have the House public hearings on impeachment starting this week, on Wednesday to be specific.
Real Clear Politics has Trump's job approval still bouncing around 43%; disapproval around 54%. That leaves 3% undecided. That's a spectacularly low number of undecideds. They have impeach and remove at 48.5% and not remove at 45.7%. That's around 6% undecided on the question of removing him from office via impeachment; also a spectacularly low number.
I figure if the House's public hearings drive Trump's job approval numbers down 3% they'll have been a success. Likewise, if they can drive down the anti-impeachment numbers by 3% they'll have been a success.
In neither case will the hearings result in Trump's conviction before the Republican Senate. So, I got my eyes mostly on their PR value at this point.
Lee: "The once $32-per-hour Detroit auto worker doesn't want that $2 per hour job; he never wanted that job; he wanted the $32 per hour job."
Have any of yall Netflix? In that case I can highly recommend the documentary "Made in USA" (possibly also named "An American Factory") where a shuttered Auto plant in Ohio is taken over by a chineese firm, the world's largest manufacturer of car glass windows.
They started by hiring all these former auto workers but at $12 an hour. Then it goes on and on and in the end the chineese have laid off most of them and insteaed hired younger people with less expectations.
They also have a group of americans for a visit to one of their main plants in China and as you can guess they are shocked by the output there and thge fanatical mindset of the workers.
All very interesting, and in the end the US plant does turn to profit, also I imagine in the age of Trump and the trade wars it's an even better operation these days, but it was filmed before then.
Don't have Netflix, but I did originally write that comment with a note that the Detroit worker wanted his "$32 per hour (union) job" back. Then I dropped the "union" description to save space in what was becoming a bit lengthier rebuttal than I'd originally anticipated.
House Republicans are gearing up for the Wednesday opening of hearings in the impeachment investigation by preparing to show off for a White House audience of one. Politico
(They got primaries coming up this next spring and early summer and they don't want to get "primaried" by a true believer Trumpkin who's been told they're insufficiently dedicated to Trump.)
New transcripts just released shoot down the developing Republican "defense" of Trump that the Ukrainian government wasn't even aware of the hold on funds until after the funds were released. Politico The Republicans keep trying to come up with defenses somewhere short of "Trump did it so it's okay", which is the defense Trump wants to use, but they keep trying to find intermediate defenses, and those efforts keep getting shot down by new transcripts being released.
I think they're eventually gonna havta drop back to Trump's preferred defense; i.e. "Trump did it so it's okay."
The justification for foreign aid requires a minimum two-step thought process.
*sigh* Yes, and many people only look at the surface of things, which is why it is important to have good, knowledgeable, talented people in places like the State Department. It is their job to understand the nuances of our actions abroad. That the American public is being inundated with propaganda that denigrates these people will harm our country now and in the future.
But even the mighty US is not equipped to deal with "averaging down" with the entire rest of the world.
No, it is not. And that is what I meant by reversion to the mean.
For many years the US has basically had a clear economic field with little to no competition. Russia was mired in a state controlled command economy. Europe for many years was recovering from WWII. China was hiding behind a Great Wall. But as each of these regions became more active on the world stage they became stronger economically, well maybe not so much Russia, but obviously Europe and China have.
Russia is now mired in more of an oligarch, mafia type of economy, which leaches wealth from the Russian people. In the normal course of events this would lead to some kind of violent upheaval.
China, because of its huge population, has managed to suck in enormous amounts of natural resources in its quest to build an ultra modern society quickly. That many of its own citizens can't afford to take part should be of concern to those in power. Because in the normal course of events this would lead to some kind of violent upheaval too.
I guess my point is that for a long time the US was in a unique position. It wasn't that we were so smart, or talented. It was that others were simply not participating in the world economy, for whatever reason, to the same extent that we were.
I feel for the man in Erie, and I've never done an industrial job in my life.
It's never a good thing when businesses go under. It's even worse when it affects an entire town. But there are ways to rejuvenate cities. Finding an angel, getting little investors and community involved are things that can revitalize cities.
Those jobs that were in Erie are now elsewhere. They won't be back. But that's not to say that other jobs can't be created. We need to look forward not backward.
I really have to get Netflix. So many interesting things on there. Thanks, Marcus.
American Factory
Discussion of the film American Factory
$12 an hour isn't very much. I can see where that wouldn't work for some.
[Chumpy]: "...a bit lengthier rebuttal than I'd originally anticipated"
Y'all need ta learn the difference between a rebuttal and an obfuscatory rant. But yeah, we can agree it was too long either way.
[Lynnette]: "I guess my point is that for a long time the US was in a unique position. It wasn't that we were so smart, or talented. It was that others were simply not participating in the world economy, for whatever reason, to the same extent that we were."
Oh but you were more smart and talented, allowing that "you" were a horde of immigrants attracted by peace and opportunity. We poor Europeans could neither make peace with our neighbours nor get rid of them, so they kept coming back to harass us periodically. You had relative peace (once you got over your internal disagreements in the 1860s), and a continent you had procured from the Brits, the Injuns, the Frogs, the Dagos and the Russkis. Napoleon had made France a powerhouse of mathematics, and Bismarck did the same for Prussian physics ... but Einstein still ended up at Princeton, Fermi at Columbia, along with Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, Felix Bloch, Eugene Wigner and countless others in American academia and industry. Up to the 1930s you couldn't study physics without knowing German. Now we all have to spell things in American English ;-)
"…an obfuscatory rant."
You mean like the one you put on just above, one that leads you away from your defense of this supposed "idea of Trump" thing, to an unrelated argument on how we supposedly "stole" the continent from (of all people) the Europeans (with only a passing mention of "Injuns")
When you're losing the argument, change the subject, declare victory, and move on fast to a new subject, as you have done above. Now that is truly "the idea of Trump".
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
TheAtlantic does a fairly decent essay on what's gone wrong with American Democracy here of late, and specifically what's behind the Republican Party's turn towards open hostility to the very idea of democratic self-government.
It's a decent explanation, hits enough of the high points. Although I would argue with some of it, on the whole it's got the idea down. It does slight the interregnum between our attempt at competing with European imperialism (1880's to 1910's) and the post-WWII era, which interregnum gave us the Wobblies, Huey Long, the first Radio-Right-Wing personality, Father Charles Coughlin, and Charles Lindberg leading the very first "America First" fascist movement.
But, ya can't expect a brief essay to hit all the high points.
And it's not overly long for an Atlantic essay.
Testimony in the Roger Stone trial has indicated that Trump and the 2016 Trump campaign apparatus knew a hell of a lot more about what Wikileaks had on Hillary, and about their intended schedules for releasing that information than has been previously known. Specifically, it's been revealed that Trump himself had direct discussions with Stone in the spring of 2016 about what dirt could be expected to be publicized by Wikileaks, and on what schedule. It also appears that the Mueller investigation knew of this information and decided to black it out in the final report. The black-out meant that he didn't have to answer any potentially embarrassing questions about why they weren't following up on this information. Politico
The impeachment hearings start today. The Democrats have rolled the dice; this could backfire on them if they can't show enough people why this matters.
I already know why I think it matters. The appeal to Ukraine was over the line for me. Coming as it did on the day after Mueller had failed to indict or even accuse him, it shows that Trump admits to no bounds on his behavior in office, and that simply can't be tolerated under a democratic, rule-of-law government.
So, I wish 'em luck; I hope it doesn't backfire. But the risk seems to have been forced on us I think.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I'm not real interested in seeing Deval Patrick, Michael Bloomberg, or Hillary Clinton enter the Democratic primary at this late point in time. Seems to me that one of them already in it should be acceptable, but I guess it's up to the ‛real’ Democrats to make that decision.
Another essay in TheAtlantic to follow up on the one I posted yesterday morning ↑↑ (Tue Nov 12, 10:10:00 am)
According to this reading, the founders of the country, the original designers of the Constitution, did not anticipate the damage that Twitter and Facebook could do to the body politic. (I would argue that cable television could be added to that mix--the rise of Radio-Right-Wing was bad enough, but the real concentration of Right Winger craziness came with the creation of FoxNews.)
It's not too long, and worth a read. The basic ideas seem valid even if one might quibble with some of the details, and it's not too long.
Ambassador William Taylor's "opening statement" has turned into a narrative account of what he knows about the holdup of aid to Ukraine--Guiliani's role in it, the subversion of the public diplomatic channels, the whole nine yards. He's decided to get it all out there in one opening narrative. And then, I suppose, he's going to "take questions".
Oh but you were more smart and talented, allowing that "you" were a horde of immigrants attracted by peace and opportunity.
There were a lot of those people, yes. They are one of our strengths, despite Donald Trump's bias against them. But there were also indentured servants and slaves who didn't have much choice.
Our biggest achievement was in holding a country together despite it's varied inhabitants. We have had some tough times and we are at a rough patch now.
We have certainly given many people an opportunity to pursue their dreams and ambitions. While it may not have been easy many have become leaders in their field or successful businessmen and women.
It's time our political leaders catch up with them again. Standing up to those who would tear us apart is a start.
Specifically, it's been revealed that Trump himself had direct discussions with Stone in the spring of 2016 about what dirt could be expected to be publicized by Wikileaks, and on what schedule.
Of course he knew and lied about it.
...the subversion of the public diplomatic channels,...
Yes, there is one of those "back channels" that Trump is so fond of trying to set up.
The impeachment hearings start today.
They really had no choice, not if they were to uphold the duties of the Congress under the Constitution.
The appeal to Ukraine was over the line for me. Coming as it did on the day after Mueller had failed to indict or even accuse him, it shows that Trump admits to no bounds on his behavior in office, and that simply can't be tolerated under a democratic, rule-of-law government.
Yes, this goes beyond economics. It's about standing up for our founding principals.
I'm not real interested in seeing Deval Patrick, Michael Bloomberg, or Hillary Clinton enter the Democratic primary at this late point in time. Seems to me that one of them already in it should be acceptable, but I guess it's up to the ‛real’ Democrats to make that decision.
I tend to agree. Amy Klobuchar would be fine. ;)
I fell asleep last night so didn't get a chance to finish the first Atlantic article, but I will try to catch up tonight on links.
I don't know if this is good or bad.
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon praised House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday, saying her handling of the impeachment inquiry is "actually quite brilliant."
The hearings are over for the day. I think they're over until Friday.
I think the Democrats had a mostly good day.
The Republicans were mostly trying to lay groundwork for the "not impeachable" defense--‛may have been technically wrong but it wasn't that bad’. This is gonna piss off Trump who wants the Republicans to adopt the "perfect" phone call defense. (Partly because the current Republican stance on things leaves the Republicans room to say bad things about him in the upcoming elections if they feel the need to put some distance between themselves and Trump and he knows that. He wants them tied tightly to getting him reëlected; doesn't want to leave them any room to go saving themselves at his expense come the 2020 general election.)
There's also the problem of possible testimony by some of the principles involved, John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc. and others coming down in the coming months IF the Supreme Trumpkins decide to not save their King and order the White House to comply with the House subpoenas already out there.
The Republican Senators don't want to be caught saying Trump did nothing wrong, if some of them are ordered to give up their testimony and decide to roll on Trump in the coming year.
And now the D.C. Appellate Court has upheld a District Court opinion saying that Congress can indeed subpoena Trump's tax records if they so choose. (This is separate and distinct from the case in New York where the Manhattan District Attorney subpoenaed Trump's tax records--which case Trump also already lost at trial level and on appeal.) There's a statute that says Congress can do this, but Trump decided to fight it anyway--and he did get one Trump-appointed judge to go his way. Now it's on to the Supreme Court where he's got two Justices he appointed and a majority from the Federalist Society, so, who knows how it'll fare there? WashingtonPost
[Chumpy]: "...it shows that Trump admits to no bounds on his behavior in office, and that simply can't be tolerated under a democratic, rule-of-law government."
I'm grudgingly and belatedly coming round to a similar conclusion. On the other hand, think how bad your Dems had to be to let that car crash of a preznit into office.
[Lynnette]: "There were a lot of those people, yes. They are one of our strengths, despite Donald Trump's bias against them. But there were also indentured servants and slaves who didn't have much choice."
There's also the highly non-PC view that not all immigrants are equally worthy. If you've driven around Europe anytime since the 1990s the lack of visible borders is conspicuously different to previously. So the following from today's NYT is quite simply amazing -- I wonder what Marcus has to say about it:
Denmark resumes long-abandoned border checks
The Danish authorities, struggling to quell a wave of bombings attributed to Swedish gangs, have introduced passport controls at the border with Sweden for the first time since the 1950s.
For now, only air travelers from Sweden will be exempted.
Sweden has been rocked by more than 100 explosions in the first 10 months of this year, and at least 13 blasts have hit Copenhagen, although the police have not linked them all to Sweden.
The cause: Officials say Swedish gang violence has been spilling out of low-income suburbs, fed by surplus weapons left over from Yugoslavia’s civil war. The role of Sweden’s long policy of open arms for immigrants and refugees is a matter of sharp political debate.
"On the other hand, think how bad your Dems had to be
to let that car crash of a preznit into office."
Odd that you can't seem to notice that Trump won the Republican nomination first, and he did that without yet having FoxNews' uncritical backing. (Prior to his ascendance to the lead in the Republican primary even Sean Hannity wouldn't back him publicly.)
Speaking of which…. I was looking at FoxNews' website this morning and couldn't find one single mention of the new item that came up yesterday in the hearings. Ambassador Sondland was heard talking on the phone to Trump on 26 July of this year, the day after the infamous phone call to Zelenskyy, and he was heard to inquire of Sondland whether or not he'd get "the investigations of Biden" that he'd requested. Sondland would later tell a staffer who asked about that "the President cares more about the investigations of Biden [than about general Ukrainian corruption]".
This was news. This is apt to turn out to be a big deal in the coming days. Trump immediately started telling reporters he knew nothing about any such phone call (quit saying that he "barely knew" Sondland though, as Sondland clearly had a direct communication line straight to him.). One would think this would be big news even on FoxNews.
Nary a peep about it though. FoxNews' audience heard not a word about it if they followed FoxNews' oft-repeated advice and didn't listen to anybody else.
Pete: "The cause: Officials say Swedish gang violence has been spilling out of low-income suburbs, fed by surplus weapons left over from Yugoslavia’s civil war. The role of Sweden’s long policy of open arms for immigrants and refugees is a matter of sharp political debate."
Sure, it might be fed with weaponry from that war but the surnames of the today culprits don't usually end with -ich. Rather their first names are some variety of Ahmed or Mohammed (Ahmed, Achmed, Mohammad, Mohammed, Mehmet, etc.)
The last lunatic here who beat a 25 YO girl into a coma, for no reason other than she sat at the bus stop he passed by, with a 2*4 the day before yesterday was named Ibramim Ramadan. And the 15 YO shot the same day was named Jaffar, and he sold drugs for a guy lastnamed Ghara, and I bet you dollars to doughnuts the shooters names didn't end with -sson.
It's actually getting quite crazy here now. Even to the point where I myself, who always thought the crime was insane but that it wouldn't really affect me personally, am looking to move away. Shootings and explosions more or less daily, and that fucking police helicopter, necessary as it might be, keeps me awake at night.
But HEY! Pizza and Zlatan and cultural enrichment, and one day they will be the ones who will pay our pensions! Isn't that what you liberal fuckwads always promised us? Eh, Pete?
After all Europeans aren't birthing enough children to feed an ever growing GDP so we HAVE to bring in hordes of folks from completely non-assimilative cultures and give them wellfare even if they hate us and try to kill us. Because multiculturalism is the way to go, and if we don't embrace it we will all just grow old and die alone in our beds.
On the other hand we HAVE to reduce our environemental impact and thus our GDP because otherwise the cows will continue to fart and we will all die in a flood.
So, it seems, we will HAVE to face a future where we eat maggots instead of beef and import all of Africa so wellfare-dependent somalis can pay our pensions and enrich our stale european culture. The odd explosion, gang-rape, mugging, battering, terrorism or shooting is just a price to pay for progress.
Yesterday a guy of 20 was robbed by a group of about 10 in a parking garage in Gothembourg. They didn't just take his valuables, they stripped him of everything down to his underwear, then they finished by cutting off one of his ears.
Now, I know, and I don't mean I have been told so but I KNOW, these fucking robbers are immigrants. I know for certain. I am 100% sure.
Now why would they do that? If the aim is to rob, which I can to some degree understand (he has something, someone else wants it), why didn't they just take the valuables and get on their way?
BC it's not about that. It's about they HATE us, and want to humiliate us. So why in the greatest fuck of fucks should I want these savages in MY home country? Why should I care what happens to them in theirs?
It's just so tiresome...
"…the surnames of the today culprits don't usually end with
-ich. Rather their first names are some variety of Ahmed or
Mohammed (Ahmed, Achmed, Mohammad, Mohammed,
Mehmet, etc.)"
"…the shooters names didn't end with -sson."
Not sure I'm following your point here. You're proposing to fix things by forcing them to change their names maybe?
Another day, another witness. The prior Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, summarily removed so's to facilitate what the Democrats are now calling the "bribery" of President Zelenskyy, will testify today. I'm not sure what she's got to add that's relevant to the impeachment beyond establishing that she was discharged from her duties to facilitate Guiliani's freer hand in all affairs Ukrainian.
Perhaps more significant, in closed hearings today, there'll be a lawyer for the Office of Management and Budget testifying. The political appointees heading that agency have declined to honor their congressional subpoenas, but just the other day word got around that a career employee, lawyer, Mark Sandy, would testify if subpoenaed. Needless to say, the Democrats saw to it that he got his subpoena. He might turn out to be an even more important witness than Marie Yovanovitch. If so, we'll see him return for public hearings next week probably.
Lee: "Not sure I'm following your point here. You're proposing to fix things by forcing them to change their names maybe?"
You know exactly the point I'm making, you're just playing dumber than usual.
Not playing dumb. It's just difficult to engage with a point you want to push but will not admit.
Another bad day for Trump in the impeachment hearings. Nothin' much went right for him this time. He even stepped in it whilst Marie Yovanovitch was testifying and wound up making his Republican apologists start building her up instead of tearing her down (which would have been their initial plan, but he stepped in it pretty deep, and they wanted everybody to know that they'd not gotten any of the on them.)
I didn't think it was that big a deal, but even FoxNews was horrified (the news division; the opinionators will get hold of it later and be jubilant about it, but the news guys didn't have the luxury of time to craft a defense before they had to deal with it on camera).
I was able to listen to Marie Yovanovitch's opening remarks. Like Comey before her she came across as intelligent, knowledgeable and tough. While she wasn't able to testify specifically regarding the phone call what she was able to do was paint a picture of a President who used any means to his end. In her case she simply stated that a President had the right to recall any Ambassador they chose. Why was there a need to smear her reputation? And Trump played into that quite nicely by doing the same thing while she was testifying. Given the fact that she served under both Democratic and Republican administrations, who obviously found her very capable, it is no wonder that Republicans and their mouth piece may be shying away from criticizing her.
One of the questions asked of her was whether or not she felt intimidated by Trump's words. Her answer was yes.
Looking over the media notes of today's closed House hearings on impeachment. It appears that some of Veep Pence's aids have testified to how Pence is blameless in all of this, but Trump looked mighty suspicious to them.
This will not go over well with Trump. He may be able to keep it up bottled for a little while, but this is not gonna sit well at all bottled up inside him, and eventually he's gonna let it out.
Post a Comment